I would like to thank JP for enduring this all the way to the end. I’d also like to thank any of you who have read and followed this debate all the way to its conclusion. I certainly have learned a great deal about my own position, and the position of my opponent in this debate. My prayer is that I have represented the teaching of Scripture correctly, and handled JP with respect throughout so that god may be honored in all of this.
The Meaning of Justification
In my opening statement I argued that justification was primarily a forensic term. I argued that justification was a judicial declaration concerning the standing of a person before the Law, not a moral renovation of person. I showed this from Exodus 23:7, Deut. 25:1, Proverbs 17:15, Isaiah 5:23, and in the New Testament in Romans 8:30-34. In every one of these instances the term has the meaning of a judicial declaration, not a moral change. We are declared righteous, not made righteous in justification.
How has this argument been answered? In his rebuttal JP made a paltry attempt to respond. He says the passage can be read as consistent with Catholic teaching. Sure you can, if you assume Catholic teaching beforehand. The question is can Catholic teaching be proven from the text. JP argued that Romans 8:30-34 could teach infusion of righteousness unto moral renovation. And then when this process is complete we will be called righteous because we are righteous.
It could teach that. I would be willing to listen to JP if he wanted to argue for that from Romans 8:30-34. But JP never does. He simply announces it. There is no argument made for his understanding. No reply is made to the judicial nature of the terms “condemnation” and “bring a charge”. The other passages I cited (Exodus 23:7, Deut. 25:1, Proverbs 17:15, Isaiah 5:23) aren’t even responded to. By the end of the debate JP frankly acknowledges “I don’t know of any passages that use the verb form of “justify” in a context that would necessitate an infused righteousness”.
I conclude then that the Protestant understanding of the meaning of justification has been vindicated. There are has not been a single argument put forward for the Catholic understanding of the meaning of justification in the Bible. Based on the Biblical and lexical sources I have cited I can say with confidence that justification is a declaration of right standing with God.
The Ground of Our Justification
In my opening statement I showed that the Reformed understanding of the ground of justification better fits the Biblical data. In Reformed theology, the ground or basis of our justification is the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer. In Roman Catholic theology the ground is the personal righteousness of the believer.
I showed from a variety of passages that our righteous standing before God comes as a result of our union with Christ (Acts 13:39; Romans 8:1; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Galatians 2:17). JP’s reply to this was to say “Yes, I agree! We can only be saved if we’re in God’s grace.” But that betrays a total misunderstanding of Paul’s theology. Union with Christ is not merely being “in God’s grace”. Union with Christ means that I am united with Him. In the eyes of God what is true of Jesus Christ is now true of me! His death is my death (Galatians 2:20). When He died to sin, we died with Him (Romans 6). His resurrection and session at the right hand of God is my resurrection and session at the right hand of God (Ephesians 2:6). We are united to Christ in such a way that His righteousness is imputed or accounted to be ours.
Secondly I said the ground of our justification was the work of Christ on our behalf. JP said he doesn’t see how this contradicts Catholic teaching. It contradicts Catholic teaching simply because Catholic teaching the demands something be done in addition to the cross work of Christ! If JP understood what it means that Christ lived and died in our place, we would never say of Jesus “He specifically says that the grounds of salvation are our works” or “James is clearly putting both faith and works on the same level and saying that they justify us in the same way.”
Remember that Scripture says Jesus was made sin in our behalf, that we should be made the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). And that it is His one act of obedience (which I believe refers to His whole life) that many are made righteous Romans 5:18). If Jesus died and made a perfect atonement for sin, and if He lived to make many righteous, then there simply is nothing else for men to do. We can not add to or complete this work of Christ with our works.
Thirdly I said the basis of our justification was the righteousness of God. Yet JP continually argued that humans must add to this their own righteousness. If what we receive in justification is God’s own righteousness, what is a human righteousness going to add to this? In fact, where is human righteousness ever said to even be the basis of our justification? The Protestant position has not been answered.
Fourthly I said that the basis of our justification is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. JP’s only response is “Again, this passage does not specify whether this righteousness is imputed to us or infused into us”. But it does! And I showed this both in my opening statement and in the course of the debate. The Bible never uses the terms it uses to refer to an “infusion of righteousness”. JP admitted this when he said “While I don’t know of any passages that use the verb form of “justify” in a context that would necessitate an infused righteousness”.
The Protestant position has been vindicated on this account as well.
Imputation or Infusion
I argued that Christ’s righteousness is imputed, or accounted to us, in justification. I showed from numerous Old and New Testament passages that the term is this way (Genesis 31:14, 15; Leviticus 17:4; 25:31). JP accused me of misquoting Leviticus 17:4, but I didn’t. It says “blood guiltiness is to be reckoned to that man”. That’s right out of the New American Standard Bible. Now JP may have been using a different translation, but that doesn’t mean I misquoted it. Of this verse JP says the man is being considered guilty because he is guilty of bloodshed. Well, ok! Who disagrees? The point is this; bloodshed is not “infused” into the man! Or take Genesis 31:15. Rachel and Leah say that they are “reckoned” as foreigners. But they are not foreigners! Does JP think this verse means Rachel and Leah are being infused with foreignerness so that they are being subjectively made foreigners? That is outlandish.
A person can be reckoned something that they are, and they can be reckoned something that they aren’t. The point is the term never refers to someone being “infused” with anything. Recall Leviticus 25:31. A house is to be “reckoned” as an open field if it doesn’t have a wall around it. Can you infuse “open fieldedness” to a house? Of course not, but you can account or reckon a house to be an open field. This is what makes JP’s citation of 2 Samuel 4:2, and 19:19-20 simply bewildering. Sure these verses use reckon to mean something true of a person, but they don’t use it to mean anything is “infused” into them! These verses don’t prove anything for JP’s position.
The Reformed position has not been answered on this matter either.
The Instrument of Justification
Having said all of that, we’ve reached the real crux of the matter. What is the instrument of justification? More than once in the course of this debate I have traced out Paul’s argument in Romans 1-5. I noted several things concerning Paul’s teaching on the instrument of our justification. First I noted that Paul uses “works” and “works of the Law” interchangeably. This fact rules out any possibility of arguing that Paul is only rejecting the ceremonial aspects of the Law as a means of justification. No, Paul uses works of the Law to refer to the Mosaic Law in particular, and works to refer to works in general. Paul’s teaching is plain: there are no works that can be done by us to bring about our justification. (2) Paul contrasts working and believing (Romans 4:5). IN discussing the way God credits righteousness Paul explicitly says that God credits it to the one who is not working, but believing. Compare that to JP’s constant claim that faith and works are “on the same level” and “they justify us in the same way”. JP wants to blend them, the inspired apostle contrasts them. (3) Paul explicitly says God credits righteousness apart from works. JP denies that God credits righteousness apart from works. Who is right? I say we stick with the inspired apostle.
How does JP’s respond to these texts? First he offers a peculiar interpretation of the meaning of “works” in Paul. He says Paul means “works done apart from the grace of God”. But JP has never argued for this understanding of works in any portion of this debate. He has hidden behind this refrain and offered it as a solution to the problem these texts present for his position, but he yet to offer a shred of proof that his understanding of works is Paul’s. If JP’s definition is wrong (and most Roman Catholics don’t even agree with him) then his entire presentation is empty. I urge the reader to consider that fact.
Secondly JP has retreated to James 2. This is typical, and it has been dealt with at length. JP wants to read James’ discussion as if it were Romans 4, but I showed that James and Paul have radically different agendas in their uses of terms like “faith”, “works” and “justification”. Paul labors to show that men are guilty before God, alienated from Him, fallen short of His glory, and in need of the gift of righteousness to have peace with Him (Romans 5:1). James is dealing with people who “say” they have faith, but have no deeds. James uses demonstration language over and over. His context is utterly different than Paul’s.
Summary
I trust that the reader has been blessed by this debate. I certainly have been. I have counted it a privilege to defend the gospel of Christ in this manner. I think I have shown that justification is a declaring righteous, and not a making righteous. I believe I have shown that the ground of our justification is not a renovation our souls until we become objectively pleasing to God, but rather is the perfect righteousness of Christ (actively fulfilling the law in our place, and bearing the wrath of God for our sins). I believe I have shown that imputation is a legal term that does not affect the subjective status of the person. I have shown (and JP has admitted such) that imputation never has the idea of infusion. And finally I have shown that Paul removes even the possibility of works playing a part in our justification by constantly contrasting and excluding them from the instrument of justification. Faith apart from works of the Law and works in general justifies. Sola fide!
