Rebuttal to Dave Armstrong on Justification (specifically in Romans 4 and James 2) [Part 1]

 Over at Dave Armstrong's website (which used to be on Blogger, but he has moved his stuff over to Patheos), he wrote an article which made some claims about Romans 4 which were really interesting. And false. (the article can be read at this link. I thought I would be go ahead and provide a thorough response to Dave Armstrong in this paper. His words will be in red and my responses will be in black.

Catholics believe in Jesus Christ and His all-sufficient saving work on the cross (ours to receive by Grace Alone), just as Protestants do. We only deny an extreme Faith Alone position (which does not deny Grace Alone, since they are distinct)." St. Paul opposes grace and/or faith to works in Scripture, only in a particular sense: the “works” of Jewish ritualism by which the Jews gained their unique identity (e.g., circumcision). This is the crux of the new perspective on Paul, by Protestant scholars like James D. G. Dunn, E. P. Sanders, and N. T. Wright.  The Wikipedia article on the movement gives a description of the central motif: 'Paul’s letters contain a substantial amount of criticism of “works of the law”. The radical difference in these two interpretations of what Paul meant by “works of the law” is the most consistent distinguishing feature between the two perspectives. The old perspective interprets this phrase as referring to human effort to do good works in order to meet God’s standards (Works Righteousness). In this view, Paul is arguing against the idea that humans can merit salvation from God by their good works (note the New Perspective agrees that we cannot merit salvation- the issue is what exactly Paul is addressing).

 I am glad Dave admits that he is essentially siding with New Perspectivism on this issue. He says that Paul essentially is using "works of the law" to mean circumcision, or what are often called "Jewish boundary markers". I am not denying that circumcision could be (and most likely is) included in the category of "works of the law", but I reject the idea that that is all that "works of the law" means. I think that there are two main problems with what Dave is saying here: 

 1) - Paul, in Galatians 3:10, says the following: 

"For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”. Paul does not make a direct quotation from the Septuagint (LXX) here, thus this is more or less Paul's interpretation of Deuteronomy 27:26. The point remains that it is clear that Paul did not see "works of the law" as referring only to circumcision.        

 2) - There are many other scholars, some Roman Catholic, all of which agree that "works of the law" refers to more than just "Jewish boundary markers". For example, Robert Sungenis, a Catholic apologist (whom I have no doubt that Mr. Armstrong is familiar with) says the following in his book Not by Faith Alone:   

"Since Scripture condemns both the ceremonial law and the moral law as a means of justification before God, we must address the attempts of certain theologians to limit the phrase of 'works of law' to the Jewish ceremonial law. From a reading of Romans 2-4 and Galatians 2-3, it is apparent that while Paul elevates the discussion concerning justification to an antithesis between law and grace, he intermittently focuses his attention on circumcision as that part of the law with which he is most concerned." (Robert Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone, pg. 26) 

 Sungenis defines what he means by "moral law" : 

"Although circumcision and other ceremonial observances are some of the more prominent aspects of the Mosaic law, Paul also uses works of law or law in reference to the moral laws of God, exemplified in the Ten Commandments." (ibid, pg. 21) 

Both the Lord Jesus and the Apostle Paul taught that the "entire Law" could be summed in the command "to love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:40, Galatians 5:14). Thus, I think I the following would be a thought-provoking question for Roman Catholic apologists: can someone be justified by loving their neighbor as themself (i.e. doing the "works of the law" if we were to use the term loosly. In a footnote on page 21 in his book, Robert Sungenis says that " 'works of law' is interchangeable with the word 'law', as noted in Paul's free exchange of these terms in Rom. 3:19-20 and Galatians 2:16-21.") if they are in a state of grace? 

 By contrast, new perspective scholars see Paul as talking about “badges of covenant membership” or criticizing Gentile believers who had begun to rely on the Torah to reckon Jewish kinship. The Apostle Paul doesn’t oppose grace, faith, and works, and in fact, constantly puts them together, in harmony, as I have shown, with 50 of his passages and color-coding, to make it easy to spot each conceptual category. A few examples:

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.

2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain. 

In 1 Corinthians 15:10, Paul says that it was not him but "the grace of God" that "worked" (though he does not use that exact language precisely). 

I am not personally trying to make a complete and utter antithesis between "faith, grace, and works". I certainly do believe they are related, just not in the way that Dave Armstrong would believe them to be. 

Grace and works are for Paul, quite hand-in-hand, just as faith and works are. The new perspective on Paul “gets” this. I’m glad to see it. We Catholics have maintained something like this for 2000 years, and have refused to dichotomize grace, works, and faith. We only pit grace against works insofar as we deny (with Protestants) Pelagianism: man cannot save himself. Trent is very clear on that. We don’t teach works-salvation (we vigorously deny it), despite what the Lutheran confessions, Calvin, etc. wrongly (and frequently) assert about us. Scripture doesn’t teach faith alone at all; thus the fathers do not, either. In fact, the only time the phrase appears in the Bible, it is expressly denied:

James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 

Do I even need to stop? James 2 has been addressed dozens of times. As we have said before (and as Dave knows), James 2 speaks of "justification"/vindication before men. One might attempt to go to verses 21-22 where Abraham is cited as an example. However, in Romans 4:10, Paul says that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised. Abraham was circumcised in Genesis 17, which is obviously before Genesis 22, where the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac takes place. Romans 4:10 thus rules out Genesis 22 as being one of Abraham's "justifications". The only way Catholics would try to get around this is to say that Abraham lost his justification in between Gen. 17 and Gen. 22. They might point to Genesis 20, where the story of Abraham, Sarah, and Abimelech takes place. However, there is no evidence in the text there that Abraham "lost" his justification or something along those lines. In fact, Genesis 20:7 refers to Abraham as a "prophet", which would probably be a strange title for one who was not saved/justified at that point in time. Thus, as we have seen, it is flawed to go to Genesis 22 in order to support the idea of Abraham having multiple "justifications".

Paul states: 

Romans 3:28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. (cf. 3:20; 3:24: “justified by his grace as a gift”) 

But saying “justified by faith” is different from saying  “justified by faith alone“. The “works of the law” he refers to here are not all works, but things like circumcision. In other words, we are saved apart from Jewish rituals required under Mosaic Law. Paul makes clear that this is what he has in mind, in referencing circumcision in 3:1, asking rhetorically, “Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all” (3:9), multiple references to “the law” (3:19-21, 28, 31), and the following statement:

Romans 3:29-30 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, [30] since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.

 See my above comments where I provide stuff from Dave Armstrong's fellow apologists who agree with me on the issue of how we should interpret the phrase "works of the law". Like I said above, "circumcision" is included in "works of the law", but that in no way necessitates that that is all that "works of the law" refers to.

Paul is not against all “works” per se; he tied them directly to salvation, after all, in the previous chapter:

Romans 2:6-8 For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.(cf. 2:13: “the doers of the law who will be justified”) 

 

 Dozens of commentaries have addressed Romans 2:6-8, 13, 25-27 and the oft cited verses Catholic apologists go to (usually taking them out of their proper context as Armstrong does here). In Romans 2:6-11, Paul's focus is on the standard of God's judgment (i.e. works), specifically trying to refute the Jewish idea that their possession of the law or circumcision will make them right with God, which is obvious from the surrounding context (2:9,11, 13). Paul's whole point is that "God shows no partiality" (Rom. 2:11, cf. 2:9). I would most likely with the interpretation that this is speaking of some sort of hypothetical standard, since Paul elsewhere says that nobody can be justifed via obedience to the law (Romans 3:20, Galatians 2:16).

Romans 4:5 And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.

The Catholic interpretation is similar in many ways to the Lutheran; different in some other ways. Here is what the Navarre Commentary states about this passage:

The act of faith is the first step towards obtaining justification (= salvation). The Magisterium of the Church teaches that, usually, those who are making their way towards faith predispose themselves in this sense: moved and helped by divine grace they freely direct themselves towards God because they believe in the truth of Revelation and, above all, believe that God, in his grace, justifies the sinner “through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:24). This first act of faith moves the person to recognize and repent of his sins; to put his trust in God’s mercy and to love him above all things; and to desire the sacraments and resolve to live a holy life (cf. Council of Trent, De iustificatione, chap. 6). God reckons this faith “as righteousness,” that is to say, as something which deserves to be rewarded. It is not, therefore, good works that lead to justification; rather, justification renders works good and meritorious of eternal life. Faith opens up for us new perspectives. 

I am not sure if the scholar Armstrong is quoting is even a Lutheran, for starters. For one thing, I looked this "Navarre Commentary" on the internet, and most of the results for from Catholic publishing companies, not Lutherean or Protestant/Evangelical ones (like Banner of Truth or something along those lines). I may be misunderstanding what Dave is saying here. Who knows?

Paul uses the example of Abraham in Romans 4, in emphasizing faith, over against the Jewish works of circumcision as a supposed means of faith and justification (hence, he mentions circumcision in 4:9-12, and salvation to the Gentiles as well as Jews in 4:13-18)

See my above comments regarding the meaning of circumcision and its relationship to the "works of the law" 

. . . “the one who does not work but believes — I would translate “believes” rather than “trusts” here — him who justifies the ungodly” is not a generalization about all who believe, but refers specifically to Abraham. Paul sees Abraham at this point as typical of all Gentiles who believe, or perhaps as their exemplar or “father.” However, Abraham is the sole person being spoken of.

 Abraham is used as an example of how justification works in Romans 4. I am not completely sure what the author here means by "Abraham was the sole person being spoken of". 

[Dave’s note: “trusts” in RSV for Romans 4:5 is pisteuo (Strong’s word #4100),  which is translated in the KJV “believe” or “believer” (1) or “believing” (1) 238 times out of  246 total appearances, or 97% of the time (“trust” also a few times) ]

When Paul says that Abraham “does not work,” he isn’t saying that Abraham has not done good works. In fact, Abraham had been justified since he responded to God’s self-revelation in Ur and had done many good works worthy of being reckoned as righteous. Romans 4:5 is describing but one instance of a good work (an act of faith) that was reckoned as righteous.

 Dave Armstrong is arguing against the Apostle Paul here, not just against Protestantism. If Paul thought that Abraham had saving faith (in the sense that the object of his faith was the promise of God) in Genesis 12, he would have most certainly appealed to it here. But he did not do such a thing, simply because he does not believe anything of that sort. I do not interpret the phrase "faith reckoned as righteous" as meaning that God imputed faith itself back to Abraham. Faith was the means by which Abraham received the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. That is why 4:11 speaks of the righteousness that Abraham had "by faith".   

In context, “does not work” means “is not doing the works of the Law:” that is, Abraham has not yet been circumcised and is still a Gentile. He does not do works of Jewish Law, works of Torah.

 See my above comments on this issue. 

In Greek the phrase “the one who does not work” could be translated — clumsily — as “the non-working one,” non-working not in the sense of not doing good works but in the sense of not doing works of Torah. Paul’s use of the definite pronoun suggests he has a definite person in mind (Abraham).

In the second part, “believes on him who justifies the ungodly,” the word “ungodly,” in context, does not mean wicked. Abraham was not wicked at this stage in his life. He was already justified. It means “Gentile.” “Ungodly” in Greek is asebes, a word that refers to the sphere of religious observance, and not to evil in a wider moral sense. Essentially, it means “non-observant” of the Jewish Law, or “impious” from the point of view of the Jewish Law (which would be the point of view of the Judaizers). We have no adequate word to render this concept in modern English, but “Gentile” comes closest.

There are a multitude of serious problems for the idea that "ungodly" is simply some sort of slang for "Gentile". I will some of them here.

1) - In Romans 1:18, Paul says that the "wrath of God is revealed from heaven against ALL UNGODLINESS and UNRIGHTEOUSNESS of men [not just Gentiles]." The Greek phrase for "all ungodliness" used here is πᾶσαν ἀσέβειαν, with the same root that is in Romans 4:5. Paul then goes on listing sins which are not just sins from Gentile cultures but have been practiced amongst Jews as well.                         

 2) - In Romans 3:9, Paul says that "both Jews and Greeks [obviously Gentiles, since they are distinct from Jews here] are under sin. 

 Thus, Dave Armstrong is making blunders here in his attempt to defend the Roman Catholic view of justification, by redefining words.

Paul is saying that someone — Abraham in this case — could be “impious” from the point of view of the Jewish Law (i.e., a Gentile), but righteous from the point of view of God. “Justifies the ungodly” thus amounts to “regards the Gentile Abraham as righteous.”

In sum, Paul is saying that God reckoned righteousness to Abraham (not for the first time!) while he was still a Gentile. And this is the same point that Paul makes throughout Romans 3 and 4; i.e., Gentiles don’t have to become Jews to be judged righteous by God. They only have to respond to God’s revelation with faith, as Abraham did while still as Gentile.

Or, to paraphrase all of Romans 4:5: “And to Abraham before he had done any works of Torah but still believed in Him who regards the Gentile as righteous, his belief was credited as an act of righteousness.”

 See my above material for why drawing a wedge between "ungodly" and "sinner" is simply senseless and for why this term is not simply a slang for Gentiles, but rather means, well "ungodly". 

 We will continue with our refutation of Dave Armstrong's article in Part 2