Subject: Rebuttal
#2
Date: Sun,
29 Mar 1998 22:39:32 -0700
From: crownofthorns@webtv.net (JASON
VANEZIA)
Subject: Rebuttal
#2
Date: Tue,
24 Mar 1998 20:58:17 -0700
From: crownofthorns@webtv.net (JASON
VANEZIA)
NOTE: The capital letter “R” will refer to a
particular “rebuttal” essay.
1) In my R #1, I began with the perplexing
problem I frequently encounter in my research;
that is, the apparently deliberate attempt on the part of Catholic
apologists to place a crown on the word “infusion”, and to relegate the word “imputation”
to the dungeon in chains. Frankly, I was
left in a jaw-dropping stupor at J.D.’s tip-toeing around the theological
tulips I presented, and waltzing off into the sunset as if the case were closed
by his most incomplete refutation of my opening statement. While he did manage to fill his essay with
many words, I could not fail to notice that he declined to comment on my
paragraphs #1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 & 14. Moreover, J.D. brings up
two passages where he says that “imputation language is nowhere to be found” (R1,
P8 & 13). However, because he has decided to refrain from comment on the
biblical imputation evidence that HAS been presented, I certainly don’t feel I’m
being rude if I decline to comment on some of his (Mk 11:33).
2) Debates are a good thing. The apostle Paul went around vigorously disputing
the issues (Acts 9:29, 17:2 & 11) so it is evidentally
very pleasing to God when those who claim to follow Him enter into controversy
for His name’s sake. We also notice in 1
Cor 11:19 that it is even God’s will that heresies
pop up here and there, “so that they which are approved, may be made manifest
among you.” Having said that, I welcome all evidences to counter-attack my
belief that the Catholic view of justification is erroneous, and if J.D. can “come
up with the goods” to refute me, then so be it, and he will be approved
according to 1 Cor 11:19. As I see it though, J.D. has produced no such
proof, but instead has beated around the bush and
failed to interact with the facts I provided.
Now when it is me who is thought to be negligent in confronting an
issue, I will thank J.D. very much to point this out pronto, as I do easily
forget many things. So I happen to be
one who realizes his frailty and does carefully evaluate someone else’s criticism
of what I say. Having established
then, that I myself am more than willing to accept the pointed finger of a
friend (Prov 27:17), I feel the sting of rebuke given
to J.D. above and following is not out of order at all.
3) PAUL’S
USE OF “DIKAIOO”
All the standard Greek
dictionaries which define the principal NT word for “justification” (Luke
18:14, Rms 3:24-28; 4:5; 5:1, 9; 8:30, 33;
1 Cor 6:11, Gal 2:16; 3:8, 11, 24; Titus 3:7)
are in agreement with the Protestant, and NOT the Catholic view! The legal declaration of righteousness which
J.D. so passionately rejects, is substantiated by all respected linguistic
authorities such as, “The Theological Dictionary of the NT”, “The Hebrew Greek
Study Bible”, “Thayer’s Greek-English
Lexicon”, and “Loruv and Nida’s
Greek-English Lexicon”.
Bruce Metzger, perhaps the
premier Greek scholar in America, confirms:
“It is past comprehension
how someone can deny the unmistakable evidence of the Pauline meaning of this
word. The fact is that Paul simply does not
use this word to mean, “to be made upright or righteous...it means “to be
pronounced or declared as righteous”
(1). The word “to justify” is
clearly judicial; that is, that the
sinner, accused by the law of God, flees to the throne of grace, is absolved
for Christ’s sake, reckoned and declared righteous, and accepted to life
eternal. Is my opponent aware of any
of the church fathers using this word to signify the infusion of virtuous
qualities? If so, let him produce
them. If he cannot, then the biblical
and historical witness is against him, and thus his stubborn insistence that
justification causes us to be made inherently righteous (P #2 & 12)
absolutely must be abandoned.
4) J.D.’s
QUESTION
I am asked, “which work
would give more glory to God; for Him to simply declare the sinner innocent, or
for Him to re-create the sinner and fill him (infuse) with His own justice?” (R1, P1).
First of all, as pointed out in my R1, P11, God does not “merely” declare a person innocent
and leave him there like a pebble on the ground......any more than He did not
just “merely” create the earth to hang in space. “He created it not in vain; He formed it to
be inhabited” (Isa
45:18). In like manner, when God chooses
to draw a man to Himself (Ps 65:4, Jn 6:44), He does
not do so only to sit on the fence and wonder what will happen next. This “declaration” does not come without the
beginning work of the Holy Spirit in the life of one born again. Mr. D’Arcy introduces an artificial
distinction between my supposed position and his, as proposed in his question,
as if I denied our inner renewal its proper place and order. He thus minimizes and deflates my
perspective, chewing down to the barest of all possible bones, while leaving
the meat of my essay, which vindicates this “declaration”, without comment. To drive the dagger deeper into my back, he
then begins building a very poor straw man that even Dorothy would be ashamed
to dance down the yellow brick road with.
He says that “to be merely declared just”... <straw man> ... “wouldn’t fit into Jesus’ view” ....
<the match that burns the straw man down> (P #4).
But to J.D.’s surprise, he need not drive that dagger in too deep
because I will be agreeing with him here.
It certainly does NOT fit into
Jesus’ view. Neither does it fit into
the Protestant view! Protestant
theology teaches that there is no justification apart from regeneration,
wherein God supernaturally intervenes in a life, enables one to come to Christ
and creates a new heart. As Calvin
stated, “God justifies, not only in pardoning, but by regenerating.” (2).
I’m afraid that J.D.’s ignominious accusation that, “regeneration is
something not central in the Protestant view” (P13) is a horrible
misrepresentation to say the least.
5) As far as J.D.’s question goes, since it
was the blessed Holy Spirit who inspired Holy Writ, and the same has decided
NOT to use the verb “to justify” to connote the re-creation of the sinner via
infusion (as all scholastics will affirm), I unhesitatingly conclude that it
must be the Protestant position that gives more glory to God. As a matter of fact, it is this very declarartion of imputed righteousness to the sinner that
proves He IS just! “To declare...at
this time, His righteousness, that He might be just, and the justifier of him
which believeth in Jesus” (Rms 3:26).
6) “NOT HAVING A RIGHTEOUSNESS
OF MY OWN” (Phil 3:9).
J.D. went on to sing the
praises of infusion by asserting that because we are called “children of God” (Jn 3:1), “we are able to be considered righteous by the
Father by our righteous acts. And this
righteousness is comparable with the state of Christ’s own righteousness
(which) we actually receive into our souls”
(P6). While it could be
technically true that when someone shows benevolence, they may be classified as
righteous, this does not, ipso facto, lead us to justification as children of
God as J.D. suggests. As I mentioned in
my OS, P9, He would then be saying that God justifies the ungodly by the godly
works produced in them! Such is pure
nonsense. Catholics have a very difficult
time in believing the gracious Lord justifies in an instant - in a moment in
time - as beautifully illustrated by the justified tax collector (OS,
P12). Please notice again how J.D. sets
up a boxing match, as it were, between the righteousness of the individual and
that of our Lord Jesus Christ’s. He says
they are “comparable” (P6). Granted, we
may mirror (through a glass darkly) the glorious traits of His flawless nature,
but “comparable” is much too strong a word.
Paul wasn’t making any comparisons when he bluntly stated he wanted to
be found “NOT having a righteousness of my own.” He knew in the life of the saints are many
and varied sins (Ps 32:3-6, 1 Jn 1:8) and the obedience
begun in us by the Holy Spirit will remain imperfect till the day we die, as he
complains in Romans 7:18-23: “I can will
what is right, but I cannot do it.” Therefore, the confirmation I have
presented here and elsewhere will not be diminished by any kind of sophistry so
as to cause us to embrace any kind of an “infused inherent righteousness” (and
one that is undeniably imperect at that....Phil
3:12) which can possibly form any of the
ground of our justification before God.
7) MORE THAN THE PHARISEE?
“Unless your
righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter
the kingdom of heaven” (Matt
5:20). How in the world could any (for lack of a better term) “low-life”, possibly surpass the meticulous
living standards of the scribes and Pharisees?
Let us return to the humble tax collector and boastful Pharisee in Luke 18 (OS, P12). Aside from the Pharisee’s boasting, the fount
and apex of all Catholic justification is personified in this man who thanks
God for infusing such wonderful character traits into his soul, but the verdict
of the Lord was that he was NOT justified.
Roman Catholicism teaches its flock to thank God for infusing “Mother
Teresa” type charity into their souls as well.
J.D. blissfully shuts the door on this parable as a “non-evidence”
simply because the Pharisee was smug and arrogant. But is this reasonable? Am I to believe that ONLY because a Catholic piously humbles
himself while thanking God for these infused qualities, that this makes all the
difference??? There is a monumental problem
with that proposal, however. The
spiritually broken and contrite tax collector (See also Ps 34:18, 51:17 & Isa 66:2) came to God with positively NO infused virtues
whatsoever. Yet the good Lord justified
him immediately.
8) J.D. endeavors to persuade us that, “the essence of the passage points
to the fact that men’s (humble) hearts will be judged, not that imputation
occurs extrinisically” (P14).
This statement is categorically false, and I feel our great Creator
would rebuke J.D. as He did with the three friends of Job, when He said, “Ye
have not spoken of me the thing that is right”
(42:7). As much as J.D. may wish
to deny it, this parable is a goldmine of support for being justified by faith
alone. The theme of justification in all
its granduer is displayed eloquently, but without
delving into abstract theology. The tax
collector’s justification was an instantaneous reality, based soley and completely on faith alone in what God could do
FOR him, and not what he had accomplished himself (or even with God’s help).
Recall the words of Christ quoted at the start of P #7. How could such a sinner as this tax
collector, obtain a righteousness that would exceed that of a pious Pharisee? The only possible answer is that he received
a righteousness that was not his own!!!
The righteousness of Christ was indisputably (and extrinsically, Mr. D’Arcy!) imputed to him by faith alone (Rms 4:9-11).
9) ROMANS 5:18-21
At this point, we need
to revisit the ground of our CONDEMNATION
before we can truly understand the ground of our justification. If my opponent is wrong in relation to how
and why we were initially condemned, then certainly any remedy he may offer as
the antidote for our justification will have to be rejected. Someone who is
diagnosed with cancer cannot expect to be cured with a cough drop. Please notice carefully his explication of
the above verse: “The text shows us that
Adam TRANSMITS condemnation and unrighteousness to us, actually MAKING
us sinners” (P5, emphasis mine).
Here we have the epitomy of Roman Catholic theology
gone haywire. J.D. has chosen to ignore
what I pointed out in my OS, P #4, 9 & 10;
i.e. that even though Christ was MADE sin for us (2 Cor
5:20), this does not mean that our
Savior BECAME sinful, as everyone on earth will agree. How then was Christ “made” sin for us? The answer is by IMPUTATION. Too, the fact that many will be “made” righteous
by the obedience of the One, does not mean we will BECOME inherently righteous,
as the word translated “made” means to
DECLARE. How then are WE made
righteous? The answer is by
IMPUTATION. Since J.D. is wrong in
thinking that being “made righteous” (via infusion) means to “become righteous” (P2 & 12), he is also wrong in thinking that
being “made sinners” (via infusion) means actually MAKING us sinners.
10) THE LINK
While the Roman
Catholic Church is correct in seeking a link between Adam’s sin and Adam’s
posterity, they continue to bombard us with the enigmatic use of “infusion” as
the cause and solution to mankind’s miserable state of affairs. It is important we observe diligently what is
happening here. From the start, Rome
errs by teaching (at Trent) that the ground of our condemnation consists of an
inherent individual sinfulness which has been “contracted by generation” from Adam
(3). Notice the infusion
language: J.D. says “transmits”, “imparts” (P5); the Counil of
Trent says “contracted”. To the
contrary, Romans 5:12-21 traces back to the ONE sin of the ONE man as the SOLE
cause of death and condemnation. Hence,
our condemnation is not based upon a state of “transmitted, imparted,
contracted” or any other infusionary unrightousness as J.D. theorizes. It is based on IMPUTATION. Sin was imputed to all men on the basis of
Adam being the federal head of our race.
And righteousness is imputed on the basis of Christ representing those
who are spiritually alive. Remember, on
the basis of the actions of ONE, many
were constituted as either sinners or righteous. That God can choose to impute
sin or not impute sin is clear from Ps 32:2 and Romas
4:6. Our condemnation is based on
nothing other than Adam’s sin immediately imputed to mankind at the time of
offense. Yes, his corrupt nature is
transmitted to his posterity (as like begets like), but it is not our Adamic NATURE that condemns us, but rather, Adam’s single
and solitary sin which does so (verses 17-19).
11) THE BRILLIANT CONCLUSION
“By one man’s disobedience,
many were MADE (declared) sinners” (vs. 19).
Not, as J.D. would have it,
that Adam’s offense “actually made us
sinners” (P5).
And just as our sins were not INFUSED into Christ
(otherwise making Him
inherently evil), neither are we INFUSED with
grace to the extent of
making us inherently righteous. And neither
again, are we infused with
unrighteousness so as to effect our
condemnation. Thus,
Roman Catholicism sees the sinful NATURE of Adam
infused into man as the
ground of our condemnation.........and they
allege that the remedy is
the infusion of GRACE to exterminate sin and
make us righteous enough to
enter heaven. I refuse this scenerio as
exegetically
and historically bankrupt! For as one
has brilliantly
summarized: “The formula is not: One man’s act equals infusion of sin
so as to foster an
imitation of Adam unto condemnaion. Nor is it:
One man’s act equals infusion of grace so as to foster an imitation of Christ
for justification. Rather, it is: One man’s sinful act condemns by virtue of solidaric imputation in union WITH the act. And it is also, one man’s righteous act
justifies by virtue of solidaric imputation in union
WITH the act.” (4).
12) JAMES 2
Occasionally, biblical
lingo may hinder our comprehension of certain ideas. For instance, 1 Tim 2:15 says that women will
be saved through child-bearing. Obviously, this doesn’t mean that women are
justified simply by getting pregnant. Words may have different meanings based
upon their context. I will admit that
there are times when “to justify” is capable of another shade of meaning to
what I submitted in my OS, P7. Fortunately,
the meanings are closely related so this only proves my point all the
more. In Matt 11:19, Jesus states that “wisdom
is justified by her children”. But this
does not mean that the “children” bring “wisdom” into a right relationship with
God. It does mean though, that wisdom is
shown to be just by the TESTIMONY of her children. The children do not MAKE wisdom wise; instead, wisdom is shown to be wise by the
children she has produced. In exactly
the same way, the good works of Abraham and Rahab
(and all believers) are a testimony to an already existing faith! And just as the children do not “justify” wisdom
in the sense of adding any “salvific completion” in
the eyes of God; neither do the good works of the believer justify us in any
such manner as well.
13) PAUL = GENESIS 15:6
We note that Paul appeals
to Gen 15 to prove that by faith alone Abraham was justified before God. But James appeals to chapter 22 where Abe was
put to the test and “justified” by works.
Is this a contradiction? Not at
all. In 22, the authenticity of his
faith was simply being demonstrated. So
we see in 15, Abe justified by faith, and in 22, Abe’s faith is “justified” by
his obedience, just as wisdom is justified by her children. I must strongly repudiate J.D.’s
interpretation that Abe’s WORK of offering Isaac brought any sort of “salvific completion” to his already justified status (OS, P18). James is not addressing HOW one
can be saved, but rather, how can one know that their faith is authentic? “You SAY you have faith” and “Show
me your faith BY your works” (vs. 18) is
pristine proof that a truly justifying faith will naturally bring forth fruit. The works of our obedience add unequivocally
NOTHING to our justification. They are
visible proof OF IT. Keep in mind that in Romans 4, it is to the already
regenerate Abraham, adorned with many outstanding works and fruits of the
Spirit, who Paul says was not justified by works, but “FAITH was imputed to him
for righteousness.” And if we walk in “that
faith of our father Abraham...it will be imputed unto (us) also.” (vs. 9, 11-12). J.D. must have been speaking to a very
ill-informed Protestant when he concluded that James 2 is a “massive problem
for Protestants” (OS, P18). It most assuredly is not, but rather a
delight.
14) PAUL’S VIEW
I believe it is
imperative we scrutinize this prime hero of the faith and see if he displayed
any notion of the Catholic view of justification; namely, does he give us cause to think that
the inner renewal worked in us by the Holy Spirit is the jewel in the crown of
our justification? Recall in my R1, P5, that I asserted that the “robe”, the “gift”
and the “crown” of righteousness must pertain directly to the righteousness of
Christ imputed. Catholicism, on the other hand, has this “crown of justice”
being served to us on a silver platter, as it were, directly because of our
good works and merits! (Trent, ch. 16). What saith Paul?
14a) Did the apostle wish to glory in any of the
infused virtues wrought in him by the Holy Spirit? Let him answer directly: “Far be it from me to glory EXCEPT in the
cross of Christ” ... “I determined not to know ANYTHING among you
save Jesus Christ and Him crucified”
(Gal 6:14, 1 Cor 2:2). Now let us go back once more to the
supposedly arrogant Pharisee in Luke 18.
J.D. submits that listing off his
accomplishments without a “humble heart”
was the torpedo that sunk his justification ship. But my friend can only assume this. It is very possible that the Pharisee could
have been humble in every sense of the word.
His sin resulted by parading his works done in God’s grace hoping they
would be meritorious. This, of course,
is exactly what Catholicism promotes. On
certain occasions it is apparently permissible for us to mention some of the
things we have accomplished without invalidating our humble hearts. Witness
Paul: “By the grace of God which was
with me, I labored more abundantly than
they all” (1 Cor
15:10). The difference between Paul and
the Pharisee was in how they viewed their grace-produced works. The Pharisee was looking at them as some sort
of medal of honor. Paul had a different
attitude: “What things were gain to me,
those I counted as loss for Christ...I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord...and
do count them as dung, that I may win Christ...and be found in Him, not having
a righteousness of my own...but the righteousnss
which is of God by faith” (Phil 3:7-9).
14b) Paul makes quite a big deal about how he
took pains to have a clear consciene before all men
(Acts 23:1, 24:16). And what does the grace-empowered
Paul say in regard to this clear conscience of grace-produced good works in the
sight of God? “I am not aware of anything
against myself, BUT I AM NOT THEREBY JUSTIFIED;
but He that judges me is the Lord”
(1 Cor 4:4).
So then, Paul expressly and effectively nullifies any of the good deeds
he had done with a clear conscience by the infused grace of God, to account in
any way whatsoever for his justification.
His justification was by faith alone.
J.D. makes me dizzy when he says
out of one side of his mouth he agrees in the infinite value of Christ’s merits
(R1, P1), but out of the other side he insists on being justified by these very infinite merits.......PLUS
WORKS. But if the merits of Christ are
INFINITE, surely nothing can be added to make it more complete!
Jason Vanezia
Word count: approx 3500
Notes:
1) Taken from the Rod Rosenblad and Karl
Keating exchange in, “The
Salvation Debate”,
3/11/89
2) “The Library of Christian Classics”, Vol
XIX, Book III, ch.
XI.6,11, p. 732;739
3) Council of Trent, 5th session, Decree Concerning
Original Sin, P4.
4) Rob Zins, “Theo-Logical” Newsletter,
First quarter, 1998.