Justification by Faith and Justification by Works

[stan the man]

The Law in Paul

I would like to look the Law in Paul. The Greek term nomos occurs 89 times in the Pauline corpus, and its derivatives (such as anomos, normally rendered "without the Law"), the total number of references to the Law in Paul would be around a hundred.

There are basically four senses in which he uses the term and in almost every occurrence (so far as I can tell) it can be rendered either (1) "Torah" [or "Mosaic Law"], (2) "code of law," (3) "commandment," or (4) "principle."

In most cases it is very clear which sense he means it as. However, there are a few instances where it is ambiguous in which of these four senses it should be taken. This is especially true when Paul makes a play on words, as in Romans 2:14, when he says, "When Gentiles who have not the [nomos] do by nature what the [nomos] requires, they are a [nomos] to themselves, even though they do not have the [nomos]." The nomos which the Gentiles do not have (for Paul makes it very clear the have God's eternal moral law) is the Mosaic Law.

Thus I can translate every occurrence of the root word nomos in this as "Torah," except perhaps the third, where the translation would read, "they are a Torah to themselves." This is very klunky in English since we do not view the Torah the way the first century Jews did—as God's binding legal code. Paul is concerned to show that Gentiles are under God's Law too, and thus their consciences function for them like the Torah functions for the Jews—i.e., as a medium by which God's Law is communicated to them. Thus one might translate the third occurrence of nomos as "they are a code of law unto themselves," which is still klunky in English, but clearer for those who are not familiar with the Jewish view of Torah. However, if one translates the third occurrence like that, one misses the fact that in Greek Paul is piling up the same word on top of itself four times in a single sentence and making a play on words with the third occurrence to the effect—"they are a Mosaic Law unto themselves!"

 

[stan the man]

The Law in Paul

A similar Pauline play on words occurs in Romans 3:27, where Paul states: "Then what becomes of our glorying? It is excluded. On what [nomos]? Of works? No, but on the [nomos] of faith." Read by itself, his second question, "On what [nomos]?" would normally be taken to mean "On which principle?" And this is the way in which his final statement is read: "On the principle of faith." However given his usage of nomos everywhere else, when one encounters the phrase "On what law? Of works?" one is immediately reminded that for Paul the Law of Works is the Torah, as he demonstrates by immediately (3:28-30 and chapter 4) going on to attack justification by circumcision.

Nevertheless, despite an occasional question over whether a given instance of nomos should be translated Torah, code of law, command, or principle, the overwhelming majority of Paul's uses of the term are references to the Law of Moses or the Torah. This may be demonstrated by simply looking at a representative selection of the verses in question taken from the principal passages of Romans and Galatians.

 

[stan the man]

The Law in Paul

The Law is first mentioned in Romans in Romans 2:12, and the passage that follows sets the tone for Paul's use of the term "Law." In Romans 2:12-15, he states:

"All who have sinned outside the Law will also perish outside the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law. For it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified. When Gentiles who have not the Law do by nature what the Law requires, they are a Law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law. They show that what the Law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them . . . "

Here the context is very obviously the difference between Jews and Gentiles and the accountability of the Gentiles even though they do not have the Torah or the Mosaic Law. See how naturally the passage reads if
I substitute the term "Torah" for "Law":

"All who have sinned outside the Torah will also perish outside the Torah, and all who have sinned under the Torah will be judged by the Torah. For it is not the hearers of the Torah who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Torah who will be justified. When Gentiles who have not the Torah do by nature what the Torah requires, they are a Law to themselves, even though they do not have the Torah. They show that what the Torah requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them . . . "

 

[stan the man]

The Law in Paul

Similarly, in Romans 2:17-24, Paul says:

"But if you call yourself a Jew and rely upon the Law and boast of God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed in the Law. . . . a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and truth . . . You who boast in the Law, do you dishonor God by breaking the Law? For, as it is written, 'The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.'"

Again we have a Jewish-Gentile context in which Jews who boast about God before Gentiles often end up dishonoring God before the Gentiles by breaking the Torah. And again I find the text to read entirely naturally when I substitute "Torah" for "Law":

"But if you call yourself a Jew and rely upon the Torah and boast of your relation to God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed in the Torah. . . . a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the Torah the embodiment of knowledge and truth. . . . You who boast in the Torah, do you dishonor God by breaking the Torah? For, as it is written, 'The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.'"

 

[stan the man]

The Law in Paul

And in Romans 2:25-27, we read:

"Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the Law; but if you break the Law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the Law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the Law.

Again, the Jewish-Gentile context is present and the passage makes perfect sense if I insert "Torah" for "Law."

The same is true when the term first crops up in Romans 3. We read in Romans 3:19-21:

"Now we know that whatever the Law says it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the Law, since through the Law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from Law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it."

The Torah does indeed speak to those under the Torah, and because those under the Torah are sinful, just like those outside it, the whole world is held accountable to God. Nobody will be justified by the Torah because that is not its purpose; the function of the Torah was to bring a knowledge of sin. But now a way of becoming righteous apart from the Torah has been revealed, and the Torah and the Prophets in fact testify to this method.

(I shall continue to look at the Law in Paul at a later time)

 

[stan the man]

The Law in Paul

A passage of crucial importance is Romans 3:28-30, where we read:

"For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith."

It is of decisive importance to recognize what Law Paul is talking about here. Unfortunately, most Protestants never ask that question but simply assume one way or another without looking at any evidence beyond the preaching they have heard. Fortunately, Paul answers the question for us immediately after stating that we are justified by faith (in Christ) and not by works of the Law he immediately asks, "Or is God the God of the Jews only?" Well, what Law do Jews have that Gentiles don't? The Mosaic Law. He then makes the same point in the next statement, saying that God will justify the circumcised and the uncircumcised by faith. Okay, what Law commands circumcision? Again, the Mosaic Law. So the Law Paul has in mind here is the Mosaic Law, meaning the passage should be understood as:

"For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Torah. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith."

This has major importance for correctly understanding Paul's use of the phrase "works of Law" (i.e., "works of Torah") and his abbreviated phrase "works."

Paul also alludes to this fact in Romans 3:31, where he says:

"Do we then overthrow the Law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the Law."

How on earth does Paul claim to be upholding the Law? This question has plagued the minds of countless thinkers, and some liberal ones have recently said that Paul was simply wrong, that he was not upholding but overturning the Torah by his teaching. The reason that the answer is less clear than it could be is that this verse is treated as the last verse of chapter 3, but in reality it introduces the subject of chapter four, where Paul uses the case of Abraham to prove his point. Paul is upholding the Torah by citing the Torah's own words (concerning Abraham; Gen. 15:6, etc.) to prove his point. He is thus upholding the true teaching of Torah concerning righteousness, not overthrowing Torah from its rightful place. It never had the place of making righteous, as its own words indicate.

This is what Paul meant earlier in Romans 3 when he said the Torah and the Prophets testify to the way of becoming righteous apart from the Torah. In chapter four he proves that by citing Abraham (4:1-6 and 4:9ff; from Genesis in the Torah) and David (4:6-8, from the Psalms in the Prophets) to establish his case.

 

[stan the man]

The Law in Paul

The same is true later in Romans 5, for in Romans 5:13-14a, Paul tells us:

"in indeed was in the world before the Law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no Law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam."

Again it is obviously the Mosaic Law being discussed since this, by definition, this was the Law given at the time of Moses, and so Paul speaks of the time "from Adam to Moses" as the time "before the Law was given."

The same identity for the Law is found in Romans 6, for in 6:14-15, we read:

"For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under Law but under grace. What then? Are we to sin because we are not under Law but under grace? By no means!"

Obviously, we are still under God's moral law, which is why we must not sin ("By no means!"), but we are not under the Mosaic Law because Christ has come and the grace he brought has been given to us.

 

[stan the man]

The Law in Paul

Romans 7 also makes the point that we are no longer under the Mosaic Law, and it begins with an extended discussion of precisely this fact in 7:1-6, a passage which also makes perfect sense with the substitution of "Torah" for "Law":

"Do you not know, brethren—for I am speaking to those who know the Torah—that the Torah is binding on a person only during his life? Thus a married woman is bound by Torah to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the precept concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that precept, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the Torah through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the Torah, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are discharged from the Torah, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit."

And in Romans 8 we also have the identification of the Torah as the Law Paul is talking about, for in Romans 8:3-4 we read, with the substitution "Torah":

"For God has done what the Torah, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the Torah might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

(I will go over the Law in Galatians at a later time)

 

[stan the man]

The Law in Paul

The first occurrence of the term "Law" in Galatians is found in 2:15-19, where we read, with the substitution:

"We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the Torah but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the Torah, because by works of the Torah shall no one be justified. But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we ourselves were found to be sinners, is Christ then an agent of sin? Certainly not! But if I build up again those things which I tore down, then I prove myself a transgressor. For I through the Torah died to the Torah, that I might live to God."

Again we have the Jewish-Gentile context and the stress that we are not justified by Torah but by faith in Christ and that consequently, now that Christ has come, we are no longer under the Torah.

 

[stan the man]

The Law in Paul

In Galatians 3 we also find the identification of the Law Paul is talking about as the Torah. Galatians 3:10-13 states:

"For all who rely on works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the scroll of the Law, and do them.' Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the Law; for 'The righteous one shall live through faith'; but the Law does not rest on faith [in Jesus], for 'He who does them shall live by them.' Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, 'Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree.'"

The scroll of the Law is, of course, the Torah, and the curse applied to people who don't do what is in the book of the Torah is, of course, written in the Torah, as is the curse Christ took upon himself by being hung on a tree, the other curse of the Torah Paul cites. Thus again in this passage, as in Romans 3:28-30, we have Paul's statement that no one will be justified by works of the Law interpreted for us to mean 'works of Torah,' for Paul says: "[A]ll who rely on works of the Torah are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the scroll of the Torah . . . '"

 

[stan the man]

The Law in Paul

Later in Galatians 3 we see the same. Galatians 3:17-21 states:

"This is what I mean: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance is by the Law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Why then the Law? It was added because of transgressions, till the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained by angels through an intermediary. . . . Is the Law then against the promises of God? Certainly not; for if a Law had been given which could make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the Law."

Of course, the only Law which was given four centuries after Abraham was the Mosaic Law, not God's eternal moral law. God's eternal moral law also was not put into effect through angels and an intermediary (Moses), but the Mosaic Law was. And since God promised to soteriologically bless the Gentiles as Gentiles through Abraham, the Mosaic Law could not have been intended to switch the basis of salvation to the Torah, since this would require all the Gentiles to become Jews and thus annul the promise to Abraham to bless the nations as other nations—without turning them into Jews.

Thus a Torah was not against the promises of God, for saving people was never its function. If God had given a Torah which could make people spiritually alive then righteousness would be gained by keeping Torah. Note that Paul does not say, as much contemporary Protestant preaching misstates this verse, that God could not give such a Torah, but merely that he did not give such a Torah. God is omnipotent and can attach saving grace and the power to keep the Torah to anything he wants, including the Torah itself, but that was not his plan since he had already promised to grant salvation to the Gentiles as Gentiles.

 

[stan the man]

The Law in Paul

In Galatians 3 we have yet another identification of the Law as the Torah, when in Galatians 3:23-25, Paul states:

"Now before faith came, we were confined under the Law, kept under restraint until faith [in Jesus] should be revealed. So that the Law was our tutor until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith [in Jesus] has come, we are no longer under a tutor."

The faith being discussed here, as everywhere else, is obviously faith in Jesus since the Jews already had faith in God before the coming of Christ, and even faith in the future Messiah, but not faith in Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah Who Has Come. That was the faith which was revealed at the coming of Christ. And again, the only Law which served as a tutor until the coming of Christ but not afterwards was the Mosaic Law.

(to be continued)

 

[stan the man]

The Law in Paul

In Galatians 4 we again have the Law identified as the Torah. Galatians 4:4-5 states:

"But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the Law, to redeem those who were under the Law, so that we might receive adoption as sons."

Again, the only Law Christ was born under to buy back those who were under that Law was the Mosaic Law. Likewise, later in Galatians 4, 21-22, Paul states:

"Tell me, you who desire to be under Law, do you not hear the Law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise."

Those who desire to be under the Law are those who desire to be circumcised and become Jews, so Paul asks them if they do not hear what the Law—the Torah—itself says and quotes them Genesis to disprove their view of who the sons of God are.

 

[stan the man]

The Law in Paul

In Galatians 5, we again find the identification of the Law as the Mosaic Law, for in Galatians 5:3-4 Paul states:

"I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole Law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the Law; you have fallen away from grace."

Of course the only Law that commands circumcision is the Torah, and thus the movement to be justified by the Law that Paul has been combating all the way through Galatians, as with Romans, is justification by the Mosaic Law rather than by Christ.

And in the last chapter of Galatians, we again find the equation "the Law = Torah." In Galatians 6:13 we read:

"For even those who receive circumcision do not themselves keep the Law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh."

Again, the only Law to command circumcision is the Mosaic Law. Thus from the front to the back of Galatians, like the front to the back of Romans, the Law Paul is almost invariably talking about is the Mosaic Law. The same is shown by examining the use of the term nomos in Paul's other letters, as in the remainder of the New Testament books in general.

 

[stan the man]

The Law in Paul

This might leave you with a question about how the term should be translated for purposes of my discussion. The problem is that if I leave it as just "Law" then as Protestants read through Romans they have a tendency to forget what Law Paul is talking about. I cannot tell you the number of sermons and radio speeches I have heard from Protestants where they will read a verse of Romans or Galatians where Paul is talking about circumcision and then, in the next verse or even in the same verse, the preacher will use the term "Law" to mean "God's eternal moral law" without offering any justification whatsoever for the shift in meaning.

Some Protestants recognize the problem of trying to draw out of texts where Paul is discussing the Mosaic Law the point that we are not justified by keeping the eternal moral law (which is certainly true, for God forgives our sins gratuitously, without any prior works, as Trent states: "[N]othing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification;" Decree on Justification 8).

For example, some try to force a card on their audience by paying tacit acknowledgment to the fact he is talking about the Mosaic Law and then suddenly but unceremoniously broadening the reference. Thus one anti-Catholic apologist I know is in the habit of quoting Romans 3:28 and saying that "Paul here says that we are not justified by works of the law—any law—but by faith in Christ." The reason he inserts the phrase "any law" is because he realizes that Paul is not necessarily talking about (in fact, he is not talking about) the law which the anti-Catholic apologist wants him to, and so he tries to force a card on the audience by quickly and unceremoniously broadening the scope of Paul's statement by inserting a pious sounding catch-all phrase.

The answer to that is, of course, to say, "Wait a minute! That's not what Paul said! You can't pull a slight of hand trick like that. If you want to show that Paul meant any law then you are not only going to have to produce verses which show he meant any law, but you are also going to have to show that he meant that in this verse and that you are not taking a truth based on other verses and stuffing it into a passage that doesn't teach it but which makes a different point."

I know that when I used to attend Protestant services, it bugged the fool out of me that I, like my pastor and like all the Protestant preachers I heard, was trying to draw out of Mosaic Law texts a statement that we are not justified by the eternal moral law without any explanation of how the one can be read out of the other. I knew of course that we aren't put right with God by doing that, but as an aspiring exegete committed to faithfully representing what the text actually says, I could not simply suppress the knowledge that Paul was not talking about the eternal moral law in these texts, and so I felt like crying, "Okay! Sure! We don't get right with God by keeping the eternal moral law, but that just isn't what Paul says in these passages! He's clearly talking about the Mosaic Law, not the eternal moral law! The point is true, but the use of the passages to support it is false!"

I was thus very pleased when I discovered a school of Protestant exegetes who make precisely this point. This school, leading what is coming in the Christian press to be called "the Copernican Revolution in Pauline studies," is headed by men such as E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, and Paul Zeisler. They are very frank about acknowledging that, while it is certainly true we don't get right with God by doing good works, those aren't the "works of the Law" Paul is talking about because that isn't the Law he is talking about. When he says we aren't justified by works of Law, he means works of the Mosaic Law, not good works.

 

[Faith alone]

stan,

I'm sorry, but I don't get your point. We understand that at times Paul is speaking specifically of the Torah, the Mosaic Law, but at other times he is specifically speaking of law in general - doing works in general to attempt to justify yourself before God by your own good works.

In Ephesians 2:8-10 Paul is speaking to Gentiles (see the beginning of the chapter and throughout the letter). There he makes it clear that a man is not saved (justified) by means of works (ERGW, not NOMOS). The same is true in Romans 4 when God speaks of Abraham being justified not by works but by faith. In Ephesians Paul only mentions the law one time (in 2:15 when he talks about combining Jew and Gentile into one person and doing away with the Law).

Paul is very clear that we are not saved, justified, by doing works of any kind, but only by faith. He contrasts many times the attempt to bring oneself into right standing with God by works with instead trusting in what God has done in our place.

We are not justified by works of any kind, but by faith alone...

Romans 4:2 If Abraham was justified by works, then he has something to brag about--but not before God.

Romans 4:4 Now to the one who works, pay is not considered as a gift, but as something owed.

Romans 4:6 Likewise, David also speaks of the blessing of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works

Above Abraham was long before the Law. The works are not works of the Law (Torah). Both Abraham and David were justified on the basis of their faith aprt from any works. Yes, that means "by faith alone."


Romans 9:10-13 [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]And not only that, but also when Rebekah became pregnant by Isaac our forefather (for though they had not been born yet or done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to election might stand, not from works but from the One who calls) she was told: The older will serve the younger. As it is written: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.[/FONT]
(Here we see that the selection by God to save Jacob was not based on anything which Esau or Jacob did - good or bad.)

Romans 9:31, 32 But Israel, pursuing the law for righteousness, has not achieved the law. Why is that? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.
(We see that Israel's mistake was attempting to become righteous by the law. IOW, Paul says that they pursued it as if righteousness came by works instead of by faith.)


Romans 11:6 Now if by grace, then it is not by works; otherwise grace ceases to be grace.
Can't mix grace and works... If works isrequired IOT be justified before God, then justification is not by grace but by works... grace (salvation as a gift received by faith alone) would cease to be grace.


Galatians 2:16 yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no human being will be justified.
Sure, this is works of the Law. But it is clear that justification is by faith, not by any works.


And we still have Ephesians 2:8, 9, which you have never directly dealt with...
Ephesians 2:8, 9 For by grace you have been saved (perfect tense - indicating something which happened at a point-in-time in the past and with a resulting state in the present) through faith and that (salvation) not of yourselves. It is a goft of God, not as a result of works, so that no one can boast.
This was written to Gentiles (see the 1st couple of verses of this chapter) - the works are not works of Torah. Paul says that we are justified (saved) by faith and not by works of any kind.


Ephesians 2:10 For we are His making, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them.
God prepared us to do good works - not the Law. The Law did not have the purpose of justifying us before Him, but of revealking our sins and need to have a Savior. We were always justified by faith - OT and NT. The object of that faith has changed somewhat, but justification was always by faith alone (instead of by works of any kind).


2 Timothy 1:9, 10 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began. This has now been made evident through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who has abolished death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
Clearly here this is not the Torah. Paul is referring to being selected (elected) by God beforetime began to be saved by a gift - by grace - which would be received by faith - not by works of any kind.


Titus 3:5 He saved us-- not by works of righteousness that we had done, but according to His mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit.
Here Pau lsays that we were saved not by any works ofrighteousness which we had done, but according to His mercy. Wewereregenerated by the Holy Spirit not based on works which we had done.

Titus 3:8 This saying is trustworthy. I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed God might be careful to devote themselves to good works. These are good and profitable for everyone.

Looked at these before. This is "works of righteousness," not the Torah.


Hebrews 4:4 for somewhere He has spoken about the seventh day in this way: And on the seventh day God rested from all His works.

Hebrews 4:10 For the person who has entered His rest has rested from his own works, just as God did from His.

Here the author compares resting from works for the believer to God resting after creating the world. Torah has nothing to do with this.

FA

 

[stan the man]

Righteousness and Merit

I would like to comment on two different doctrines that the Catholic Church has. I believe the two Catholic doctrines which are phenomenally confusing to some are the Catholic understandings of righteousness and merit. The key reason for this—in fact, virtually the only reason for this—is the different ways in which the two key terms "righteousness" and "merit" are used in the two communities.

Often a given theological term may be used in several different technical senses, and when one sense is common in one community and another sense is common in a different community, terrible confusion and hostility can result.

For example, it is vitally important to distinguish the different senses in which the Greek term theos is used. For example, the term can refer to: (a) an idol, (b) one of the pagan gods, (c) the Christian God (that is, the Being who is three Persons in one Being), or (d) the Person of God the Father.

Now let’s consider the statement in Greek, iesous estin theos, which we would normally translate in English as "Jesus is God"—a perfectly ordinary statement of Trinitarian faith. However, this reading of it presupposes that the term theos is being taken in the third sense mentioned above—that is, as a designation for the one Being we call God. If the term were taken in any of the other senses, disastrous understandings would result. Jesus would alternately be declared to be an idol, one of the pagan gods, or God the Father himself (i.e., Sabellianism).

 

[stan the man]

Righteousness and Merit

Now imagine two communities of Christians, one of which had developed in such a way that it used the term theos exclusively as a reference to the one Being we call God and one of which had developed so that it used theos exclusively as a Personal name for the Father. If these two communities came into contact with each other, even though they both believed in the doctrine of the Trinity, would immediately be at each others throats, with one declaring "Jesus is God!" (meaning, "Jesus is the Being we call God") and the other declaring "Jesus is not God!" (meaning, "Jesus is not the Person we call the Father"). Both statements would be equally orthodox in meaning, though not equally orthodox in expression.

In order to prevent this kind of misunderstanding from happening, the Church must prohibit certain expressions from being used (such as "Jesus is not God") even though they can be given an orthodox reading.

This happened in the 1500s when the Protestant Reformers began to use the term "faith" in a novel way and began preaching salvation by "faith alone." Throughout Church history the term "faith" has normally been used to mean "intellectual assent to the teachings of Christ" (hence the infidels are those who do not accept the teachings of Christ—Muslims, Jews, etc. (Infidels are those who have never embraced the Christian faith, as opposed to schismatics, who accept the teachings of Christ but have broken from union with the Church, and as opposed to heretics, who accept some but not all of the teachings of Christ, and as opposed to apostates who have once accepted the Christian faith and then totally repudiated their profession of faith.)

 

[stan the man]

Righteousness and Merit

The Catholic Church was left with no choice but to prohibit the use of the phrase "faith alone." It would have been grossly misunderstood by the common man (as the fact Protestantism has been plagued since its inception with a battle against internal antinomian factions). And, in fact, the formula "faith alone" is against the language used in the Bible, for while we regularly read in Scripture of justification "by faith", the only time the phrase "faith alone" appears in Scripture it is explicitly rejected as a means of justification (Jas. 2:24). Even if some can give this text a meaning which does not contradict their doctrine, this does nothing to change the fact that the formula faith alone goes directly against the language of Scripture, even if not against the doctrine of Scripture.

 

[stan the man]

Righteousness and Merit

With this as background on the necessity of distinguishing the different senses in which terms can be taken and on the necessity of a community having fixed meanings for the terms it uses, I can proceed to look at the confusion that exists in Protestant minds concerning the Catholic view of righteousness and merit.