|
Luther
The next chapter
of Sproul’s book deals with Luther at Worms, which can only
be touched on briefly here. Sproul spends some time on
Indulgences (three pages), and the fact that there was abuse going
on among the clergy. No honest Catholic denies this. Was
this brought up it to prove that there are sinners in the Catholic
Church; then we are guilty? Is it to show that even bishops
abused this doctrine? Guilty again. In fact, As Sheldon
Vanauken wrote in A Severe Mercy, “In the very year that
Henry VIII’s obedient Parliament named him head of the
English church, Pope Paul III went through the streets of Rome in
sackcloth and ashes for the sins of his predecessors.”
Again, this was an error, an abuse, in the practice of a
doctrine, not an error in the doctrine itself.
Sproul then adds an interesting quote from Luther: “The
publicity did not appeal to me. For . . . I myself did not know
what an indulgence was, and the song was getting too high for my
voice.” Undoubtedly, the reason for this quote was to
show how humble a man Luther was. Luther was in essence
saying, “I don’t know what you’re doing, but
whatever it is, it’s wrong.” Are we really to be
expected to view as credible one such as Luther one who so
forcefully argues against something he admits he doesn’t
understand?
Justification
and Faith
Chapter 4 deals
with justification and faith. Here Luther is quoted as saying,
“the article of justification is the master and prince, the
lord, the ruler, and the judge over all kinds of doctrines; it
preserves and governs all church doctrine and raises up our
conscience before God. Without this article the world is utter
death and darkness.” Sproul then quotes J. I.
Packer speaking on Luther’s thesis that the church stands or
falls on this doctrine. “By this he meant that when this
doctrine is understood, believed, and preached, as it was in New
Testament times, the church stands in the grace of God and is
alive; but where it is neglected, overlaid, or denied, as it was
in medieval Catholicism, the church falls from grace and its life
drains away, leaving it in a state of darkness and death. The
reason why the Reformation happened, and Protestant churches came
into being, was that Luther and his fellow Reformers believed that
Papal Rome had apostatized from the gospel so
completely in this respect that no faithful Christian could with a
good conscience continue within her ranks.” Sproul
then adds; “Packer rightly observes that the issue of
justification became an issue, not merely of errors or even
heresy, but of apostasy. Rome considered Luther to be
apostate. The Reformers likewise considered Rome to be
Apostate.”
Now if the
Reformers were correct, then what do we make of the statement in
Matt 16:18; “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this
rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not
prevail against it?” Interestingly, if the Reformers accused
Rome of being apostate, then they must have believed that she was
originally the true church. In order to be apostate, you must
first be teaching the truth. Thus, if Rome was first
preaching the truth, it must have been Christ’s Church. So,
I ask you dear reader, did Jesus lie, or was He just unable to
keep His promise? Some Evangelicals respond by saying that it was
just because Jesus kept His promise that the Reformation
happened! What they are really, in effect, saying is that Rome was
so corrupt that even God couldn’t fix the problem, so he
built a second, or substitute church.
But
how does that square with the Scriptures? “For
this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined
to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This
mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to
Christ and the church”; “For the
husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the
church, his body, and is himself its Savior.”
Christ and the Church are inseparable. The Church, being the
body of Christ, cannot go astray, for you would then have the body
going one way and the head another. The Church is the virgin bride
of Christ! The Reformers want us to believe that the bride
was unfaithful, so Christ divorced her and married another.
As St. Cyprian said, “the pure and chaste bride of
Christ is not able to commit adultery.” So in
order for the Reformers to be right, we have to believe that
Christ forsook his bride and married another which is, in a sense,
accusing Christ of committing adultery. “Take heed to
yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made
you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained
with the blood of his own Son.” Christ purchased the
Church with his own blood, but the Reformers say that Christ’s
Church apostatized. In another vein they say that because
Christ died for me, the true believer can never lose heaven.
In other words, the individual is eternally secure, but the church
built by Christ to lead that individual to salvation is not.
If the argument
is that the early Church Fathers were in apostasy, being that
there is no evidence in their writings of Sola Fide, then why did
God wait 1500 years to correct this most important area of faith?
This is an argument that the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses use to
attempt to validate their own unusual doctrines.
Returning now to
the J. I. Packer quote: “ . . .this doctrine is understood,
believed, and preached, as it was in New Testament times . . .”
Again we see this Evangelical idea that justification by faith
alone was early Christian practice, yet still no evidence. There
is, however, plenty of evidence that supports the Catholic
Church’s position on this matter. One example is from Justin
Martyr; “And reckon ye that it is for your sakes we have
been saying these things; for it is in our power, when we are
examined, to deny that we are Christians; but we would not live by
telling a lie. For, impelled by the desire of the eternal and pure
life, we seek the abode that is with God, the Father and Creator
of all, and hasten to confess our faith, persuaded and convinced
as we are that they who have proved to God (4) by their works that
they followed Him, and loved to abide with Him where there is no
sin to cause disturbance, can obtain these things.” You
see Justin saying it is in our power to deny Him, that reminds us
of the Scripture passage: “ but whoever denies me before
men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.”
No, Justin Martyr did not preach “justification by faith
alone,” nor did he preach that we cannot lose our salvation.
Then this from
St. Ignatius; “And do ye, man by man, become a choir,
that being harmonious in love, and taking up the song of God in
unison, ye may with one voice sing to the Father through Jesus
Christ, so that He may both hear you, and perceive by your works
that ye are indeed the members of His Son. It is profitable,
therefore, that you should live in an unblameable unity, that thus
ye may always enjoy communion with God.” Note it is God
doing the perceiving here. Ignatius says that God will “perceive
by your works that ye are indeed the members of His Son.”
He doesn’t say ‘perceive by your faith.’
Thus Ignatius does not believe that we are merely saved by faith
alone.” Ignatius goes on to say it is profitable to “live”
in unblameable unity so that “ye may always enjoy communion
with God.” The assumption is that if you don’t
live in this unity, you will no longer have communion with God.
All this is from St. Ignatius, who was a disciple of St. John the
Apostle. Is it possible he got it so wrong so early on?
That St. John didn’t teach him right? Or is it simply that
Ignatius was never taught, nor did he himself teach,
“justification by faith alone?”
How about this
from St. Cyprian; “You, then, who are rich and wealthy, buy
for yourself from Christ gold purified in fire, for with your
filth, as if burned away in the fire, you can be like pure gold,
if you are cleansed by almsgiving and by works of justice.”
A
popular device used by Evangelical apologists today is what
Catholic Apologist Pat Madrid refers to as “hijacking the
Fathers.” “This ploy mimics the Jehovah
Witnesses and Mormons, who also attempt to defend their unorthodox
teachings from behind a carefully constructed facade of patristic
quotes - quotes invariably taken out of their immediate context
and without regard to the complete writings of the fathers.”
One example of
this “hijacking” in Evangelical circles is the
following quote from St. Clement of Rome around the year 95 AD
used by James White in an on-line discussion with Art Sippo trying
to prove ‘sola fide.’ “They all
therefore were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or
their own works or the righteous doing which they wrought, but
through His will. And so we, having been called through His will
in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through
our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought
in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God
justified all men that have been from the beginning; to whom be
the glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
By this quote,
Mr. White hoped to prove that Pope St. Clement preached “sola
fide.” But note how Sippo responds; “As usual,
Mr. White fails to complete the quotation and misrepresents it.
Pope St. Clement I continues: “What then shall we do,
brothers? Shall we idly abstain from doing good and forsake love?
May the Master never allow this to happen, at least to us; but let
us hasten with earnestness and zeal to accomplish every good work.
For the Creator and Master of the universe Himself rejoices in his
works... We have seen that all the righteous have been adorned
with good works. Indeed the Lord himself having adorned himself
with good works, rejoiced. So, since we have this pattern, let us
unhesitatingly conform ourselves to his will; let us with all our
strength do the work of righteousness.: The good worker receives
the bread of his labor confidently, but the lazy and careless
dares not look his employer in the face. It is therefore necessary
that we should be zealous to do good, for all things come from
him. For he forewarns us: "Behold, the Lord comes, and his
reward is with him, to pay each one according to his work."
He exhorts us, therefore, who believe in him with our whole heart,
not to be idle or careless about any good work. Let our boasting
and our confidence be in him; let us submit ourselves to his will;
let us consider the whole host of his angels how they stand by and
serve his will... Let us therefore make every effort to be found
in the number of those who patiently wait for him, so that we may
share in his promised gifts. But how shall this be, dear friends?
If our mind is fixed on God through faith; if we seek out those
things which are well-pleasing and acceptable to him; if we
accomplish those things which are in harmony with his faultless
will, and follow the way of truth, casting off from ourselves all
unrighteousness and lawlessness, covetousness, strife, malice and
deceit, gossip and slander, hatred of God, pride and arrogance,
vanity and inhospitality. For those who do these things are
hateful to God and not only those who do them, but also those who
approve of them....” (Pope St. Clement of Rome to the
Corinthians 95 AD) Please note that in Chapter 35 of Pope St.
Clement's epistle he says that having our mind "fixed on God
through faith" is not enough. We must also seek to do things
that please him and are in harmony with his will while casting off
all connection to sin. It is obvious that the faith that Pope St.
Clement spoke of in Chapter 32 was the complete "saving
faith" that includes faith, hope and charity. This is the
Catholic doctrine of justification. It is incompatible with the
Reformation creed.”
It is most
likely that in the passage Dr. White used, Clement was dealing
with the idea of “boasting” that Paul so sharply
criticized in Romans 4:2-3.
The Importance
of Justification
Turning to the
section titled “The Importance of Justification,” Dr.
Sproul offers the following verse as evidence: “What
then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have
already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the
power of sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not
one; . . . 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.”
This is how he
explains this verse: “The ominous warning of the apostle is
that ‘no flesh will be justified in His sight.’
Fortunately this is not the whole sentence. It is not an
absolute denial of justification. If there will be no
justification in his sight, then all disputes about the way of
justification would be vain disputes, much ado about nothing, then
there is no gospel - no good news, only bad news. But this
is not the entire statement. Paul does not say there will be no
justification. What he does say is that no flesh will be
justified in God’s sight by the deeds of the law. Paul
does not exclude justification altogether. He does exclude
it by virtue of our doing deeds of the law. Justification on the
grounds of our works is eliminated.” Sproul
then adds “The verdict of the law on sinners was known in
the Old Testament. Psalm 130 asks a question that is clearly
rhetorical: “If You, Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord,
who could stand.” (130:3) The answer to the psalmist’s
question is abundantly clear. Who could stand? No one, certainly
not I. Certainly not you. If we are judged by the law in terms of
our own righteousness, we will not stand; we are certainly
fallen.”
Now, this
certainly sounds like a reasonable argument. Certainly the
law of God requires perfection, for he is perfect. But I believe
there is more to this than meets the eye. After all, isn’t
that just what Jesus demanded of us in Matthew’s Gospel:
“You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father
is perfect.” Since God cannot deceive us by
asking us to do something that is impossible, let us dig a little
deeper into this and see what we come up with.
For starters,
let’s look at Psalm 130 in its entirety: “Out of
the depths I cry to thee, O LORD! Lord, hear my voice! Let thy
ears be attentive to the voice of my supplications! If thou, O
LORD, shouldst mark iniquities, Lord, who could stand? But there
is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared. I wait for
the LORD, my soul waits, and in his word I hope; my soul waits for
the LORD more than watchmen for the morning, more than watchmen
for the morning. O Israel, hope in the LORD! For with the LORD
there is steadfast love, and with him is plenteous redemption. And
he will redeem Israel from all his iniquities.” You see the
Psalmist is asking a rhetorical question, but it is one that
he answers himself saying “there is forgiveness with thee.”
Note what the Psalmist says next: “My soul waits, and in
his word I hope.” This describes an effort on the Psalmist’s
part. He must be patient and maintain hope in his heart as he
waits on the Lord. “Hope” as in “I don’t
see it yet, although I long for it”(see Romans 8:24).
Let’s take
a look at another Psalm: “ The LORD rewarded me according
to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he
recompensed me. For I have kept the ways of the LORD, and have not
wickedly departed from my God. For all his ordinances were before
me, and his statutes I did not put away from me. I was blameless
before him, and I kept myself from guilt. Therefore the LORD has
recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the
cleanness of my hands in his sight.” In verse 23,
David says he was “blameless before him.” Now here
David clearly believes he is righteous. It is clear that it
is David’s righteousness, and no one else’s. It
is not to be viewed as an alien righteousness; that is, the
righteousness of Christ imputed to him, as there is no evidence
for this in the text. This is so because David is being
viewed through the eyes of grace, not the Law. This quote is
something that fits Catholic theology, but would be foreign in
Protestant circles.
So how is it
possible that in the Romans passage, quoting the Psalms, cited
above it says “There is none righteous, no not one, and this
Psalm has David declaring himself righteous and blameless before
the Lord? We need to go back to the text. In the
Romans citation Paul is quoting from Psalm 14, which reads: “"The
fool says in his heart, "There is no God. "They are
corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good.
The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see
if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. They have
all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that
does good, no, not one. Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers
who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the
LORD? There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the
generation of the righteous.”
When read in
context, you see two groups of people in the passage, the
unrighteous, and the righteous. Those that the Psalmist says are
“none that does good, no, not one” are the same
ones who “eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not
call upon the LORD.” Those spoken of who
have all gone wrong are the fools who have said “in his
heart, "There is no God." These “fools”
are those who persecuted God’s people. As Dr. Scott Hahn
points out, they are most likely the Jews themselves. Jews like
king Saul who hunted David down. This passage goes on to say there
are indeed those whom God views as righteous; “for God is
with the generation of the righteous.” So to take the
passage out of context and use it as a catchall for all peoples is
to take the untenable position that Paul didn’t understand
the context of Psalm 14 when he used it. Besides, as Hahn again
argues, “How could Paul expect to win over his Jewish
hearers by wrenching this text out of context?”
If the Protestant
will not accept this proof, then let him turn to some other
Scripture passages: “ . . .and her husband Joseph, being
a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce
her quietly. (Matt 1:19)”; “Now there was a man in
Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and
devout, looking for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit
was upon him (Luke 2:25)”; “ . . . there
was a priest named Zachariah, of the division of Abi'jah; and he
had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the
commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless (Luke 1:5-6).”
Now here are three New Testament passages
which speak of individual’s as being righteous. This is in
direct contradiction to what the Protestant believes Romans 3:12
says, yet we know the Scriptures cannot contradict themselves. We
also know that Abraham was considered righteous, as was Job (see
Job 1:1), not to mention Elijah and Enoch. And what of the
passage in the preceding chapter: “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. (Rom 2:14)”
This passage implies that there are Gentiles who did “by
nature what the law requires,” and as Paul later says
“So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just
and good (Rom 7:12).” Therefore, those who did what the Law
requires must have been holy and just and good before the
Lord. There is no reference of a “forensic” type of
righteousness in these passages.
Realize that I am
not speaking of a righteousness strictly received on our own
strength and power, because we can’t do it on our own. But I
speak of a righteousness that comes about as a result of placing
your trust in the Lord and relying on Him to make up for ones
deficiencies.
And what of this
“deeds of the law” that Paul speaks? Dr. Sproul and
other Protestants use Romans 3:28 as a proof text for their
position: “For we hold that a man is justified by faith
apart from works of law.” The meaning put forward then by
the Protestant apologist is that “works of the law” is
the same as “good deeds.” Is that the sense in
which Paul is speaking here? We don’t think so.
Although Paul was speaking here of the Mosaic Law, it could be
argued that he had in mind ALL law, including the Ten
Commandments. He was, after all, speaking to the Judaizers.
He was trying to teach his listeners you can’t bargain with
God. These Jews thought that if they obeyed the Law, they could
‘force’ God into rewarding them with salvation.
That why Paul uses the ‘wages’ imagery in this book
(Romans 4:4, 6:23). The Jews thought they could ‘earn’
salvation by following the Mosaic Law, but Paul corrects them
saying that it is only in Christ do we merit salvation. Your works
(of the Law), by themselves, are as “filthy rags”, as
Isaiah says. But in Christ, they become stepping stones
towards that eternal reward, which is heaven. That is why
Paul could proclaim in Romans 2 that God will “render to
every man according to his works.”
Sproul now turns
to Romans 3:21-26: “But now the righteousness of God has
been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets
bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in
Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction;
since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are
justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is
in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his
blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's
righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed
over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he
himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in
Jesus.”
“Here Paul
declares a way of justification different from justification by
the deeds of the law. It is not a novelty, proclaimed for
the first time in the New Testament. This way of justification is
witnessed to by the prophets and by the law itself. It is
justification through faith in Jesus Christ. This justification is
not given to everyone. It is provided to all, and on all,
who believe. It is based on the righteousness of God that is
provided to and on the redeeming work of Christ. This manner
of justification demonstrates God Himself to be both the just
and the justifier.”
“Again, the
dilemma faced by the sinner summoned to the judgment seat of God
is this: the sinner must appear before a divine judge who is
perfectly just. Yet the sinner is unjust. How can he
possibly be unjust and justified? The answer to this
question touches the eye of the Reformation hurricane. For
God to justify the impious and himself remain just in the process,
the sinner must somehow become actually just by a righteousness
supplied him by another.”
Here Dr. Sproul
rightly identifies the problem, but comes up with an incorrect
solution
“Sola
Fide declares that the ground of our justification is solely the
righteousness of Christ. It is a righteousness that is extra
nos. It is apart from, or outside of us, not a part of us,
before faith.”
One of the
problems with the Protestant theology here is that it infringes
upon the integrity of God, or at the very least, makes Him
powerless. It, in essence, denies the sovereignty of the
Almighty. It claims that Adam’s fall was so great
that not even God, who created man from the dust of the earth,
could make man right again. Or, to paraphrase Scott Hahn,
does God say: “Oops, plan A didn’t work. We
better try plan B.” While this doctrine says “God
declares you righteous”, but you’re not righteous puts
God in a precarious position, claiming something to be that it is
not. God is Truth, and cannot lie, therefore there is an
intrinsic problem to this teaching. After all, God’s
word is all-powerful. Therefore, if God declares us
righteous, we truly become righteous. Yes, we are sinners,
and even after that declaration, we continue to sin. But as
that bumper sticker reads “God isn’t finished with me
yet,” God really does make us righteous. As you
will see, God fills us with His Spirit, and that Spirit goes to
work in us, cleansing us of sin, and making us able to enter the
Kingdom of Heaven where “nothing unclean shall enter”
(Rev 21:27).
It was because of this reasoning in the sixteenth century that the
Catholic Church accused the Reformers that their concept of
justification was a “legal fiction.” “The Church
maintained that if justification is only a legal category into
which God places a man without being truly just in his own person,
then the justification is not real... This infringed upon the
integrity of God, who was put in a position of calling something
just that was not really just. Analogously, a
gold-plated coin is real, but that does not mean that the metal
underneath is real gold. Thus, for someone to call the
coin a genuine gold coin would be a lie.”
In response to
this charge, Sproul says: “Rome’s view presupposes
that the only true justness or righteousness is inherent
righteousness. It denies the truth of imputation. The Biblical
doctrine of justification is not a ‘legal fiction’.
It is a legal reality precisely because it is based on a real and
true righteousness. Neither Christ’s righteousness nor its
imputation to us is a matter of fiction. It represents the
reality of divine grace.”
Sproul misses the
point here. The charge of legal fiction as explained above deals
with the fact that God, who is Truth itself, cannot call someone
righteous, who is not righteous. Even if imputation were a
reality, the fact remains that the individual being called
righteous is not truly righteous. The righteousness of an
individual who is not righteous interiorly, but only exteriorly,
is an artificial righteousness. It is the same kind of
righteousness that Jesus condemned in the Scribes and Pharisees
when He said: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the
plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity.”
What did Jesus command of them? “You blind
Pharisee! First cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate,
that the outside also may be clean.” Jesus is
concerned with the interior of man, as He says in another place:
“there is nothing outside a man which by going into him
can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what
defile him.” You might say that by these verses alone, “sola
fide” is condemned. This is so because “sola fide”
proponents say we are still defiled on the inside after we become
saved, that is via imputation. Thus, the one
to whom Christ’s righteousness is said to be imputed, is
still defiled in the eyes of Jesus. This then, would make
Jesus the biggest hypocrite of all. He who commands the Scribes
and the Pharisees to do something, (cleanse the inside first)
doesn’t command it of His own disciples. Yes, the concern of
our God is to clean up the interior of man first, then worry about
what is on the outside, the complete opposite of the Protestant
‘imputation’ theory.
Then, there is
the problem dealing with the following passage: “He is a
Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the
heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but
from God.” Here we have Paul saying that
God’s praise is for those who have circumcised their hearts,
that is became pure inwardly. You cannot impose a belief of
imputation on this passage.
According to
James Akin, there is another problem with the ‘imputation’
theory: “if God simply saw us as Christ, if he gave us
Christ's own personal righteousness, then we would all be rewarded
equally in heaven. We would all be as righteous as Christ and so
we would all be rewarded equally. Since Scripture clearly teaches
that there will be different degrees of reward in heaven (1 Cor.
3:12-15), we must conclude that we will have different degrees of
righteousness. We may all be free of any unrighteousness. Second,
and similarly, if we all received Christ's own personal
righteousness then we would all be rewarded equally with Christ.
We would all have exactly the same level of glory as our Savior
who went to the Cross for us. This is clearly unacceptable. To
begin with, Scripture teaches that because Christ went to the
Cross, God gave him "the name above every name" (Phil.
2:8-9; cf. Eph 1:20-21). Having the name above every name is
therefore a unique blessing Christ has received because he alone
went to the Cross. He alone did that righteous act that got him
the name above every name. But if we all received Christ's
own personal righteousness, then we would all receive names as
glorious as Christ's. So Christ would no longer have a name above
everybody else's. Our names would be just as blessed as Christ's.
Your name would be a name equal in glory to that of Jesus of
Nazareth. This is clearly unacceptable. Christ alone has that
uniquely glorious name because Christ alone went to the Cross and
Christ alone has the level of righteousness that comes from going
to the Cross.”
To put it another
way, the Evangelical claims that we get to heaven on the basis of
the merits and righteousness of Christ, and his merits only, that
are imputed to us. Yet, because the Scriptures clearly teach
that there are different levels of happiness in heaven, somehow
what we do on earth “shines” through the righteousness
that is imputed to us (Christ’s own righteousness), and is
rewarded. Thus, we are to believe that our works done on
earth are, in a sense, added to the “finished work of
Christ.” This is untenable. How is it possible that our
works, tainted by sin as they are, can possibly “shine”
through the “blanket of righteousness” that is Christ?
If God sees the righteousness of Christ covering you, then that’s
all he would see, for there is nothing we can do that would add to
His righteousness and subsequently add to our glory in heaven!
In the same vein,
in James 5:16 we read: “the prayer of a righteous man has
great power in its effects.” Now, if everybody had the
righteousness of Christ, they would have the same “righteousness.”
This nullifies the impact of this verse, for then it wouldn’t
matter who prayed, for all prayers would have the same effect
because all believers, according to Protestant teaching, have the
same righteousness. This verse only makes sense in Catholic
theology.
The Evangelicals
claim: “But this idea that we are righteous takes
away from the glory of God by crediting to man something that
belongs to God alone. You infringe upon the finished work of
Christ on the cross.” Is that what we’re really doing?
Not at all. To use an example of this idea, imagine yourself back
in high school. You are the star quarterback for your
football team. You’ve broken all the school records
and made all state in the process. After you left the
school, they retired your jersey for antiquity, and the state
named you to their high school hall of fame. Now it’s 20
years later, and your son is now in that same high school where
“dad” was, and still is, a legend. What would give you
more glory, to have the coach come up to you and say “Johnny
is not the athlete you were when you played here, but we’ll
put him on the team anyway, even give him your same jersey
number.” Or to have the coach say; “Boy, that kid of
yours is every bit the player you were. In fact, he throws just
like you did when you were here, and has the same leadership
qualities you had. He even has the same attitude. There will
be no problem finding him a spot on our team.”? Obviously,
the second option brings the father more glory. Well, in the same
way, God fathers us, by empowering us with His grace so we can
become imitators of Christ as Paul was (1 Cor 11:1).
What is Faith?
What is “faith”
to the Evangelical? The Evangelical proclaims “we are
justified by faith alone,” but how does the Evangelical
define this faith. Sproul says: “During the
Reformation a threefold definition of saving faith emerged. The
constituent elements of saving faith are (1) notitia, (2)
assensus, and (3) fiducia. Each element was regarded as
necessary for saving faith. None of these elements, even fiducia,
taken alone or separately, is a sufficient condition for saving
faith. All three are essential to it.”
Notitia refers
to knowledge, assensus refers to intellectual assent, and
fiducia refers to the inner aspect, the heart.
Notitia :
“Notitia then refers to the content of faith. To be saved
one must believe certain basic information. It may be bare
minimum, but it must be something.”
Assensus :
“Intellectual assent involves the assurance or conviction
that a certain proposition is true. Luther spoke of the importance
of the assurance in true faith: ‘faith is and, indeed, must
be a steadfastness of the heart, which does not waver, wobble,
shake, or tremble, or doubt, but stands firm and is sure of its
case. . . .When this Word enters the heart by true faith, it makes
the heart as firm, sure, and certain as it is itself, so that the
heart is unmoved, stubborn and hard in the face of every
temptation, the devil, death, and anything whatever, boldly and
proudly despising and mocking everything that spells doubt, fear,
evil, and wrath. For it knows God’s word cannot lie.’”
Fiducia :
“Fiducia means a positive disposition of the soul or
mind to an object. To see how this works with respect to the
necessary condition for saving faith, let us consider the case of
Satan and his response to Christ. Satan does not lack
intelligence. He is aware - fully aware - of the identity of
Christ. Satan has the notitia. He is also fully
cognizant of the truth of the identity of Christ. Satan has
the assensus. But Satan personally places no fiducia
or trust in Christ. He resists Christ. In fact, he despises
Christ. . . The disposition or inclination of Satan’s
‘heart’ is utterly negative. Therefore, it can
be said Satan does not possess “faith” in Christ.”
Notice first of
all what the Evangelical’s have done to the “simple”
faith of the Gospel. They’ve compounded it into this complex
formula that Fiducia + notitia + assensus = ‘saving
faith.’ Where is the Scripture text that backs up this
claim? How many individuals, going by “Scripture
alone,” are going to come up with this same understanding of
“faith?”
Secondly,
regarding notitia. Note that the believer needs to do
something; i.e. “believe certain basic information,”
to qualify in this first of the three elements of ‘saving
faith.’ For the believer to “believe certain basic
information,” he must put forth a human effort of some sort,
even if it is only minute, to acquire this information.
Thirdly, look at
assensus. We are told that there must be a “steadfastness
of heart” to such a degree “so that the heart is
unmoved, stubborn and hard in the face of every temptation, the
devil, death, and anything whatever. . .” Now, we ask
you dear reader, how is one to know they have this “steadfastness
of heart” until death?, or at the very least, till one
undergoes many trials and tribulations in this life? Again, you
see an element of this so-called ‘saving faith’ that
requires the believer to put forth an effort to do something.
Finally,
fiducia. This, we are told, is a “positive
disposition of the soul or mind to an object.” One needs to
place one’s trust in the Lord for this element to be a part
of one’s “saving faith.” Again, another
act on the part of the believer, that is, to place your trust
and hope in Christ.
So, you have
three parts of “saving faith.” Each part requires an
effort on the part of the believer. Yet, Protestant theology
tells us there is nothing man can do for his justification.
To let Sungenis
say it, “This presents a huge problem for the imputation
theory for the theory holds that those do not who exhibit faith
cannot receive the imputed righteousness. To compound the
problem, the Protestant understanding requires a high quality of
faith in order to appropriate the alien righteousness of Christ.
For the Protestant theory to be compatible with James (Chap 2),
the individual’s faith must be of measurable quality that is
then, and only then, able to be the instrument to receive the
alien righteousness of Christ.” “As we have
argued before, if justification is a one-time act dependent solely
on faith, then there is no theological room for works to enter
into a description of the moment of faith. In reality, the man
could spend his whole life wondering if he has met the three
conditions. If he sins and falls away from faith then
he will be told that he never was a Christian originally because
he never had “saving faith.” What a terrible
predicament. In a system that boasts of giving the individual
assurance that he is saved, he really has no assurance at all, for
he can never be certain if he has exhibited “saving faith.”
|
|
