Many who hold to Reformed theology point to Gen 15:6 as biblical “proof” that Abraham was justified once-for-all at Gen 15:6:
And he believed in the Lord and he counted it to him as righteousness.
The Hebrew and Greek of this verse reads as follows (emphasis added):
וְהֶאֱמִ֖ן בַּֽיהוָ֑ה וַיַּחְשְׁבֶ֥הָ לּ֖וֹ צְדָקָֽה
καὶ ἐπίστευσεν Αβραμ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην
In the view of many Reformed apologists (e.g. James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy [1996]; The God Who Justifies [2001]) this text proves that justification is an external, forensic act where one is declared (not made or recognised to be [intrinsically]) righteous/just, and, furthermore, that justification, unlike (progressive) sanctification is static; it is not a process and cannot be lost by the individual.
While many topics could be discussed, in this post, I will limit myself to the phrase, “and it was reckoned/credited to him as righteousness" and whether the biblical authors interpreted Gen 15:6 in a way that is commensurate with the Reformed/Calvinistic reading of this verse.
Does the phrase, “And it was reckoned to him as righteousness” support Sola Fide?
In the Old Testament, only two individuals are said to have had righteousness reckoned to them. Abraham in Gen 15:6 and Phinehas in Psa 106:30-31.
For background on Phinehas, we have to turn back to Num 25 in which some of the men of the Israelite camp were engaging in cultic sexual intercourse with Moabite and Midianite women (e.g., Num 25:2-3, 6), resulting in God commanding Moses to kill them (Num 25:4), resulting in 24,000 who died in the plague (Num 25:9). In defiance of this divine command, and Israelite man brought a Midianite woman to his tent, more than likely to engage in such cultic sexual intercourse. Phinehas, a priest, saw this happen and took the following action:
And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; and he went after the man of Israelite into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. (Num 25:7-8)
Not only did Phinehas’ actions propitiate the wrath of God, but the psalmist, recounting the incident in Num 25 (Psa 106:28), and the meritorious act of Phinehas, wrote:
Then stood up Phinehas and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed. And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations. (Psa 106:31)
The only difference between the phrase used in Gen 15:6 and Psa 106:31 is that the former uses the Qal form of the verb חשׁב ("to reckon/credit"; LXX: λογιζομαι) as opposed to the Niphal form in the latter with no significant change in meaning. The phrase in both verses read identically in the LXX. The problem this poses to Reformed theology is that Phinehas is the recipient of this righteousness, not due to faith, but meritorious good works!
There has been no end of scrambling by Reformed apologists to answer this. One response is to dismiss this text as relevant simply because Paul did not appeal to it (this is the “response” by James White in his book The God Who Justifies and in his 2000 debate versus Catholic apologist, Robert A. Sungenis [available online here]). A similar response comes from Reformed author, John Murray:
For if he [Paul] had appealed to Psalm 106:31 in the matter of justification of the ungodly, then the case of Phinehas would have provided an inherent contradiction and would have demonstrated justification by a righteousness and zealous act . . .Genesis 15:6 is dealing with justification, as Paul shows. Psalm 106:31 is dealing with the good works which were the fruit of faith. (John Murray, Commentary on Romans vol. 1 p. 131 as cited by Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification, 246)
Sungenis (Ibid., 247-48) answers this charge rather cogently:
Murray’s claim that Paul’s quoting of Ps 106:31 would have “created a contradiction” is only true if one’s theology predisposes one to view Abraham’s crediting of righteousness as a forensic imputation — a mere considering of righteousness that is not inherent — rather than as a manifestation of infused righteousness inherent within the individual and appearing at a specified time. Murray’s theological presupposition forces him to put Paul in the dubious position of having purposely to ignore the only other time the phrase “credited with righteousness” is used of an individual in Scripture (Ps 106:31) just to prove a point and avoid a contradiction in his own theology. In fact, the only thing, according to Murray, that saves Paul from contradiction is Paul’s deliberate refusal to bring Ps 106:31 into the discussion. Though Murray makes a valiant attempt to salvage his own theology, he inadvertently puts Paul at odds with Scripture. This is a highly untenable situation in biblical hermeneutics since it has long been accepted by responsible theologians that Scripture is one cohesive whole which does not contradict itself. It also puts Paul at odds with himself, since it was he, inspired by the Holy Spirit, who quoted incessantly from obscure Old Testament passages — for example, Paul’s quote from the obscure passage of Hk 2:4 in Rm 1:17 — to prove to his audience what was not immediately obvious about the gospel and its relationship to the old covenant. Moreover, it was Paul himself who said that “All Scripture was inspired and profitable for teaching...” (2Tm 3:16), Ps 106:31 presumably included. Murray’s words, “For if he had appealed to Ps 106:31...then the case of Phinehas would have provided an inherent contradiction...” show the desperate lengths faith alone theologians will go to protect their presupposition. Can we imagine Paul ever teaching someone not to appeal to a certain Scripture — a Scripture that is so intimately related to the topic at hand — because it would contradict one’s interpretation of another Scripture? In the annals of biblical revelation, there is no such suggestion ever made by any of the sacred writers. Moreover, Murray’s claim that the work of Phinehas was merely the “fruit of faith,” does not offer him an escape from the clear language of Ps 106:31. If he can claim that Paul could not have used Ps 106:31 to prove his point about justification in Romans 4, then he must also admit that the Psalmist chose the wrong terminology to describe Phinehas’ righteousness, since under Murray’s hypothesis the specific words “credited with righteousness” may only refer to imputed righteousness. Murray cannot have it both ways, that is, he cannot, on the one hand, say that the language of Ps 106:31 is so strong toward teaching justification by works that Paul was forced to ignore the verse to avoid a contradiction, and, on the other hand, say that Ps 106:31 refers only to the fruit of faith but not justification proper. In the first suggestion he attempts to make the verse very strong, in the latter suggestion he attempts to make it very weak. Both cannot be true. Hence, someone is wrong, either the Psalmist or Murray. The evidence is against Murray, since his position argues from silence whereas the language of Ps 106:31, like the language of Gn 15:6, is clear and unambiguous. The Holy Spirit, through inspiration, assigns the work of Phinehas the same justifying nomenclature that is given to Abraham, i.e., “credited with righteousness.” Granted, Paul has a major point to make in Romans 4 concerning the crediting of righteousness to Abraham, but Paul sets the context of Romans 4 in opposition to the concept of legal obligation and the incessant boasting of the wayward Jews, not in opposition to God-glorifying and grace-prompted works such as those done by Phinehas. In effect, Murray’s error exposes the false notion in Protestant thought which understands work only as the qualifier of faith, rather than as an independent virtue which when added to faith has power to justify under the grace of God. Hence, the “inherent contradiction” Murray predicted is merely a contradiction in his own theology.
There are many other flaws in such an approach to the phrase, but let us consider just one more.
In Reformed theology, there is the doctrine of “Total Depravity,” which states that, although we are not as evil as we can be (due to the Spirit of God restraining our hearts), there is nothing inherently good within us, and until we are regenerated, justified and given true (“saving”) faith, we are evil in the eyes of God, and, furthermore, until we are irresistibly drawn to God by His efficacious calling (the “I” in TULIP being irresistible grace), we can do nothing good in the eyes of God, and any religious motivations we do are idolatrous, not righteous, in his eyes. However, this poses problems to Calvinism vis-à-vis the life of Abraham. We must ask that, if Abraham was justified once-for-all in Gen 15:6, which would mean that prior to this time he was “dead in sin” (per the Reformed understanding of this phrase from Eph 2:5), why did Abraham not only engage in pious religious activities but God accepted them? Consider the following which is not just textually prior to Gen 15:6, but chronologically prior to Gen 15:6, too:
And the Lord appeared unto Abraham, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land; and there builded he an altar unto the Lord who appeared unto him. And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the Lord, and called upon the name of the Lord. (Gen 12:5-6)
Do notice that Abraham did have an “object of faith,” namely Yahweh and the promises He made to Abraham (some will claim that Abraham did not have any “object” of faith, but any study of the life of Abraham preceding Gen 15:6 shows this to be a desperate ploy to avoid the obvious ramifications of this and similar verses have for Reformed soteriology).
What is even more devastating for James White et al., is that the New Testament refutes such a view, ascribing “saving faith” to Abraham and his wife in Gen 12, not 15:6(!)
Recounting many great heroes of faith, the author of Hebrews hearkens back to the Book of Genesis and the lives of Abel, Enoch, and Noah:
By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him; for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. (Heb 11:4-7)
In the above pericope, Abel, Enoch, and Noah, by their faith, are said to have pleased God. There is no question that this is not a “so-called” or “false” faith, but what Protestants would label a “true” or “saving” faith that, in their theology, appropriates the alien righteousness of Christ (per the historical Reformed interpretation of James 2). The problem, however, are the verses that follow:
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whether he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promise. (Heb 11:8-11)
The author of Hebrews, in the above pericope, ascribes “saving faith” to both Abram and Sarah. However, the incident in their life pertains to Abraham being called out of his homeland to the Promised Land, as recounted in Gen 12:1ff. This proves that the biblical authors believed Abraham had “saving faith” prior to Gen 15:6, refuting further Reformed theology. As is the case in so many instances, Reformed apologists and authors have to go against the Bible to prop up their made-man theology (e.g. imputed righteousness; sola scriptura; purely symbolic understanding of baptism; creedal/metaphysical Trinitarianism, etc.).
In this brief analysis, we have been that the claim that Gen 15:6 supports Reformed theology to be wanting, and that such a soteriology is in clear opposition to the clear teachings of the biblical texts about the meaning of the term, “it was credited to him as righteousness” and the walk with God Abraham had, as recounted in Gen 12 and Heb 11.