I
came across an interesting dialogue between John Pacheco, a Catholic, and
Micahel Foord, a Reformed Protestant, on the doctrine of justification, Rescuing
the Romans from the Reformers Again.
Here are some highlights (Pacheco’s comments are in blue; Foord’s are in red):
On
Rom 5:16, 18 supporting transformative justification (cf. here
for my discussion of Rom 5:19)
Here's a point to consider. If justification is
based on a righteousness that is only forensic and alien, having no basis in reality,
then does the converse apply to condemnation? I mean, it's Mr.
Foord who is saying:
"...in Romans 5:16 and 18 the nouns
for "justification" (dikaioma and dikaiosis)
are antonyms of the noun "condemnation" (katakrima). So
whatever "justification" / "justify" means, it must be the
opposite of "condemnation" / "condemn"."
Hence, not wanting to contradict Mr.
Foord's fine pretext, I shall only demand that he be consistent in applying his understading of
"justification" to "condemnation". If "justification"
is forensically based (i.e righteousness being legal and not real), then that
must mean, according to Mr. Foord, that the condemnation of God is also
forensically and declaratively based on something which is also not real. But
we know that God's condemnation is indeed based on something real (i.e. serious
sin, unbelief, etc). [If you aren't saved, you go to hell, and that's a very
real experience.] So what does this revelation show us? It shows us that the
Reformers view of justification is as fictitious and erroneous
as their necessary and compulsory view of condemnation. Either both
are based on something real or both are not real. In which realm do you think
the great I AM operates? Does He condemn you on something which is legal only?
No, you say, His condemnations have their basis in reality? Well, the same
applies to "justification", then. Its basis is on a real
righteousness and not a mere declarative one.
On
the meaning of δικαιοω, we read the following:
As a side issue, which we do not have
time to go into, there are three meanings to the verb "to justify" (dikaioo)
in the NT. What is disturbing for the Roman Catholic is that none of the three
meanings concur with the classic Roman Catholic rendering "to make
righteous by a conferral of righteousness."
Sure it does, Mr. Foord. Here are but
two examples of many:
"And that is what some of you were.
But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." ( 1 Cor 6:11)
"...he saved us, not because of
righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the
washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us
generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by
his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life." (Titus
3:5-7)
Sin is washed away: Psalm 51:2,7; Isaiah
1:16; Ezek. 36:35; Acts 22:16; Hebrews 1:3; 1 John 7.
"Have mercy on me, O God, according
to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion blot out my
transgressions. Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. For I
know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me. Against you, you only,
have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right
when you speak and justified when you judge. Surely I was
sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Surely you desire
truth in the inner parts; you teach me wisdom in the inmost place." (Psalm
51:1-4)
Here is a question for Mr. Foord: If we
are to understand "justify" in a declarative and forensic sense so
that we are "declared or pronounced righteous" without actually being
so, then does that mean that God "being justified" is also only
"declared or pronounced righteous" without being so? If He is truly
righteous, then why does Scripture use dikaioo to describe
God's state if it is only a legal, forensic concept? Furthermore, how can God
(who cannot lie or deceive us) declare something which is not? Can God say
"the sky is green" when, in actuality, it is not? Can God say
"you are righteous" when, in actuality, you are not?
On
Gen 15:6 and the justification of Abraham (see here
and here),
Forod admits that Abraham was not initially justified in this verse, and
instead, was initially justified in Gen 12, contra many Reformed apologists
(e.g., James R. White, The God Who
Justifies [2001]):
Abram was justified, at least by Gen. 12:1 (because
he had faith then according to Heb. 11:8), and yet in Gen. 15:6 we find that
his faith was what "counted" for righteousness. What does this mean?
Quite simply Gen. 15:6 is not a statement about Abram's initial justification.
It is a statement about what kept Abram in a justified state (or
righteousness). Paul deploys Gen. 15:6 to show that faith is the key element
that God "counts" (or takes into account) in establishing one's
righteousness (or righteous state). Faith itself is not the
"righteousness"; the words cannot be construed that way (note the
prepositional phrase eis dikaiosunen"for
righteousness" or "aimed at righteousness"). Faith alone is the
instrument that brings one into the justified state, and faith alone is the instrument
that maintains one in the justified state (Phil. 3:8-9; Rom. 11:20; Col.
1:23).
There
are other interesting portions of this dialogue that Latter-day Saints will
appreciate.
