Scriptural Mormonism: Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

The following is an interaction with the supposed biblical proofs for the Reformed doctrine of imputed righteousness in the following recent work:

John Kauer, “Are You Considered as Good as Jesus? The Imputation Approach” in Sharing the Good News with Mormons, ed. Eric Johnson and Sean McDowell (Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House Publishers, 2018), 273-81, 339.

2 Cor 5:21 and Phil 3:9

When sharing the faith, it is important to have a Bible to reference appropriate verses that support the Christian position. Thus, I pulled out my copy and turned to 2 Corinthians 5:21. Holding the pages so he [the Mormon Kauer is witnessing to] could follow along, I read, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (p. 275)

With nothing more to add, I turned to Philippians 3:2-9 as I made a call to repentance. (p 279)

In 2 Cor 5:21, we read that the Father “made [Christ] to be sin for us, who knew no sin: that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” This verse is a couplet, and what is said about the first half is mirrored by the second, viz. that the Father made (γινομαι), not merely forensically declared, the Son to be “sin” (i.e. a sin-sacrifice), and as a result, believers “become” (γινομαι) the righteousness of God “in” Christ.

That we “become” righteousness, and not merely declared to be righteous based on an imputation of righteousness from an alien source can be seen in Rom 5:19:

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (δικαιος).

The verb “to be made” in this verse is καθιστημι, which means “to constitute.” It does not have the meaning of merely legally declaring something to be “x” without it actually being “x.” Compare the following usages of the verb in the New Testament:

Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made (καθιστημι) ruler over this household, to give them meat in due season? . . . Verily I say unto you, That he shall made (καθιστημι) ruler over all his goods. (Matt 24:45, 47)

And delivered [Joseph of Egypt] out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him (καθιστημι) governor over Egypt and all his house . . .But he that did his neighbour wrong trust him away, saying, Who made (καθιστημι) thee a ruler and a judge over us? . . .This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made (καθιστημι) thee a ruler and a judge? The same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush (Acts 7:10, 27, 35)

For every high priest taken from among men is ordained (καθιστημι) for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb 5:1)

For the law maketh (καθιστημι) men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. (Heb 7:28)

Note how the term is defined in TDNT:

Theologically the most significant verse is R. 5:19: ὥσπερ γὰρ διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν οἱ πολλοί, οὕτως καὶ διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλοί. Here, too, there is hardly any linguistic or material difference between κατεστάθησαν and ἐγένοντο. The meaning is that “as the many became sinners through the disobedience of the one man, so the many become righteous through the obedience of the one.” This does not imply that the forensic element is absent. 2 C. 5:21 and Gl. 3:13 show that in Paul ποιεῖν and γίνεσθαι do not necessarily bear an effective sense; they may also have an affective. The context decides. In R. 5 the forensic element is evident at v. 18 (κατάκριμα—δικαίωσις). Vv. 13f. also show that in the judgment of God the thing which counts is not exclusively the nature of the individual but the dominant character of the old (or the new) creation (→ ἐν, II, 541 f.). According to the current Jewish view God decides qualitatively in the sense that the quality ultimately decides His sentence and our destiny. Borrowing from other Jewish conceptions, Paul boldly reverses the relation. God’s sovereign sentence decides both destiny and quality. To be sure, guilt is involved. Yet it is in Adam that the many, and virtually all, became sinners. Conversely, the many, again virtually all, but in fact believers, become righteous in Christ in spite of their own sin (δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ, R. 4:5). They will stand forth as righteous in God’s judgment. Pronounced righteous, they will then normally become righteous in fact as well (R. 8:3 f.). Here, however, the emphasis is on the judicial sentence of God, which on the basis of the act of the head determines the destiny of all. The subtleties which have rightly been found in the passage lie in the teaching rather than the wording. The suggestion that Paul has united senses 1. and 2. into a pregnant eschatological riddle is too artificial. (Albrecht Oepke, “Καθίστημι, Ἀκαταστασία, Ἀκατάστατος,”in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–], 3:445–446)

BDAG, with reference to Rom 5:19, defines the term thusly:

3. cause someone to experience someth., make, cause τινά τι (Eur., Androm. 635 κλαίοντά σε καταστήσει; Pla., Phlb. 16b ἐμὲ ἔρημον κατέστησεν; POxy 939, 19 σε εὐθυμότερον; Jos., Ant. 6, 92; 20, 18; Just., A I, 33, 6 τὴν παρθένον … ἐγκύμονα κατέστησε) ταῦτα οὐκ ἀργοὺς οὐδὲ ἀκάρπους καθίστησιν this does not make (you) useless and unproductive 2 Pt 1:8.—Pass. be made, become (Menand., fgm. 769 K.=483 Kö. ἅπαντα δοῦλα τοῦ φρονεῖν καθίσταται; Herodas 1, 40 ἱλαρὴ κατάστηθι=be(come) cheerful; Diod. S. 17, 70, 3; Περὶ ὕψους 5; PRein 18, 40 [108 BC] ἀπερίσπαστος κατασταθήσεται=‘be left undisturbed’; EpArist 289 σκληροὶ καθίστανται; Philo, Aet. M. 133) ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν … δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται Ro 5:19 (FDanker in Gingrich Festschr. ’72, 106f, quoting POxy 281, 14-24 [20-50 AD] in possible legal sense; cp. PTebt 183; but cp. Cat. Cod. Astr. IX/2 p. 132, 12 of restoration to a healthy condition). The two pass. in Js where the word occurs prob. belong here also (φίλος τ. κόσμου) ἐχθρὸς τ. θεοῦ καθίσταται 4:4; cp. 3:6, where the text may not be in order.—JdeZwaan, Rö 5:19; Jk 3:6; 4:4 en de Κοινή: TSt 31, 1913, 85-94.—Restored text Hs 10, 3, 4 (POxy 404 recto, 19) (s. καθαρότης).—DELG s.v. ἵστημι. M-M. TW.

Furthermore, no one doubts that one is more than just “declared” to be a sinner; one is actually a sinner and is sinful intrinsically; it would break the parallel between “being a sinner” and “being righteous” in Rom 5:19 to introduce into it such a distinction that Reformed theology reads into this verse (that the former is a real, ontological category, but the latter is only a legal category). Therefore, those who are said to be righteous (δικαιος) are not simply placed into a legal category and labelled “righteous”; they are actually righteous.

Some may appeal to Phil 3:9 as “proof” of monergism, as Kauer did:

And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.

The Greek reads:

καὶ εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ, μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου ἀλλὰ τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει

Some argue that this verse proves that Paul did not believe any righteousness within him will avail anything of God, but instead, he teaches reliance upon an imputed righteousness. However, what Paul is actually teaching is that the source of his (intrinsic, not imputed) righteousness which will avail before God will not come from the Law/Torah, but from his faith in Christ (or “the faithfulness of Christ”; the translation of the Greek term πιστεως Χριστου is debated in many circles and won’t be discussed here). Paul is not teaching monergism nor is he teaching that he will be declared “justified” based on the imputation of an alien righteousness.

This can be seen when one examines the literature contemporary with Philippians, including the following:

My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency (δικαιοσυνη) was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt (Dan 6:22 [6:23, LXX])

"For you were found righteous (δικαιος) before God, and he did not permit you to enter here, otherwise you see the evil that happened to the people by the Babylonians. (4 Baruch 7:25)

Noah was found perfect and righteous (δικαιος); in the time of wrath he was taken in exchange [for the world;] therefore was he left as a remnant unto the earth, when the flood came. (Sirach 44:17)

For Paul, he is concerned about the origins of the righteousness within him. He is not teaching an alien imputation of forensic righteousness in this text nor 2 Cor 5:21.

Secondly, with respect to the meaning of the preposition υπερ in 2 Cor 5:21, note the following scholarly discussion showing it does not necessitate a forensic model of justification and atonement:

There are various considerations which weigh against the interpretation of υπερ as αντι (“instead of”) in [2 Cor 5:14-15] . . . [one such example] is the Pauline addition of the aorist passive participle εγερθεντι at the end of verse 15. Using the ινα clause to express purpose rather than result, Paul notes that Christ died for all so that they might no longer live for themselves but for him who died and was raised for them (αλλα τω υπερ αυτων αποθανοντι και εγερθεντι). According to J. Bernard, the substitutional rendering of υπερ is “excluded by the fact that in the phrase υπερ αυτων αποθανοντι και εγερθεντι, υπερ αυτων is governed by both participles” . . . [I]f the participle is not related to the phrase τω υπερ αυτων, then “the flow of the sentence is broken, leaving us with a translation ‘he died for them and rose’ (for his own benefit). This breaks up the logic of Paul’s argument.” Since it is more natural to see both participles as being associated with τω υπερ αυτων so that Paul’s argument remains intact, the idea of substitution must be absent. (Daniel G. Powers, Salvation through Participation: An Examination of the Notion of the Believers’ Corporate Unity with Christ in Early Christian Soteriology [Leuven: Peeters, 2001], 62, 63).

Commenting on 2 Cor 5:21 being part of a ινα clause and its use of the aorist subjunctive, Robert Sungenis noted:

The subordinate clause in 2Co 5:21 is a Greek ινα clause, with the verb in the aorist subjunctive. The ινα clause has been a wide range of usage in Koine Greek. Probably the only biblical usage of the actual result intended in a ινα clause is [Rev] 13:13. Some might argue that the main verb of the ινα clause is aorist and thus indicative of a precise moment in time, e.g., an event of imputation. The aorist, however, is always used with a subjunctive clause and the clause in question is correctly translated in English as “might become,” denoting both a potentiality and a process. Without the subjunctive aorist, the only other way to say the same thing in Greek would be to use the future indicative, which would also denote the potential in the future of an intended result. (Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, 2009], 301 n. 360)

Such is inconsistent with the Reformed understanding of imputation as the expected result (i.e., our being declared/imputed as righteous as Christ) takes place in a singular moment and we can look back on such, it being a past-event. However, the grammar of 2 Cor 5:21 teaches it is a potential future reality for then-believing Christians!

Finally, that the Reformed understanding is nonsensical can be seen in the fact that, if the Reformed understanding of the first part of 2 Cor 5:21 were true, that is, Christ was a penal substitute who had the sins of the elect imputed to him in their stead, then, taking the logic of penal substitution to the second half of v.21, one would have to conclude that the elect become the righteousness of God in the stead of Christ(!) Of course, such is a nonsense reading, but it does show the eisegesis Calvinism requires people to engage in to prop up such a theology.

2 Cor 5:21 and Phil 3:9, instead of supporting the Reformed doctrine of imputation, refutes such a blasphemous legal fiction.

Does Isa 64:6 teach Total Depravity?

[God] considers [works] as poop to gain Christ’s works. You see, to put on Christ’s works like a robe, it is necessary to come to Him without anything on. You cannot be wearing any of your own works. You must consider them as filthy stained rags, as Isaiah 64:6 says. (p. 280)

Isa 64:6 reads thusly:

But we are all as in an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. (Isa 64:6)

The term translated as “filthy rags” in Hebrew (כְבֶ֥גֶד עִדִּ֖ים ) is more potent; it means “menstrual garments.”

However, this is a prime example of how Reformed theology is built upon eisegesis, not exegesis, of the biblical texts. Firstly, Isaiah is speaking of the condition the people of Israel became as a result of infidelity to God and His covenant, not about the “natural” abilities of man (per Total Depravity of the TULIP). This can be seen in the previous verse which Calvinists tend not to quote when abusing this text, one that speaks of the natural abilities of man and one’s ability to please God with their good works:

Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways: behold, thou art wroth; for we have sinned: in those is continuance, and we shall be saved.

The Old Testament is a volume that many Christians, including Latter-day Saints tend to be unfamiliar with intimately, in comparison to the New Testament. However, the Old Testament is important for many reasons, not the least that the New Testament authors (and the Book of Mormon authors, too) appeal to the Old Testament writings, not just through direct quotation, but allusion and other literary means, and build their theology upon the Old Testament (“canonically challenged” is a term that is sometimes thrown out; I think it is a good term to use). The Old Testament, also, challenges many errant theologies today, including the different theologies of “Faith Alone” (I use the plural as there are many variations of the doctrine, both historically and in modern times).

Psa 18:20-28 speaks of meritorious good works and, based on one’s covenantal fidelity, God accepts that person. There is no hint at alien imputed righteousness, any variation of “faith alone” theology wherein good works is merely the fruit of salvation, and so forth:

The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my heart hath he recompensed me. For I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God. For all his judgements were before me, and I did not put away his statutes from me. I was also upright before him, and I kept myself from mine iniquity. Therefore, hath the Lord recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his eyesight. With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself upright; With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the forward thou wilt shew thyself forward. For thou wilt save the afflicted people; but wilt thou bring down high looks. For thou wilt light my candle; the Lord my God will enlighten my darkness.

That the prophet Isaiah did not teach Total Depravity can be seen in the use of clothing imagery in Isa 64:9-10 which reads as follows:

Their descendants shall be known among the nations, and their offspring among the peoples; all who see them shall acknowledge that they are a people whom the Lord has blessed. I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my whole being shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. (NRSV)

Notice how the people of God are said to be "clothed with the garments of salvation" and "covered with the robe of righteousness." While some, mainly Calvinists, may latch onto the last description as evidence that clothing imagery supports the conception of a forensic imputation of righteousness, one's possession of salvation is not reputation merely but a reality, with such clothing imagery serving the role of an outward sign of an inward reality.

Such mirrors the use of clothing imagery to describe, not the reputed merely, but the intrinsic righteousness of Yahweh:

The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he had girded himself; the world also is stablished, that is cannot be moved. (Psa 93:1)

Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. (Psa 104:1)

For more on this topic, see:

Does clothing imagery support imputation?

Transformative Justification in the Odes of Solomon

D&C 138:51 and Clothing Imagery

Martha Himmelfarb on Clothing Imagery and Transformation in 2 and 3 Enoch

Commenting on Isa 64:6 and how Protestants such as Kauer abuse the passage, Mark Carrier wrote:

Mark Carrier wrote the following:

Now I encourage you to read it in context. This is Isaiah speaking in a penitent prayer to God, referencing and speaking on behalf of rebellious Israel. This is not God speaking about all of humanity for all time, but rather an emotional plea to God for a rebellious people, a very specific people—the prophet’s contemporaries.

Simply do a biblical word search for “righteous,” “upright,” and even “blameless” to see what you come up with. Regardless of translation, you will find literally hundreds of references to men and women who were considered “righteous” before God apart from Christ—that is, without an “imputed righteousness.” You will likewise find numerous references in the wisdom literature of the righteous commended by God. There is equal consistency in the New Testament. Prior to faith in Christ, Zacharias, Elizabeth, John the Baptist, Joseph the father of Jesus, Simeon, Joseph of Arimathea, and Cornelius were all called “righteous” and were praised for their conduct. This certainly does not mean these people were without sin (see for example Romans 3:9-10); it just means that they lived their lives pleasing to God, striving to adhere to His precepts. Never does God consider this filthy or bad.

In fact, John, the beloved apostle of Jesus’ inner circle, said this in his first epistle:

And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure. Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:3-10, emphasis added)

In this single passage we see concurrence with what we have covered thus far. Lawlessness is defined here as sin, (that is, disobedience to Christ’s law), consistent with the passages we discussed in Matthew 7 and 13. We also see that Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil; not just to forgive our sins, but rather to free us from sin—to break the chains and release us from the Law of Sin and Death. Again, one purpose of His atonement was to change us. He was not merely a legal transaction.

However, the passage was here introduced to dispel the myth of imputed righteousness. Jesus did not suffer and die for us to simply accept a hypothetical, spiritual “righteousness” that in actuality never manifests itself in our lives. He came to destroy the works of the devil, so that through Him we would be reborn free from the bondage of sin, and walk in ACTUAL righteousness by the power of the Holy Spirit. John says that he who PRACTICES righteousness IS righteous, not he who simply believes himself to be righteous “in Christ.” In fact, he explicitly says MAKE SURE NO ONE DECEIVES YOU otherwise! Have we accepted the deception of a false “gospel?” John again says that the one who does not practice righteousness is of the devil. This is no symbolic righteousness here; clearly one cannot “practice” something that is not real. This refers to a genuine, lived-out righteousness, the purpose of Christ’s atonement! (Mark Carrier, The Gospel According to Jesus: Unwrapping Centuries of Confusion [Values Driven Publishing, 2010], 17)

Further evidence that the biblical authors did not believe in “total depravity” can be seen in many places. One potent example is the case of Cornelius, a Roman Centurion and “God-fearer” (a Gentile who associated with the synagogue). Listen to the descriptions of him before his conversion and entrance into the New Covenant:

A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave alms to the people and prayed to God always. He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. And when he looked on him he was faraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. (Acts 10:2-4)

In the above pericope, Cornelius’ devotion, alms, and prayers were received by God, not as dirty rags (or “menstrual garments” per the underlying Hebrew of Isa 64:6), but as a “memorial.” The Greek term used is μνημόσυνον. This is a technical term in the LXX, often used in the sense of a memorial sacrifice or a placard used to perpetuate memory of a person or an event (in the Torah alone, see Exo 3:15; 12:14; 13:9; 17;14; 28:12, 29; 30:16; Lev 2:2, 9, 16; 5:12; 6:8; 23:24; Num 5:26; 17:5; 31:54; Deut 32:26).

It is not unusual, however, to hear from some Reformed apologists that Cornelius was converted prior to Acts 10 and that such positive statements reflect the (imputed) righteousness of a saved person and their sanctified state. However, this is a rather desperate attempt to avoid the plain meaning of the episode (which reflects lip-service towards the perspicuity of Scripture).

In a recent volume, Kermit Zarley discusses the difficulty with this claim:

Luke has two decisive texts indicating Cornelius was not saved prior to meeting Peter. First, Luke says that soon after this Cornelius episode, “When Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him, saying, ‘Why did you go to the uncircumcised men and eat with them?’” (Acts 11:2-3). Peter then related that Cornelius “told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house and saying, ‘Sent to Joppa and bring Simon, who is called Peter; he will give you a message by which you and your entire household will be saved’” (vv.13-14).

Second, Luke implies that at this time in Jerusalem, Peter spoke to “the apostles and the believers” (Acts 11:1). Then Luke says regarding what Peter said to them, “When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, ‘Then God has given even the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life’” (v.18).

Thus, Cornelius was not regenerated-saved prior to hearing Peter preach. (Kermit Zarley, Solving the Samaritan Riddle: Peter’s Kingdom Keys Explain Early Spirit Baptism [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2015], 137)

I could go on, but it is clear that the “T” of TULIP is utterly opposed to the Bible, ergo, Kauer's attempt to appeal to this to support the Reformed doctrine of imputation rests on eisegesis.

Does the use of Gen 15:6 in Rom 4 teach Imputation and Sola Fide?

[T]urning to Romans 4:1-5, I asked, “Do you remember the big question, ‘Are you considered as good as Jesus?’ This is what it means to be justified before God.” I then read the good news given to us by Paul:

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

I looked at Him and said, “Here it is again, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.’ God gave him a right standing the moment Abraham believed.” (p. 278)

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], and now Kauer) 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. So, let us ask the million dollar question:

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 Israel 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!

For more on the verb λογιζομαι in Greek texts contemporary with the New Testament, and how such refutes, not supports, the Reformed understanding, see, for example, my 7-part Λογιζομαι in texts contemporary with the New Testament series:

Part 1 (LXX Apocrypha)

Part 2 (Greek Pseudepigrapha)

Part 3 (Apostolic Fathers)

Part 4 (Josephus)

Part 5 (Philo)

Part 6 (Modern Lexical Sources)

Part 7 (Summary)

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.).

That Rom 4:5 teaches, not declared, but transformative, justification can be seen in the following from a leading Geek lexiographer:

Several times St. Paul uses dikaoō in its forensic OT sense, “declare or acknowledge to be just,” especially when he is quoting the OT, but it would be wrong to extend this meaning to all the texts. In the first place, this would be to forget that “verbs in –oō mean to make whatever the root indicates. Thus dikaoō should properly mean ‘make just.’ This meaning is not found in secular Greek for rather natural reasons.’”[86] In the second place, it would overlook the fact that St. Paul, as a converted Pharisee, perceived as no one else did the opposition between the new covenant and the old covenant, law and grace, circumcision and baptism, and perhaps especially the inefficacy of the old legal dispensation compared to the efficacy and realism of the dispensation of salvation centered on the cross of Jesus. The consequence is a radical change in ideas concerning righteousness/justification, as is seen in the frequent linking of the verb “justify” with faith in Christ and in the explicit contrast between justification and the works of the law; there is a different scheme or process for attributing justice/righteousness in the new covenant than in the old covenant. The apostle gives dikaoō a causative sense, as appears from Rom 3:24—“All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (cf. Rom 8:30; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:21); (henceforth) they are justified (present passive participle, dikaioumenoi) freely by his grace, through the redemption (apolytrōsis) that is in Jesus Christ.” God has shown his mercy, but not by pronouncing acquittal pure and simple; through Christ a price was paid, a ransom (lytron) with expiatory value (cf. verse 25: hilastērion), so that “sinners” have become just, have been made truly righteous.[87] Another clear text is Rom 3:26-“to show his justice/righteousness (his salvific action), so that (it might be established that) he himself is just and that he justifies (present active participle, dikaiounta) the one who has faith in Jesus”: the just God communicates his justice/righteousness and makes just.[88]

Notes for the Above

[86] M.J. LaGrange, La Justification selon saint Paul, Revue Biblique 1914, p. 121

[87] “The sacrifice of Christ has satisfied once and for all the demands for outward justice which God had deposited in the Law, and at the same time it has brought the positive gift of life and inward justice which the latter was unable to give” (P. Benoit, Exégèse et théologie, vol. 2 p. 39 n. 2); c. Rom 5:18—“justification gives life.” The best commentary is the Trinitarian baptismal text on the “bath of regeneration and renewal” (Titus 3:7), “so that having been justified by the grace of this (Jesus Christ) our Savior (ἵνα δικαιωθέντες τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι), we might become . . . heirs . . . of eternal life”: the aorist passive participle denotes the present state of this new and internal righteousness that permits entry into heaven, where nothing impure may go in. C. H. Rosman, “Iusticicare (δικαιουν) est verbum causalitatis,” in Verbum Domini, 1941, pp. 144-147.

[88] Cf. Rom 4:5—“The one who has no works but who believes in the One who justifies (δικαιουντα) the ungodly, will have his faith counted as righteousness.” M.J. Legrange (on this verse) comments: “δικαιοω in the active cannot mean ‘forgive’: it has to be ‘declare just’ or ‘make just.’ That God should declare the ungodly righteous is a blasphemous proposition. But in addition, when would this declaration be made?” H.W. Heidland (TDNT, vol. 4, pp. 288-292) explains λογιζεσθαι: “Justification is not a fiction alongside the reality. If God counts faith as righteousness, man is wholly righteous in God’s eyes . . . He becomes a new creature through God’s λογιζεσθαι.”

Source: Ceslas Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (trans. James D. Ernest; 3 vols.: Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994), 1:340-42

Related to this, another problem facing the common Sola Fide-fuelled eisegesis of Rom 4, one should note that, in Reformed theology, one is declared (not “made”) righteous based on the alien imputed righteousness of Jesus. However, the verse immediately after one of their favourite “proof-texts” (Rom 4:1-8) disproves this theory. In Rom 4:9 we read (emphasis added):

Ο μακαρισμὸς οὖν οὗτος ἐπὶ τὴν περιτομὴν ἢ καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀκροβυστίαν; λέγομεν γάρ· ἐλογίσθη τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ἡ πίστις εἰς δικαιοσύνην

Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

The “blessedness” of Abraham (his “justification”) is not based on imputed righteousness, but Abraham’s faith. Indeed, based on the strict grammar of the Greek of this verse and Rom 4:5, 22 refute Reformed soteriology and its understanding of the “ground” of justification.

One final consideration is this--that vv.5-8 of Rom 4 refutes Reformed soteriology. How so? In Rom 4:5-8, we read the following:

But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. So also David speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin." (NRSV)

In the above pericope, Paul quotes from Psa 32:1 (cf. Psa 52:1); the entire psalm reads as follows:

Happy are those whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Happy are those to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit. While I kept silence, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. Selah. Then I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord," and you forgave the guilt of my sin. Selah. Therefore let all who are faithful offer prayer to you at a time of distress, the rush of mighty waters shall not reach them. You are a hiding place for me; you preserve me from trouble; you surround me with glad cries of deliverance. Selah. I will instruct you and teach you the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you. Do not be like a horse or mule without understanding, whose temper must be curbed with bit and bridle, else it will not stay near you. Many are the torments of the wicked but steadfast love surrounds those who trust in the Lord. Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, O righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart. (NRSV)

In this psalm, David is proclaiming God's forgiveness of his sins of adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam 11-12). God sent Nathan the prophet to convict David of his heinous sins, with Nathan's parable of the little ewe lamb resulting in David being brought to his knees in repentance.

Paul in Rom 4, alongside the example of Abraham, uses this as an example of an individual who was justified by God, linking the justification of Abraham previously discussed with that of David's through the use of the conjunction καθάπερ ("even/just as") in v. 6.

The crucial question is "Was Psa 32 the first time David was forgiven of his sins and justified?" The biblical answer, which refutes Reformed soteriology, is "no."

The Bible clearly shows us that David, prior to committing those heinous sins, was a justified person. In his youth, David called on the Lord to defeat Goliath (1 Sam 17). David was so close to God that in 1 Sam 13:14 (cf. Acts 13:22) is described as a man after God's own heart, hardly something said of an unsaved person! Indeed, David was truly a justified child of God many years prior to the Bathsheba incident. If David was not justified, he was not a man of God, but a pagan idolater feigning belief in God in how he had lived his life prior to Psa 32 and had written earlier psalms before his encounter with Bathsheba in such a spiritually dead state with no true relationship with God.

As one writer put it:

We cannot escape the fact that Paul, in using the example of David in the context of justification, is saying not merely that David's sins were forgiven, but also that David was actually justified at this point. Paul, in Rm 4:5, underscores this fact both by speaking of "crediting righteousness" to David when he confessed his sin in Psalm 32, and by calling him a "wicked" person whom God must justify in order to return him to righteousness. We must understand, then, that a "crediting of righteousness" occurs at each point that one confesses his sins. Since this was not the first time David confessed sin before the Lord (which other Psalms verify, cf. Ps 25:7, 18; 51:5), he must have been "credited with righteousness" on each occasion of repentance. Since he was credited with righteousness upon repentance in Psalm 32, and since it is an established fact that he was not a man of God prior to his sin with Bathsheba, we must therefore consider all previous acts of repentance a "crediting of righteousness." (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone, 253)

Unless one wishes to accuse the apostle Paul of the grossest form of eisegesis (wrenching select passages of the psalter out of context), it is hard to escape that, based on sound exegesis, David lost his justification due to murder and adultery, and Psa 32 represents another justification (“re-justification” if you will) of David, per Paul’s soteriology. This disproves the Reformed view that justification is once-for-all, and can never be lost.

In his commentary on Romans and James, Sungenis addressed potential objections to the above comments about David and his being re-justified:

Protestants may object at this point that to use David's life as an example of the justification Paul speaks of in Rm 4:5-6 is beyond the scope of Paul's intentions. One could argue that Paul is simply referring to the forgiveness of David's sins after he had already been justified, once-for-all, many years earlier. But this cannot be the case, for several reasons:

(1) Rm 4:6, as noted above, specifically says that David was "credited with righteousness" in the event described in Psalm 32. Paul writes, "David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works." (Rm 4:5) Paul does not only say that Abraham was credited with righteousness; he also speaks of "the man" to whom God "credits righteousness," which man, in this case, happens to be David.

(2) To say that David was justified "once-for-all" prior to the incident in Psalm 32 is simply begging the question. The historical books give no indication that David had a single, point-in-time act of declarative justification such as Protestants are so apt to attribute to Abraham in Gn 15:6. The historical books, and many word pictures in the Psalms, present David's life of righteousness as a collage of continuing, intermingled faith and works.

(3) To say that Paul would extract a few verses out of Psalm 32 without reference to either the context of Psalm 32 or the entire life of David would be to accuse Paul of the grossest form of contextual distortion that a reputable commentator ever perpetrated on Scripture. Who would dare to say that Paul would take a quote out of context to prove his own theological point, all the while knowing that the quote, if read in context, would never support that point? No doubt, the Bereans of Acts 17, faced with that kind of shoddy exegesis, would have totally rejected Paul's teaching.

(4) One cannot use a chronological basis to reject our analysis of David's justification, an attempt Protestants often make with the chronology of Abraham's justification. Scripture simply offers no specific chronological framework to David's faith, works, and justification in Scripture. The Epistle of James analyzes the justification of Rahab in a similar fashion. Unlike James's accounting of the life of Abraham that he separates into Genesis 15 and Genesis 22, he does not do so with Rahab. Instead, he highlights her works as the pivotal point of her justification, making no chronological distinction between her faith in God and her works in hiding the spies. James introduces the account of Rahab in Jm 2:25 with the important phrase, "In the same way," showing that Rahab's justification was "the same" as Abraham's justification. If Rahab's works were the crucial point in her justification, it follows that Abraham's works were the crucial point in his justification; otherwise, they would not be "the same." Similarly, Paul uses the same language as James by introducing David's crediting with righteousness in Rm 4:6 when he says, "David says the same thing," showing that David's justification was the same as Abraham's. Since the respective stories of David and Rahab show no chronological distinction between faith and works, Protestants cannot make chronology a factor in supporting their belief in a single point-in- time forensic justification. (Robert A. Sungenis, The Epistles of Romans and James [The Catholic Apologetics Study Bible 3; Goleta, Calif.: Queenship Publishing, 2007], 266-67)

For those who wish to see meaningful biblical exegesis and discussion of justification, as opposed to Kauer's defence of such blasphemous legal fiction, see:

Christ's Baptism is NOT Imputed to the Believer

Refuting Jeff Durbin on Mormonism and the Atonement

Can our works save us? Refuting sola fide

Dave Bartosiewicz vs. Transformative Justification and Refutation of Dave Bartosiewicz on justification and the atonement being forensic

Does the Parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14) Support Sola Fide?

Jeff Durbin on Luke 7:35, James 2, and Justification