In King
David Refutes Reformed Soteriology, I quoted Roman Catholic apologist
Robert Sungenis' discussion of David being re-justified per the theology of
Paul in Rom 4 (cf. Psa 32). In his commentary on Romans and James, Sungenis
wrote the following in response to the likes of James White who try to downplay
the theological significance of Paul's use of David as an example of a justified
person with Abraham:
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 . . . specifically says that David
was "created 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, presents 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 [Catholic Apologetics Study Bible
Volume III; Goleta, Calif.: Queenship Publishing, 2007], 266-67)