In spite of having a new blog (a friend emailed me yesterday making me aware of such), Michael Flournoy is still engaging in the same time-worn form of eisegesis he has become known for, showing us the truth of Heb 6:4-6 and the rebellious nature of the apostate.
In an article Why
I’m Not A Calvinist (But I’m Considering It), we read:
Romans 5 also blew my
mind when reading through it. It was so contrary to everything I believed as a
Latter-day Saint. There I learned that Jesus was a second Adam. When the first
Adam sinned his transgression was imputed to us and when Jesus died his righteousness
was imputed instead.
Verse 19 is of
particular interest. It reads:
For as by the one
man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience
the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:19 ESV)
The implication this
verse makes is staggering. Adam’s transgression is accredited to mankind
despite our inaction, and this verse seems to say the same of the atonement.
Note the use of “accredited.” Flournoy is
trying to read the doctrine of forensic imputation of sin and righteousness
into this verse. There are many exegetical problems with this.
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)
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.
Catholic priest and
theologian, Patrick Boylan (no relation!) who was a professor of Eastern
Language at University College Dublin and Sacred Scripture and Oriental
Languages at the Pontifical University of Ireland (my alma mater) wrote the
following about Rom 5:19 and how καθίστημι is not forensic
as Protestants need it to be for their theology to stand up to biblical
scrutiny:
Paul here
elucidates v. 18—explaining the meaning of παραπτωμα and δικαιωμα, and of κατακριμα. The παραπτωμα is Adam’s παρακοη—or sin of
disobedience: opposed to it is the υπακοη, the obedience, of Christ (= the δικαιωμα; for,, Christ
as υπηκος, cf. Phil. ii. 8; Gal. iv. 4).
The κατακριμα is elucidated by αμαρτωλοι
κατεσταθησαν οι πολλοι and the δικαιωσις ζωης by δικαιοι κατασταθησοναι οι, πολλοι.
Καθισταναι does not
indicate a mere forensic or juristic result. As men were actually made sinners
by Adam’s disobedience, so they are made just by Christ’s obedience. When Paul says
that all are made just by Christ’s death, he does not imply
that each individual human being is actually justified through the death of
Christ. It is to be remembered that Paul is here making a contrast . . . The
future κατασταθησονται does not imply that the justification is purely eschatological,
but that it is a process which goes on continuously among men. There may be in
the future tense, also the hint of an eschatological aspect—a hint, that is, of
the official manifestation of the just at the Great Judgment. (Patrick
Boylan, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: Translation and
Commentary [Dublin: M.H. Gill and Son, Ltd., 1934, 1947], 92-93,
emphasis in bold added)
Some may appeal to
Phil 3:9 as “proof” of monergism, as some are wont to do:
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. Furthermore, in light of this and Rom 5:19
itself, Paul is not teaching that Adam’s sin is forensically imputed to
us and that Christ’s atonement/righteousness is imputed (“accredited”) to us,
too.
Interestingly, there is an important connection between δικαιοω and σωζω in the Epistle to the Romans, esp. chs. 3, 5, and 10. Scholar Chris VanLandingham noted the following about Rom 5:9-11 and 10:9-10, and how they do not support a forensic model of justification:
Several passages demonstrate a close relationship between “being made righteous” and “being saved”:
Therefore it is much more the case since we have now been made righteous by his blood that we shall be saved through him from (God’s) wrath. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his son, it is much more the case since we were reconciled that we will be saved by his life. Yet not only that but also we boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom now we have received reconciliation (Rom 5:9-11).
. . . because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved: for it is believed in the heart for righteousness, and it is confessed in the mouth for salvation (Rom 10:9-10).
Almost a priori one would assume a close connection between righteousness and salvation, otherwise there would be no point to Jesus’ death. Often, even outside of Paul, the δικαι- terms (or their equivalents) form the basis for salvation. Outside of Paul whenever the δικαι- terms (or their equivalents) provide the basis for salvation in its various forms, the δικαι- terms are never forensic. Likewise, in Paul there is no overwhelming reason that the δικαι- terms should be forensic and thus contrary to tradition and normal usage. Although Paul attributes righteousness to the effect of Jesus’ death, for him righteousness is righteousness no matter its source or medium, whether εκ νομου or εκ πιστεως (Rom 10:5, 6). For this reason righteousness εκ πιστεως can also lead to salvation.
If the δικαι- terms refer to acquittal, then Rom 5:9-11 makes little sense. If the δικαι- terms refer to acquittal, then Rom 5:9-11 makes little sense. If the δικαι- terms indicate an acquittal at the Last Judgment, then what is the reason for trying to prove that the acquitted one will be saved also? This salvation should be assumed, since no difference exists between being approved at the Last Judgment and being saved (cf. Rom 2:6-7). However, does not the nature of Paul’s argument que an argument a minor ad malus dictate against the two ideas being virtually equivalent?
Also, there is a perceivable difference in the temporal nature of the verb tenses with regard to δικαιοω and σωζω. By his use of verb tenses, Paul indicates that the gift of righteousness is an initiating event, whereas salvation remains future, even if the believer is already recorded in the book of life (Phil 4:3). Although Paul is not thoroughly consistent, δικαιοω as an effect of Jesus’ death is generally in a past or present tense, whereas σωζω is generally future. With regard to δικαιοω, the only exception is Rom 3:30 (Gal 5:5 . . .could be included here also); yet in light of the three present tense forms in 3:24, 26, and 28, this verse is a good example of a gnomic or logical future. With regard to σωζω the only true exception appears at Rom 8:24 where the aorist tense occurs. As Fitzmyer says, it has “an unmistakably future connotation” because the verb is governed by the prepositional phrase τη ελπιδι (Fitzmyer, “The Biblical Basis of Justification by Faith: Comments on the Essay by Professor Reumann,” in Reumann, “Righteousness” in the New Testament, 213). A few cases in the present tense occur (1 Cor 1:18; 15:2; 2 Cor 2:15), but these indicate only that the process of salvation has begun, as one would expect, not that it is completed in any sense (the idea of salvation as a present process is supported by 2 Cor 3:18 and 4:16. The future aspect is most clear at Rom 13:11). If the δικαι- terms refer to an acquittal, meaning a specific acquittal at the Last Judgment, then, this data seems difficult to reconcile. For this reason, it is common to regard the acquittal as proleptic. But this conclusion is simply a conjecture based on the tenuous notion that the δικαι- terms in Paul are forensic . . . In light of . . .the meaning of righteousness as an effect of Jesus’ death, would the phrase δικαιωθέντες νῦν ἐν τῷ αἵματι in 5:9 make any sense if the verb refers to acquittal? As at 3:25 (where the phrase is connected with ιλαστηριον), “by his blood” refers to Jesus’ death as a sacrifice. The purpose of a sacrifice is to deal with sin. Δικαιοω is used elsewhere in connection with sin in a way where it clearly cannot be rendered as referring to an acquittal (Ps 72:13; Sir 26:29; T. Sim. 6:1; Acts 13:38-39; Rom 6:7). Furthermore, since the καθαρ- terms are employed in the same fashion, it only follows that δικαιοω is roughly synonymous with καθαριζω when used to describe the removal of sin (The καθαρ- terms are used with απο αμαρτιας/ων at Lev 16:30; Ps 18:14; 50:4; Sir 23:10; 38:10; Job 7:21; Tob 3:14; Josephus, Ant. 19.315; Hem. Vis. 2.3.1; Sim. 6.3. The δικαι- terms are synonymous or closely related with the καθαρ- terms at 2 Kgdms [= 2 Sam] 22:21, 25; Job 4:17 [MT only]; 15:14-15; 17:8-9; 25:4; 33:9 and 12; Ps 17:21, 25; Prov 12:27-28; 25:4-5; Sir 23:10-11; Josephus, Ant. 16.187; Philo, Virtues 189). This passage only further verifies that Paul uses the δικαι- terms to describe the normal and expected effects of an expiatory sacrifice. (Chris VanLandingham, Judgement and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006], 329-31)
Commenting on the use of δικαι- terms in Romans, VanLandingham noted:
With respect to other instances of δικαι-words, consider the following from a leading scholar of Pauline New Testament texts and theology whose work has refuted the concept Paul taught forensic justification:
We should also ask ourselves "what else did Paul teach about soteriology in Romans to examine if he were teaching 'Calvinism'?" Our answer can be found in the very next chapter, Romans ch. 6, where the apostle teaches explicitly baptismal regeneration.
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. (Rom 6:3-7)
In the symbolic view, baptism is similar to the relationship a wedding ring has to being married—it is an outward sign of something that it did not bring about as one being “in Christ” and justified precedes water baptism. However, Paul’s theology of baptism in this pericope is antithetical to this perspective. The apostle speaks of one being baptised “into [εις; cf. Acts 2:38] Christ,” including being a partaker of his death and resurrection, with baptism being the instrumental means thereof (through use of the preposition δια). Furthermore, Paul, through his use of the conjunction ωσπερ and adverb ουτος, both meaning "just as," likens Christ’s being raised by the Father to our being given, by the Father, newness of life through the instrumental means of baptism. Notice the explicit language of vv. 3-5:
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ (εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν eis Christon Iesoun) were baptised into his death (εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν eis ton thanaton autou ebaptisthemen)? Therefore, we are buried with him (συνθάπτω synthaptō) by baptism into death (διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον dia tou baptismatos eis ton thanaton): that (γαρ gar) like as (ὥσπερ hosper) Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so (οὕτω houto) we also should walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:3-5)
Commenting on the grammar of v. 5, Jarvis J. Williams noted:
The explanatory γαρ in 6:5 links the verse with his previous comments about the believer’s death with Christ through water-baptism in 6:3-4. His argument appears to be that believers died to sin and should no longer live under its power (6:2). Their water-baptism proves that they participate in the death of Jesus and experience a spiritual death to the power of sin (6:3). Therefore, Paul concludes that believers have been buried with Jesus through their participation in water-baptism, a baptism that identifies them with the death of Jesus (their representative [5:12-21]) and thereby kills the power of sin in their lives, so that they would live with Jesus in the resurrection just as Jesus presently lives in the power of his physical resurrection (6:4). Believers who died to the power of sin by being baptized into Jesus’ death will certainly (αλλα και) participate in a physical resurrection just as Jesus died and resurrected, because those who died to the power of sin (just as Jesus died = τω ομοιωματι του θανατου αυτου) will participate in a future resurrection (just as Jesus has already been resurrected) (6:5). (Jarvis J. Williams, Christ Died for Our Sins: Representation and Substitution in Romans and their Jewish Martyrological Background [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2015], 178).
Tony Costa, who himself is a Reformed Protestant and one who, confessionally, rejects baptismal regeneration, discusses the salvific nature of water baptism in Paul's theology in Rom 6 thusly in a section entitled, "Baptism as Identification":
Commenting on the idea of baptism εις Χριτον (“into Christ”), Robert Tannehill noted:
The interpretation of this phrase has been the subject of considerable controversy. Some interpreters feel that it is necessary to give the εις a local sense, while others see it as an abbreviated form of εις το ονομα, and so as a formula for transfer for ownership, or as an indication of the constitutive factor for the nature of the baptismal act or an indication of the goal of this act. The latter kind of interpretation is insufficient. Any interpretation of baptism εις Χριστον must be able to explain how Paul can move from this idea to the related idea of baptism εις τον θανατον αυτου, and then interpret this as participation in Christ’s death, as he does in Rom. 6 3 ff. Baptism εις τον θανατον αυτου, does not simply mean that one is baptized “in the name of his death” or “for his death” or “with reference to his death.” Paul explains in vs. 4 that it means that “we were buried with” Christ and in vs. 5 that “we were united with the form of his death.” This clearly means that the believer shares in this death, is included in this death. Baptism εις Χριστον must be understood in the same way. It means through baptism the believer has come to share in Christ. Through baptism he has been included in Christ. He has entered Christ as the corporate person of the new aeon. Thus we should translate: “We were baptized into Christ Jesus.” (Robert C. Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ: A Study in Pauline Theology [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 1967], 22)
The very fact that Costa, who rejects baptismal regeneration, would admit the above shows the over-whelming exegetical evidence from Rom 6 that Paul is indeed teaching the salvific efficacy of water baptism.
In Rom 6:7, the KJV reads:
For he that is dead is freed (δεδικαίωται, dedikaiōtai) from sin.
The Greek of this verse is not speaking of being “freed” merely but justified—Paul uses the third person indicative perfect passive of δικαιοω, the verb meaning "to justify.” In Paul's theology, God not only simply "frees" a person from sin, but they are "justified/made righteous" through the instrumentality of water baptism. Don’t take my word for it; here are some scholarly resources:
The other, more likely explanation seeks to interpret the vb. [δικαιοω] not as “free,” but as “justify, acquit” in the genuine Pauline sense, and [sin], not in the sense demanded above (something like “obligation to the Torah”), but in its Pauline sense, an act against the will of God (so Lyonnet, Romains, 89; Cranfield, Romans, 310–11): the one who has died has lost the very means of sinning, “the body of sin,” so that one is definitively without sin; one has been freed of the fleshy, sin-prone body. In either case, a change of status has ensued; the old condition has been brought to an end in baptism-death, and a new one has begun (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 33; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 437, emphasis in bold added)
Further Reading
For more against the Reformed doctrine of the imputation of righteousness, see:
Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness (a review of John Kauer, “Are You Considered as Good as Jesus? The Imputation Approach” in Eric Johnson and Sean McDowell, eds. Sharing the Good News with Mormons [Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House Publishers, 2018), 273-81, 339]; also discusses Rom 4:1-8, a common "proof-text" for Reformed soteriology)
That Flournoy is considering Calvinism shows how far he has fallen from the truth and how he is in a state of spiritual rebellion (mirrored only by his rebellion against meaningful exegesis). On why Calvinism is false, see:
An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology (cf. Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura)