Another gold nugget in Romans 4:6 (against Faith Alone)

Most people who read this blog know I'm a huge fan of studying Romans chapter 4 because of its pivotal role in Protestantism. As I continue to study the chapter, I continue to find powerful arguments against the standard Reformed (Calvinist) interpretation of this chapter. This short post will be presenting an argument drawn from the first half of chapter 4, specifically how one is to understand the “works” mentioned there. The best part about this argument will be that Reformed Baptists apologist John Piper ends up doing most of the work for me.

Commenting on Romans 4:5-6, John Piper says this in his book Counted Righteous in Christ (pages 57ff):

“(5) But to the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited for righteousness, (6) just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works.”

The “just as” at the beginning of verse 6 shows that Paul is now explaining with an Old Testament comparison (Psalm 32:1-2) what it means for God to justify the ungodly. He says, “Just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits or imputes righteousness apart from works.” There are two crucial things to notice in the connection between verse 6 and verse 5.

The first is the parallel between “apart from works” in verse 6 and “the ungodly” in verse 5. In verse 5 God justifies “the ungodly.” In verse 6 God credits righteousness to a man “apart from works.” What it means to be “apart from works” in Romans 4:6 is defined in verses 7-8: The man is guilty of “lawless deeds” and “sin.” So God’s crediting righteousness to a person “apart from works” means that he credits righteousness to “the ungodly.”

This leads to the second crucial thing to notice about the connection between verses 5 and 6—namely, the parallel between God’s act of justifying in verse 5 and God’s act of crediting or imputing righteousness in verse 6. We have seen that “the ungodly” in verse 5 parallels “apart from works” in verse 6. It is natural then to take the phrase, “justify the ungodly” to be parallel with “credit righteousness apart from works.” ...

This second point is confirmed by the parallel in wording between Romans 3:28 and Romans 4:6. In Romans 3:28 Paul says, “A man is justified (dikaiousthai) by faith apart from works of the law (choris ergon nomou).” In Romans 4:6 he says, “God credits righteousness (logizetai dikaiosunen) apart from works (choris ergon).” The parallel between “apart from works of the law” (3:28) and “apart from works” (4:6) is so close as to suggest that the other parallel between “justify” and “credits righteousness” is similarly close, even synonymous. …

In the middle of making a brilliant observation Piper also makes a huge gaffe. Here I'll explain why.

Piper shows that “justifies the ungodly” in verse 5 is a synonymous phrase for “credits righteousness apart from works” in verse 6. (And the “just as” in verse 6 strongly suggests this.) Since “justifies” corresponds to “credits righteousness,” then “ungodly” must correspond to “apart from works.” This is a perfectly valid argument, but when Piper pauses to define “ungodly” and “apart from works” is where he makes his mistake. This is what he says:

What it means to be “apart from works” in Romans 4:6 is defined in verses 7-8: The man is guilty of “lawless deeds” and “sin.” So God’s crediting righteousness to a person “apart from works” means that he credits righteousness to “the ungodly.”

While at first it can come off as reasonable to say “ungodly” means “sinner,” I don't think that's possible for two significant reasons.

First, Piper has not been consistent with the parallelism of the passage:

• 4:6 Blessing to whom God credits righteousness apart from works
• 4:7 Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven
• 4:8 Blessed is he whom the Lord will not reckon his sin

Notice that the parallel is not of “iniquities” and “sin” corresponding to “apart from works,” as Piper hurriedly assumed, but rather the “crediting of righteousness” corresponds to “iniquities forgiven” and “not crediting sin.” In other words, Paul is saying that to “credit righteousness” is synonymous with “not crediting sin.” (Recall this important post where I showed even Luther and Calvin admit this.) Thus, there is no actual correspondence between “apart from works” and “sinner” here.

Second, consider that Piper shows there is just as much of a parallel between 4:5 and 4:6 as there is between 4:6 and 3:28. Here Piper shows that “justified by faith apart from works of the law” (3:28) is to be understood synonymously with “credits righteousness apart from works” (4:6). Thus, the “ungodly” is one who is “apart from works of the law.” Realizing this, it is even less reasonable to say “apart from works of the law” is a synonym for “sinner” in general (for example, being uncircumcised does not make one a sinner in general).

The only fitting explanation is that “ungodly” is a slang (or even pejorative) way of speaking of a Gentile, who is by definition someone who lacks works of the law. Note this parallel found in Galatians 2:15-16

We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ

And not only is this the only consistent way to interpret that parallel, it's the only way to make sense of Paul's earlier statements regarding Abraham. Consider the following.

In Romans 4, Paul is not making the argument that Abraham was a “sinner” (in the typical sense), since this would contradict verse 2: if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. Now, if Paul's point is that Abraham is a sinner, then to speak of him being justified by works (even hypothetically) is nonsense. This must mean verse 2 cannot be speaking of Abraham as sinner, but just the opposite: if Abraham was “godly,” he has something to boast about, just not before God. The question then is, why is Abraham able to boast in the first place, but unable to boast before God? It cannot be because of sin. It can only be because being found righteous in terms of works of the law (that is, being “godly” by Mosaic Law standards) is not ultimately what God is concerned about. Rephrased, what Paul is saying is that living as a Jew, being justified in the eyes of the law, is not the same as being justified in the eyes of God. A similar argument can be made for verse 4:4, where Paul is not speaking of a sinner earning wages, but rather a honest worker earning wages, just ones that are no match for those corresponding to grace. In other words, the 'wages' the Mosaic Law offers are not bad, but they are inherently inferior to the 'wages' the Gospel offers.

This understanding renders a coherent argument to Romans 4 overall, for since the Jews and Judaizers saw the works of the law as the standard to meet for justification before God, then Paul has just refuted them. In the example of Abraham, Paul argues that Abraham was justified apart from circumcision, that is apart from works of the law, that is justified as a Gentile. In the case of Paul's appeal to David, Psalm 32 recounts the repentance of none other than David himself, who is our role model “Blessed man.” But in what sense is David “apart from works of the law” since David was not a Gentile? The most logical explanation is that David lost his circumcision status through his grave sins regarding Bathsheba and Uriah (cf Romans 2:25). Since the Torah taught murder and adultery could not be atoned for, the Mosaic Law couldn't help David, only God's mercy could. Such details would not have been lost on Paul's Jewish audience.

One might be wondering what the apologetic value is here since it doesn't seem to attack anything significant. The fact is, the parallelism between 4:5, 4:6, and 3:28, is very powerful in establishing that Paul has “works of the [Mosaic] law” in mind the whole time. He didn't leave that thought behind in 3:28 and shift his focus to works-in-general in Romans 4. This poses a serious problem for Protestants, who going back to the Pretend Reformers themselves argued that the clearest proof for “Faith Alone” was that Paul put “faith” in opposition to every kind of work. And in providing a more coherent and consistent interpretation of Romans 4, the honest Protestant must concede that this chapter wasn't the stronghold that they thought it was, forcing them to either retreat to elsewhere in Scripture or raise the white flag.