Protestants (particularly Calvinists) believe that "the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself," meaning that whenever there is a 'dispute' on a given text of Scripture there will necessarily be another verse somewhere in Scripture that speaks more clearly on the matter so as to definitively settle the 'dispute'. An irony here is that while this principle is not taught in Scripture, it is employed throughout the history of Catholic exegesis, while on the flip side it's really the Protestants who are the ones that deny it! This post will prove this beyond a doubt by taking a brief look at how Protestants ignore this principle on one of the most important verses in the Bible, Genesis 15:6.
St Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4:3 to show that Abraham was justified by faith. Protestants take this verse and interpret "faith was reckoned as righteousness" as saying that Abraham's faith was akin to that of an 'empty hand' that had nothing of value to it, but instead it 'reaches out' and takes hold of "Christ's Righteousness". They say that any other interpretation turns faith into a work and thus undermines the Gospel. Not only does the plain reading of the verse suggest no such interpretation, using the principle of Scripture-interprets-Scripture refutes this as well. Most people don't know that Genesis 15:6 is actually quoted three other times in the New Testament, but this is important for exposing the Protestant bias:
Romans 4: 18 In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” 19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb. 20 No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.”
Galatians 3: 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit and worketh miracles among you, doeth He it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 6 Even as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness.” 7 Know ye therefore that those who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached beforehand the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, “In thee shall all nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
James 2: 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
These texts explicitly show the faith Abraham had in Genesis 15:6 was a robust, God-glorifying faith, which God counted as inherently having the quality of righteousness. It was a faith that included hope, grew strong, and was active, rendering Abraham "faithful" in his walk with God. The astonishing thing is, Protestant scholars and apologists routinely ignore these texts when "interpreting" Genesis 15:6. Something's up. Clearly, if Protestants really believed in Sola Scriptura this would not be happening, but in order to salvage Sola Fide they must sacrifice their trust and reliance on the clear teaching of God's Word.
11 comments:
Nick,
It seems you are implying that Protestants would say Abraham's faith did not include hope, wasn't growing strong, and was passive rather than active. That's nothing but a straw man. I'm fairly confident any Reformed Christian would say Abraham's faith had all those things, but they would qualify it by saying that it is the work of Spirit of God through regeneration that produces the hopeful, strong, and active faith.
So how does one get chosen for regeneration? Just a whim by God with no cooperation from man?
Anonymous,
Protestants (Calvinists) would say that Abraham's faith had faith and hope along side his faith, but neither of these were an integral part of his faith. Further, they would say that his faith was passive rather than active and downplay any ideas of faith 'growing strong'. This is because if faith has any value to it then they think this would make faith into a work and it would mean man could boast since he played a part in his justification.
There is a reason why they never look to Romans 4:18-22, and I've just told you that reason. You don't need to trust me, just do a google search yourself and see. For example, John Piper wrote a 100 page book (available free on his website HERE) devoted to the very subject of interpreting Romans 4:3, and if you look at the index of Scriptures cited at the end of the book (p130-131), Romans 4:18-21 is missing, as is Galatians 3:7-9, and James 2:21-22. That's more than odd.
What most Calvinists don't understand is that their interpretation of scripture is 100% liberal. Nobody interpreted scripture the way that they do and they invented a new religion out of thin air. I used to be a Calvinist. Nobody can be a conservative politically and remain a Calvinist. It's not logically possible. Everything conservatives despise about liberals/progressives (ex. redefining history, making up new definitions of words, etc.) is EXACTLY the same thing that Calvinists do with their exegesis. NOBODY (especially Sain Paul) in history believed the way the Calvinists believe. There is no proto-protestant Church for a reason. Either Christ is a liar and fraud with the Church he founded with Rome or not. It is that simple. The Church didn't magically fail (unless you want to be a Mormon - another made up heresy).
I wanted nothing to do with Rome, but the intellectual weight of Rome's theology crushed my mind. One has to make up facts and history for Calvinism to even have an intellectual chance of succeeding, let alone the destruction of a church with any true authority over a believer. The Reformation was about authority and money. By getting rid of the priestly class the re-formers (they created a new theology out of thin air) now had the authority for themselves and they didn't have to pay taxes to support the preistly class. Man thinks he's so smart and can interpret scripture without a church or history. I could no longer bear such intellectual dishonesty so I converted to Rome and haven't looked back.
I wanted nothing to do with Rome, but the intellectual weight of Rome's theology crushed my mind. One has to make up facts and history for Calvinism to even have a remote intellectual chance of succeeding. The Reformation was about authority and money. By getting rid of the priestly class the re-formers (they created a new theology out of thin air and didn't reform anything) now were their own priests and they didn't have to pay taxes to support the preistly class. Man thinks he's so smart and can interpret scripture without a church or history. I could no longer bear such intellectual dishonesty so I converted to Rome and haven't looked back.
I'd clarify by saying Conservatism is merely a more toned down version of Liberalism. That's why the Church is neither Conservative nor Liberal, but Traditional.
Nick,
You said, "They would say that his faith was passive rather than active and downplay any ideas of faith 'growing strong'."
I don't think this is the case, bit if you see this frequently please quote or link to a Calvinist saying it. Moreover, what does it even mean to have a "passive faith?" Just because they believe faith is entirely an unconditional gift from God does not mean they believe it is passive or inactive. They would likely say it is the regenerate man who actively believes and trusts in God with a saving faith.
"This is because if faith has any value to it then they think this would make faith into a work and it would mean man could boast since he played a part in his justification."
This is an odd claim and seemingly another misrepresentation. They don't think that if faith has value then it equals a work. Rather, they would say saving faith has the most value because it is indeed brought about by God and will endure for the rest of that person's life.
Anonymous said...
It seems you are implying that Protestants would say Abraham's faith did not include hope,
I would say that is true. Hope is against the Protestant mindset since they believe they are saved:
Romans 8:23-25
King James Version (KJV)
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. 24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
According to that Scripture, Protestants are hopeless (pun intended). The see themselves saved, therefore they do not hope for salvation.
wasn't growing strong, and was passive rather than active.
You're talking about faith here, correct?
Then my answer would be, "No". Nick already explained what he meant. But, I have my own perspective within which Nick's article rings true.
Protestants believe that justification is a one time event. Not a process. Therefore, they claim, the moment one believes in God, faith is born and one is saved. From that moment, faith may grow stronger, but that would only go towards one's crowns or rewards. No longer towards one's justification or salvation, since, according to them, that was done when they came to faith.
That's nothing but a straw man. I'm fairly confident any Reformed Christian would say Abraham's faith had all those things, but they would qualify it by saying that it is the work of Spirit of God through regeneration that produces the hopeful, strong, and active faith.
And I agree with that statement. But in so saying, Protestants contradict their stated doctrines of justification and salvation by faith alone.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Anonymous said...
That's nothing but a straw man
Oops! I don't agree with those words, no. That little bit of pork almost sneaked by. Consider this my line item veto.
Nick's article is on the money for the reasons previously explained.
Sincerely,
De Maria
The logic is simple, there can be nothing in man, even given as a gift, that can be counted as good in himself or himself contributing to justification. This is why faith, even though it's a gift from God, is strictly passive, since it's sole job in justification is receiving the Righteousness of Christ. AFTER justification, this faith 'proves' itself genuine by manifesting itself by good works, but not before.
John Calvin said: "For, in regard to justification, faith is merely passives bringing nothing of our own to procure the favor of God, but receiving from Christ every thing that we want." (Institutes, Bk3, Ch13, Sec5)
Joel Beek said: "Faith is passive in justification, but becomes active in accepting Christ when He is offered to the sinner."
Post a Comment