Does Philemon 1:18 support (Double) Imputation?

As I was responding to objections in the comment box on my recent Imputation (Logizomai) article, I realized a truly devastating argument that I had not noticed before. Within that article, I had documented numerous well-respected, conservative Reformed Theologians who made Philemon 1:18 a chief proof-text for Imputation. All this time, I didn't give it much thought though, because Philemon doesn't use the crucial word Logozmai. But now I realize that the better approach is to take Philemon 1:18 head on, and even embrace it!  

Imputation (Logizomai) & Genesis 15:6 (Romans 4)

Below is my article on Imputation that I wrote back in 2012 and was hosted on a popular Catholic blog that recently went defunct. I made slight edits to it, but otherwise no substantial changes. It is one of the most thorough articles on Imputation and the Greek word Logizomai that I'm aware of. I highly recommend Catholics learn this information, because it will greatly improve your apologetics when talking with Protestants. In fact, there is no Protestant response to this, because I quote almost 50 top Protestant theologians/sources admitting Imputation is nowhere clearly taught in the Bible!

A Biblical look at Imputation and Logizomai (pdf)

A closer look at St Paul's "none are righteous" (Romans 3:9-20)

A common understanding of the first three chapters of the Epistle to the Romans is to see it as Paul's case for the 'universal sinfulness of mankind' (as some refer to it). This way Paul can then get his audience recognizing their need for salvation, and thus lay the groundwork for presenting us the Gospel. This interpretation quite understandable, and somewhat correct, but I've come to a more nuanced reading of the text that I think better explains the arguments Paul is making. What I'm about to present isn't my own invention, but rather an interpretation that has been widely known from even among the early Church Fathers.

I think the popular take on Romans 3:9-20 is missing the larger point Paul is trying to make. In Romans 3 when Paul says “none are righteous” and “no one seeks after God” and “all have sinned,” I don’t think he is so much concerned about individual sinfulness as he is about corporate sinfulness. This might not seem like a big deal, but if we are truly aiming for solid exegesis we cannot afford to be sloppy and reading things only at the surface level.

Are all of our works really just filthy rags before God? (Isaiah 64:6)

In this Quickie Apologetics post, I will take a look at one of the most abused passages of Scripture which I routinely see Protestants quote in "support" of Faith Alone theology. That passage, or better yet thought fragment, is from Isaiah 64:6, which says:

All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

The first thing to notice here is that there has to be some context to this. The idea that you can just lift a phrase like "all our righteous deeds are filthy rags" and turn this into some universal principle is just outrageous. It is anti-Biblical when a person can just take a snippet of the Bible and build theology around it. This embarrassing approach to God's Word is found in Protestantism at all levels, but especially the moderately-educated folks who think they actually are being true to God's Word. Such an approach makes the very idea of "righteous acts" completely meaningless when used elsewhere in Scriptur if there's really nothing righteous about them. But can we honestly say that nobody in the Bible has ever done a righteous act? I'm sure some Protestants would love to make such a claim, but that just shows their agenda has no actual intention of taking God's Word seriously. 

Now for the dagger. Let's be true Christians (i.e. Catholics) who actually love the Bible and just take a look at the context, just one verse prior:

5 You meet him who joyfully works righteousness, those who remember you in your ways. Behold, you were angry, and we sinned; in our sins we have been a long time, and shall we be saved?

Here, Isaiah says God is pleased when people do righteous deeds and remember God's commandments. This is impossible if their good deeds are always filthy before God. Surely no Protestant is desperate enough to nullify this text in favor of the next verse. If that's the case, then you really cannot dialog with someone who isn't interested in real exegesis. The truth is, the plain teaching of this chapter is that it is speaking specifically of the Israelites who had turned to continual sinful living, hence "in our sins we have been a long time". In other words, they've made it a habit of sinful living, so much so that their good deeds don't amount to anything. If you're only doing good deeds externally while internally full of corruption, those good deeds don't amount to anything. Of if you decide to be on bad behavior all year but decide to start doing good when you know punishment is coming, then those good deeds are a mockery. If a husband is living in an adulterous relationship, then any good deeds he does for his actual wife are worthless and an insult to her. It's like when a child repeatedly misbehaves and only turns to good behavior when the parent gets upset and comes over.

So the next time a Protestant tries to quote "all our righteous deeds are filthy rags" at you, know that (1) their Biblical credibility is gone, and (2) just quote the prior verse.

Not by works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. Does Romans 11:6 refute Catholicism?

As I continue to address the top Protestant proof-texts for Justification By Faith Alone, I now come to the famous passage in Romans 11:6 where Paul says: "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." Protestants have traditionally pointed to this text as decisive proof that if our human efforts played any part of our salvation, it would nullify grace. That's a pretty serious charge, and it does seem to be what Paul is saying, so it's definitely worth looking into more. 

The first thing to keep in mind is that Catholicism teaches we are saved by Faith Alone, while it is Protestants who teach we are saved by Works Alone (apart from faith and grace). See HERE for one of many times I've addressed this. Given this, the goal of this analysis of Romans 11:6 is not to argue that works save us. Rather, the goal is to discern what Paul is actually trying to teach, so we can better appreciate his lessons. 

The second thing to keep in mind is that, from the many articles I've written on the subject of "works," it should be clear by now that it is referring to "works of the Mosaic Law," which separated the Israelite lineage from the pagan nations. (See HERE and HERE for recent articles.) God wanted the Israelite race to remain segregated from the Gentiles, so as to one day vindicate His promise that the Messiah would come from Abraham's biological lineage. The various commands from the Old Testament were meant to make Israel a "light to the nations" (Gentiles), which would be impossible if the Israelites were living just as pagan of lifestyles as the Gentiles. This fact means that "works" were never about "working your way into heaven," as has unfortunately become the common understanding from a surface-level understanding of Paul's writings. 

Given the above, we should expect the proper understanding of Romans 11:6 to be about God saving people apart from their ethnic lineage, namely saving a person regardless if they are biologically Jewish. But for apologetic's purposes, we obviously have to confront the popular Protestant reading, so that's what we'll do now. 

Why did Paul call his own works "rubbish"? (Imputation & Philippians 3:9)

A very popular verse that Protestants consider a key proof text for Imputation and Faith Alone is Philippians 3:9. Just like their handful of other favorite texts (which I've also written about), this verse on the surface doesn't even suggest Imputation or Faith Alone. But since it is so popular among even Protestant scholars, I want to address it. Let's jump right in.

Did the Father "lay our sins" upon Jesus? (Isaiah 53:6) - More Problems with Penal Substitution

Back in 2014, I made a post (HERE) showing how the Early Church Fathers used the Greek Translation of the Old Testament (Septuagint aka LXX), which guided their understanding of Isaiah 53. Today, I want to point out another significant find, this time within the New Testament itself, showing that Paul saw Isaiah 53 principally through the Greek Translation as well. This information is significant, because it touches upon a popular sentence within the Hebrew edition of Isaiah 53:6 which commonly translated into English says: "the Lord laid upon him [Jesus] the sins of us all". Protestants often take this phrase as meaning our guilt was "imputed" to Jesus, such that Jesus then took the punishment we deserved (i.e. suffered God's Eternal Wrath) in our place. But while this isn't what the Hebrew idiom "bear sin" actually means (see HERE), more importantly the Greek translation saw the nuances in the Hebrew and renders this text noticeably differently: "the Lord delivered him [Jesus] up for our sins". 

The phrase "delivered up for our sins" is noteworthy because it is a phrase used by Paul in Romans 4:25 and 8:32. And the only place the Old Testament speaks of being "delivered up for our sins" is in the Greek translation of Isaiah 53:6 and Isaiah 53:12. This isn't the obvious meaning from the Hebrew text. So Paul must have had the Greek understanding of Isaiah 53 principally in mind. 

"The wrath of God remains on him"? - More problems with Penal Substitution

I was talking with a friend and I remembered a fascinating verse (John 3:36): "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him." This verse is powerful in two ways, which I'll now discuss.

 

First, as some observant folks have pointed out, we see John clearly show the opposite of "believes in the Son" is not "disbelieves the Son," but rather "does not obey the Son." This means that in John's mind, to "believe" and to "obey" are synonymous. This obviously causes problems for the surface-level reading of many Protestants, wherein they think John is advocating a one time act of faith saves you forever. Rather, John is using the verb "believe" and "has" in the Greek Present-Tense, meaning that a person only presently "has" eternal life only so long as he is presently "believing," which is to say he is only saved as long as he is presently "obeying" the Lord Jesus. If the believer stops believing, or stops obeying, the having of eternal life also ceases as well. (See THIS POST to learn about how the Bible defines having Eternal Life, and how Protestants completely misunderstand it. Also THIS POST to see that a person "for whom Christ died" can be lost.)

 

Second, and more importantly for this post, the verse says that for those who do not believe, "the wrath of God remains on them." This is fascinating because it indicates that everyone (except Adam, Eve, Jesus, and Mary) begins this life with "the wrath of God" upon them by default. Only when a person turns to believing in Jesus does the "wrath of God" stop being on that person. Otherwise, it "remains" on you if you don't accept Jesus. But this means that the "wrath of God" was upon all of us at some point, which is impossible in the Penal Substitution model, since it teaches that Jesus endured the wrath of God in our place. And imagine a person who did not start believing in God until he got to his deathbed, maybe even the "Thief On The Cross" (See THIS POST), this means that the wrath of God was upon them for 99% of their life. Does that make any sense? No. Penal Substitution clearly didn't protect the Good Thief from being under God's Wrath, nor does it for any adult convert for all their prior years. But really, it doesn't matter how long God's Wrath is upon you, what matters is that it could never be upon you per the Penal Substitution claim. This also refutes the minority view among Calvinists which teaches that the Elect are "eternally forgiven" so that they are never born under God's Wrath (which I addressed HERE).

Revisiting Abraham's "faith reckoned as righteousness" - Part 2 (This is yuge.)

I am pleased to present a post that I am very proud of and think you will greatly enjoy. It's about 5 pages long but I think reads fast and is worth it. I don't know how it all came together, but perhaps it was inspiration from above, even the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I will never read Romans 4 the same way again, and hopefully you won't either.

It was almost a year ago when I began to start rethinking what exactly Paul was arguing in Romans 4 (and Galatians 3), and I wrote a post about it (HERE). The simplistic, surface-level "faith not works" is just not a convincing reading when you consider the actual words of Paul and other key details. One thing to realize is that when Paul first made his claim, it had to be a convincing claim to both Jews and Christians who heard it. Otherwise, Paul would have discredited himself if his argument wasn't based on good logic and good exegesis (e.g. see Paul's actual argument in Romans 9 HERE). 

Paul could not simply say "I'm an apostle, so I'm right," since the Jews would have just laughed at him. With that in mind, simply quoting Genesis 15:6 doesn't prove anything. The Jew would respond "so what?" Believing and having that faith reckoned as righteousness doesn't in itself tell us anything about conversion (especially since Abraham wasn't converting here), it tells us nothing about the Gospel, nothing about forgiveness, etc. So Paul's argument had to be something more substantial than just quoting Genesis 15:6. And I think I've figured out what makes Paul's argument so solid, and it appears a few verses after verse 6:

5 And God brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” 6 And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness. 7 And he said to him, “I am the Lord who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.” 8 But he said, “O Lord God, how am I to know that I shall possess it?” 

9 He said to him, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” 10 And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half. 11 And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away. 12 As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. 13 Then the Lord said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. 14 But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. 15 As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. 16 And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” 17 When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. 

18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates.”

Notice that right after Abraham believed, the narrative immediately begins speaking of a (mysterious) Sacrificial Liturgical Rite for the ratification of a Covenant. I really would love to study this passage in more depth, as it seems very important in Salvation History. Sadly, it seems that we routinely skip over everything past verse 6 just as we routinely skip over the verses past Romans 4:8. 

The "non imputation of sin" in 2 Tim 4:16

I came across an interesting passage that I haven't spent much time with but I'd like to share and comment on:

2 Tim 4: 16 At my first defense no one came to stand by me, but all deserted me. May it not be charged [imputed] against them! 17 But the Lord stood by me and strengthened me, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. So I was rescued from the lion's mouth.

To begin, Paul is speaking of a time late in his life when he was put on trial (Chrysostom thinks Paul stood before Nero), yet all of Paul's friends abandoned him rather than stick around and support him. So while his friends sinned, at least apparently, Paul didn't get upset, and rather had God by his side to help defend him (cf Mt 10:18-20). We often hear the term "apologetics" coming from 1 Peter 3:15, where Peter says "always be ready to give a defense," but the Greek term "apologia" is also used here by Paul. (It's often used in the Bible especially when referring to Christians being put on trial before a persecuting government). From this instance, we see apologetics is more than just a friendly debate, it's about openly confessing God before a hostile crowd (cf Rom 10:9-10, which I wrote about HERE).

 

That said, the real focus of this post is upon Paul's statement about his friends: "may it [the sin of forsaking Paul] not be charged [imputed] against them". There are two ways to interpret this phrase, neither of which supports the erroneous Protestant idea that to "not impute sin" to us must mean that our sin was imputed/transferred to an innocent substitute (e.g. to Jesus, in your place). Here's why.

Did Paul have biology in mind when he spoke of "works"?

I have been looking into the connection between Paul's talk of "works" and the 'biological' references that he often uses (e.g. flesh, seed, children). Until I stopped to look into it for myself, I didn't realize how heavily emphasized the biological aspect is, such that Paul spends as much time talking about "works" as he does talking about biology. In fact, for Paul there is less emphasis on "what we do" and more about "who we are". Realizing this should influence how we read Paul's teaching on Justification.

Consider the following passages which clearly connect 'flesh' (in the lineage sense) and 'works':

• Romans 4:1-2 What shall we say by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works... [cf Rom 3:28-30, just prior to this passage]
  
• Rom 4:11 The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised
  
• Rom 9:3-10 I wish that I myself were accursed for the sake of my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel [see my post HERE], and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac [not Ishmael] shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children [Jacob & Esau] by our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad - in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls
  

What is the "certificate of debt" that Jesus canceled for us?

I recently heard a popular Protestant apologist argue that Colossians 2:14 is a strong proof text for Protestant doctrines such as Penal Substitution and Faith Alone. In this article, I want to look at this verse and show why this Protestant apologist is engaging in poor exegesis. The passage (briefly) is as follows:

¹¹ You were circumcised with a circumcision not made with human hands, ¹² having been buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith. ¹³ And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, ¹⁴ by canceling the certificate of debt with its legal demands that stood against us . This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. ¹⁶ Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.

The Protestant made the claim that the phrase "certificate of debt" here was synonymous with "sin debt," and that by "canceling" it Jesus thus received the punishment our sins deserved. While his explanation is understandable, it is not genuine exegesis, and misses out on the richness of Paul's theology. Here's why.

A powerful verse against Faith Alone (Matt 7:14)

Catholics love the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew ch5-7) but Protestants generally avoid it, since it doesn't fit with their ideas of how salvation is supposed to take place. This Sermon is full of passages that contradict the Protestant doctrine of 'Salvation by Faith Alone', and in this edition of Quickie Apologetics I want to call attention to a section of the Sermon on the Mount that we all know but don't often think of: 

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is difficult that leads to life, and those who find it are few. (Matt 7:13-14)

How often do we hear Protestants ridicule Catholics for 'complicating' Salvation. Protestants insist that 'getting saved' is so easy that all we have to do is believe, that faith alone in Christ's finished work on the Cross is all that it takes. But given the above teaching of Jesus, what is so "difficult" about the Faith Alone approach? What is so "narrow" path about it? Why are "few" saved if all they need to do is believe? The answer to all these is: nothing.

Protestants typically 'interpret' the teachings of Jesus as being either (1) meant for Old Testament folks alone, or (2) simply to show us how sinful we are, not to actually impose any commands or expectations upon us. Such is quite absurd, and effectively renders the Gospels hollow. This is why Protestants hardly ever quote/read the Gospels. The honest truth is, this is not an easy teaching of Jesus, but Catholicism has always understood that Jesus really meant it, and thus we strive to conform our life to everything Jesus taught, whether comfortable or uncomfortable.

How to punish a Calvinist (1 Cor 11:32) - Part II

I love to spring 1 Cor 11:32 upon Protestants, especially Calvinists, because of the reaction it gets from them: But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. The plain teaching of this passage is that Christians are not "eternally secure" but rather must be disciplined to be kept from turning to sin, falling away, and being damned. I wrote about this in an older post (HERE). 

In this post, I want to call up one of my favorite Catholic apologists, John Calvin, for his thoughts on this verse:

But when we are judged Here we have a consolation that is exceedingly necessary; for if any one in affliction thinks that God is angry with him, he will rather be discouraged than excited to repentance. It is an inestimable consolation that the punishments by which our sins are chastened are evidences, not of God’s anger for our destruction, but rather of his paternal love, and are at the same time of assistance towards our salvation, for God is angry with us as his sons, whom he will not leave to perish.

When he says that we may not be condemned with the world, he intimates two things. The first is, that the children of this world, while they sleep on quietly and securely in their delights, are fattened up, like hogs, for the day of slaughter (Jeremiah 12:3.) For though the Lord sometimes invites the wicked, also, to repentance by his chastisements, yet he often passes them over as strangers, and allows them to rush on with impunity, until they have filled up the measure of their final condemnation. (Genesis 15:16.) This privilege, therefore, belongs to believers exclusively - that by punishments they are called back from destruction. The second thing is this - that chastisements are necessary remedies for believers, for otherwise they, too, would rush on to everlasting destruction, were they not restrained by temporal punishment.

The reason why John Calvin is one of my favorite Catholic apologists is because he often proves the Catholic case for us, so that his beloved followers (Protestants/Calvinists) cannot object without looking silly. For example, many Protestants would try to dodge this verse by saying Paul isn't talking about real Christians (but rather fake Christians) and/or that Paul isn't talking about damnation. Both of these (weak) objections are denied by Calvin.

Here we see that not only does being chastised not mean that God is angry with you, it is for your own good, since God only disciplines His sons. This means that His Son, Jesus, could not have been punished in some manner equivalent to eternal damnation, such as how Protestants think Jesus endured in our place while on the Cross. Next, we see that we cannot be "covered by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ," as Protestants think, nor are we eternally secure, since by acting sinfully God sees this and inflicts temporal punishments so that the Christian will reform their life and not be damned. Thus, God is not looking at the Imputed Righteousness of Christ instead of us, but rather God looks at us (Paul says we are "judged" by God) and rewards/punishes us accordingly, to keep us on the right track, since it is by our behavior as Christians that determines if we are saved. This verse is a dagger against Faith Alone.

Did the OT Animal Sacrifices "pay the price" for your sin? - More Problems with Penal Substitution

People who frequently read this blog know that I have many posts clearly explaining why the animal sacrifices in the Bible were not 'taking the punishment the sinner deserved' (Penal Substitution). In this brief post I want to share a most significant aspect that is typically overlooked entirely. 

Many folks think the animal's getting slaughtered for sacrifice were 'paying the price' for the individual's sins, so that the individual would not have to 'pay the price'. But the simple fact is, animals were not free (cf 2 Sam 24:24). Whether you raised animals or whether you had to buy them, there was a noteworthy cost. I estimate that a lamb would cost around $300 dollars. Because finances were a factor in whether someone could meet their obligation, the Law makes room for those who could not afford a lamb, e.g., those who could only afford two pigeons (Lev 5:7), or even those who could only afford a sack of flour (Lev 5:11). The point remains though, even if scaled down, the person who sinned (unintentionally) was going to take a financial hit of $300 dollars (or equivalent) each time. That's not chump change, and it can add up. 

Imagine getting a $300 speeding ticket every month of the year (which is like a monthly car payment). That would be around $3,600 in fines per year. Thus, if you're an Israelite paying a few thousand dollars for animals each year, that's definitely a significant punishment. Financial punishments are no joke. And in the context of Penal Substitution, we can see that an Israelite taking the financial punishment, not to mention the time investment, means they were the one 'paying the price' for their sins. It makes little sense to think the animal being killed was being punishment in your place when just prior to the slaughter you had to pay $300 which you worked hard to earn. If someone was making minimum wage and working 40hrs per week, then to sin within the Levitical system meant you lost wages for basically a whole week of work! You definitely didn't escape personal punishment as an Israelite. And Leviticus 6:5 (Lev 5:16) explains that if you defrauded a neighbor, you had to pay back that amount, plus an additional 20%, plus offer a sacrifice! Ouch!

In closing, I should add that such a system seems unjust for God to put people under. The fact is, this 'burden' was not originally part of what God expected of them, but rather many of these rules and regulations were placed upon the Israelites only after they kept turning to sin. St Thomas Aquinas and other theologians explain that by putting all these expectations upon them, God was trying to not leave them with any time or resources to turn back to idolatry. But, this was only a temporary fix, as the real problem was an interior one, of the soul, which requires the Sacrifice of Jesus to heal.

Did Jesus teach Salvation by Faith Alone? Yes, but not how you might think.

One thing I love about interacting with Protestants, especially the more intelligent ones, is how often their own claims against Catholicism end up turning into some of my most powerful apologetics tools against Protestantism. Here's a great quick example that I recently came across. A Protestant was trying to point out how Jesus taught the Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone in the situation with Jarius in Luke 8. The passage is as follows: 

40 Now when Jesus returned, the crowd welcomed him. 41 And there came a man named Jairus, who was a ruler of the synagogue. And falling at Jesus' feet, he implored him to come to his house, 42 for he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she was dying. As Jesus went, the people pressed around him. 

43 And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and she could not be healed by anyone. 44 She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, and immediately her discharge of blood ceased. 45 And Jesus said, “Who was it that touched me?” When all denied it, Peter said, “Master, the crowds surround you and are pressing in on you!” 46 But Jesus said, “Someone touched me, for I perceive that power has gone out from me.” 47 And when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling, and falling down before him declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed. 48 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.”

49 While he was still speaking, someone from the ruler's house came and said, “Your daughter is dead; do not trouble the Teacher any more.” 50 But Jesus on hearing this answered him, “Do not fear; only believe, and she will be well.” 51 And when he came to the house, he allowed no one to enter with him, except Peter and John and James, and the father and mother of the child. 52 And all were weeping and mourning for her, but he said, “Do not weep, for she is not dead but sleeping.” 53 And they laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. 54 But taking her by the hand he called, saying, “Child, arise.” 55 And her spirit returned, and she got up at once. And he directed that something should be given her to eat. 56 And her parents were amazed, but he charged them to tell no one what had happened.

Now, first of all, contrary to the Grand Protestant Strawman, Catholics fully believe that faith alone saves us. Heretics love to steal orthodox teaching and twist the doctrine and terminology. In fact, it is Protestantism which teaches we are saved by works alone, apart from faith, grace, etc. That's because their completely unbiblical doctrine of "Imputation of Christ's Righteousness" is based on their bad logic which teaches man gets to heaven by living a perfectly sinless life. They say that since Adam sinned man can no longer 'work his way into heaven', showing that in the Protestant mind, works alone are what saved from the very beginning. Protestants compound this error by thinking that in order to be saved, Jesus had to live a perfect life and 'impute' this perfect life to the sinner, so that God can see the sinner as if the sinner lived a life of 100% perfect works. All faith does in the Protestant mind is transfer Christ's perfect obedience to their account. See how works alone, at the very root, is really what the Protestant believes? The Catholic side doesn't believe this terrible logic one bit, and I've written for years against it. 

Revisiting Abraham's "faith reckoned as righteousness" (A 'new' insight on Romans 4 and Romans 2)

The other day I was thinking about Genesis 15:6 and felt I had gained a new insight. Even though I've held to elements of this before, I think this 'new' insight will help tie things together. I'm not saying I'm the first to do this, only that this was a sort of 'aha' moment for me.

The first time the term "righteousness" appears in the Bible is in Genesis 15:6. The big question is: what is righteousness? We all have a general intuitive idea, and I wrote a post on this (HERE), but I think in this case Paul was getting at something important that we end up overlooking. 

While many think of righteousness/unrighteousness in a generic sense, that's not how we should approach the Bible. It is crucial to realize that Paul's opponents saw righteousness as synonymous with living in conformity with the Mosaic Law, which was God's Law (the Torah). But Paul noticed something fascinating: Abraham was counted as righteous before God's law formal standard (the Mosaic Law) even existed. But how can Abraham be considered righteous without there being a law from which to measure his righteousness? Paul is apparently teasing out the fact that some law/covenant must have existed prior to the Mosaic Law, and that by God counting Abraham's faith/faithfulness as righteousness means God counted Abraham as living in conformity to this 'mysterious' pre-Mosaic law/covenant. 

If that's the case, then reducing our view of Romans 4 to the popular apologetics claims like "Genesis 15:6 wasn't the first time Abraham believed" (cf Gal 3:6-9; Heb 11:8; Gen 12:1-4; Rom 4:17-22) kind of miss the bigger point, even if they are true claims. What our emphasis should be on is that Paul is not  concerned about God crediting Abraham's faith as some generic righteous deed, but more specifically Abraham was righteous per some real covenant than preexisted Moses' Covenant. This means that Genesis 15:6 is saying God either was right there establishing a new unnamed covenant, or God was affirming Abraham was already living a righteous lifestyle under this unnamed covenant. 

This conclusion would fit perfectly with Paul calling Abraham "ungodly" (Rom 4:5), since this term would be referring to sinful/uncircumcised living per the Mosaic Standards. Similarly, Paul brings up David as a secondary example of "ungodly" because he gravely sinned under the Mosaic Standards, which puts one out of the Mosaic Covenant, 'nullifying' their circumcision (Rom 2:25). So in Romans 4:6-8, Paul is saying David prayed Psalm 32 (and Psalm 51) and received forgiveness under some other covenant, since the Mosaic Covenant did not forgive murder (Num 35:33).  Furthermore, David says nothing about 'faith' or 'works' in Psalm 32, meaning we shouldn't have some generic view of 'faith' or 'works' in mind. I wrote about this in an older post (HERE and HERE). 

Baptism according to Scripture. (Do Protestants Really care about the Bible?)

In the course of my apologetics, I've come to the astonishing conclusion that it doesn't seem Protestants really care about what the Bible has to say. They don't do this intentionally, but when it comes to many Biblical doctrines, I've found in my own interactions and with reading their major theologians, that they have a very bad habit of leaving out key details when formulating doctrines. And when you confront them, they just shrug it off and have no real interest in what the Bible says. In this post, I will list all the Biblical verses that refer to the Sacrament of Baptism and let readers see what the Bible plainly has to say on the matter. I have yet to find any Protestant who has actually sat down for half an hour and read through the 25 or so verses that mention Baptism to see for themself what the Bible says. Rather, they will only quote a few verses and just go with whatever their denomination or pastor says. When I ask them to just read these verses, they act like I've asked them to deny Christianity.

I think the best way to educate yourself is to actually read the Bible for yourself, and since there are only about 25 short verses to read (texts with a * indicate the term "baptism" isn't used), this should take you less than 30 minutes to get fully informed on the matter. I will then briefly analyze the data. In the Conclusion, I will speak about the general Protestant view of Baptism contradicts the Bible, while showing that the Catholic view is fully in line with Scripture.

Protestantism's most embarrassing strawman (Catholic Justification)

I think the most embarrassing strawman of Protestantism is how it sees the Catholic view of Justification. In the Protestant's mind, the Catholic position entails a person starting off a little bit righteous, then has to work his way up to fully righteous. It's as if the Catholic had to fill up a gas tank, with the tank starting off at 1% full, and with each good work they increase the tank by 1%, until they get to the end of their life and the tank is 100% full. With this view in mind, the Protestant thinks the Catholic is never actually Justified in this life. As such, this "Catholic Gospel" hardly sounds like good news at all, and in fact is (understandably) seen as quite troubling. But this is a complete misunderstanding of the Catholic view, and if you can point this strawman out to Protestants it will completely pull the rug from under them. 

The actual Catholic view is that a Catholic is instantly 100% Justified the moment they convert. This then means that works have nothing to do with a Catholic getting Justified. So it is a complete strawman for the Protestant to say the Catholic view of Justification is a "process" while in 'contrast' the Protestant claims to stand firm on "the finished work of Christ". In the Catholic view, the moment one is baptized (usually as an infant, who obviously doesn't do any work at all), through the merits of Jesus, the individual is instantly 100% forgiven of their sins and instantly becomes an Adopted Child of God. Period. There's no "work" to be done. There isn't really such a thing as "initial justification," so such language should be avoided by all sides, since Baptism is not the start of some progressive life-long filling up of a 'righteousness gas tank'. 

Who shall bring an accusation against God's elect? (Romans 8:33) - Not who you might think.

Continuing on with my look at the Biblical term "elect," the first 'controversial' text I want to look at is Romans 8:33 where Paul famously asks: Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? Before diving into that, it's important to recall what the Biblical term "election" (and "calling") refers to, particularly that the Bible doesn't use it to refer to someone who is unconditionally elected to make it to heaven. With that, we can quote the context and I'll present my case for "who" Paul has in mind here. 

³² He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? ³³ Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. ³⁴ Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. ³⁵ Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? ³⁶ As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” ³⁷ No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. ³⁸ For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, ³⁹ nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This passage is often read by Protestants (typically Calvinist/Reformed types) to mean that the Christian is Eternally Secure. That no sin can separate us from God. Catholic apologists are right to point out that this list of dangers which Paul lists are not sins but rather persecutions. This is important because it means Paul is not at all saying that "no sin can separate us," because the fact is sin can separate us from God. That's the whole point of Adam & Eve falling into sin. They were in communion and the fell from communion with God. (I've not really heard a coherent explanation from Protestants as to how Adam & Eve could fall from communion with God if salvation is eternally secure.) What I want to do here is go one step further.