Is Romans 7 about life as a Christian?

I was involved in a Calvinist/Reformed discussion on Romans 7, specifically discussing whether Paul in Romans 7 is speaking of himself as a "Christian struggling with sin" versus whether Paul here is speaking of his former life as an  "unconverted Jew". Biblical commentators have argued both as possible readings, but generally the Protestant side (especially Reformed and Lutheran) comes down strongly on the "Christian struggling with sin" reading of Romans 7. While that Protestant reading is understandable, I think it is a very problematic and inferior to the more likely "unconverted Jew" interpretation of Romans 7. This might not seem like an important debate, but I think we really need to care what Paul actually wants to teach us in Romans, and we should care if certain agendas are causing us to read Paul incorrectly in order to prop up erroneous theological ideas.  

Before delving into the text, it is important to affirm that everyone agrees that the Christian life involves an inner battle with one's flesh, which Paul speaks of elsewhere (e.g. Romans 6; Galatians 5:16-24). After we delve into the actual text and do actual exegesis, I will then share why I suspect the Reformed/Lutherans are trying so hard to hold to their reading.

The 2nd Commandment does not apply to Icons

The most common objection that Protestants use against Catholics for venerating images of God and of the Saints is for Protestants to appeal to the Ten Commandments [1], specifically the 2nd Commandment (Exodus 20:4-5), which seems to plainly prohibit the making and venerating of any religious images. While this Biblical appeal might seem to be an open and shut, slam dunk against Catholicism, it actually contains a very problematic and erroneous approach to the Old Testament, which Saint Paul termed "Judaizing" in Greek (Gal 2:14). The reason why people fail to recognize this is because Protestantism was founded upon an erroneous, even Judaizing, approach to the Mosaic Law. I think it is worth bringing this up because too many times I've seen Catholics basically accept this very Protestant Judaizing premise behind their use of the 2nd Commandment, which is the real issue that needs to be exposed.

Before we can even look at the 2nd Commandment itself, the first critical thing to know is that the term "Law" for Paul absolutely means the Mosaic Law, whereas Protestants erroneously think "Law" means anything man is ever told to do (e.g. any work a man does). I have exposed this many times in past blog posts and in discussions, particularly how the Protestants failing to define "Law" properly is a main reason they completely misunderstand Paul and salvation. (e.g. HERE). 

To build in this point, it is critical to know that the Mosaic Law was also known as the Mosaic Covenant (what Christians call the "Old Covenant"), and that the Ten Commandments were literally the very core of the Old Covenant. I think Hebrews 9:5 captures this very well, practically calling these basic truths everyone already knows: 

1 Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness. 2 For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. It is called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a second section called the Most Holy Place, 4 having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant. 5 Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. 

Note how the Ten Commandments were called "the tablets of the covenant" and thus were put inside the Ark of the Covenant. Knowing this basic theological truth is critical. I show this plainly elsewhere as well (e.g. HERE with Deut 9:9). Once a person recognizes this solid link between the Mosaic Law and Ten Commandments as the Old Covenant, it sets us up to be forced to admit that when the Old Covenant was done away with at the death of Christ on the Cross, that also means the Ten Commandments as a Binding Legal Code-Covenant was also done away with as a strict "letter of the law" requirement for Christians.

Reading Romans 9 with 70AD in mind - Revisting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness (part 7)

I have recently been pondering Romans 9 with the backdrop of 70AD in mind, and a lot of what follows ties into the Revisiting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness series (here). If Paul has the destruction of the Temple and destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD in mind - which signifies God formally rejecting the Jews as His chosen/elect people - then that would explain a lot of the pain and concern Paul has in this and the following chapters. The standard "Calvinist" reading of Romans 9 is that of emphasizing God's sovereignty in choosing, but I think that misses the point and takes a too shallow of reading of Paul here. Romans is not concerned about defending God being all powerful, but rather about explaining why God would elect someone just to reject them later on. Consider that 75% of the Bible is focused on God electing the Israelites as His "chosen" people (Deut 7:6), only to suddenly do a reversal in the "last days". God graciously gave the Israelites divine gifts of adoption, covenants, glory, promises, etc (9:1-5), most of which was unmerited by them. Nobody denies that God could have made you born a different race, in a different time, under different circumstances, etc, so it is kind of pointless for Paul to make "unconditional sovereignty" the issue. Similarly, I don't think Paul is suggesting God chooses for purely hidden reasons, but rather that God chooses for very strategic reasons. In fact, I have come to see the "thesis" verse of Romans 9 to be in verse 8, where Paul says, "those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as the seed," which I believe means those who are born of purely natural or biological means are secondary to those who are born of special or supernatural means. With this in mind, let's take a look at Paul's actual examples. 

First, Paul brings up Isaac versus Ismael. We know that Ishmael was firstborn and born by natural human relations, but God had Isaac in mind as the blessed chosen linage which would bring about the "Seed" or Messiah. Paul emphasizes this same lesson especially in Galatians 4:21-31, so it would be reasonable to see the same lesson elsewhere in Paul's writings. I believe this is also taught in Romans 4:1-4, where Paul begins by asking about Abraham being father "according to the flesh" (4:1b), and "justified by works, but not before God" (4:2), because Ishmael was born "according to the flesh" (i.e. Abraham's sleeping with Hagar), making it seem like Abraham had achieved by human means the promised heir of Genesis 15:5-6. This producing of Ishmael was thus a "justification by works" in the sight of men (4:2a), because in the human calculation they reckoned Ishmael to be the promised seed heir...but not in the sight of God (4:2b), since God had in mind Isaac instead to be the promised heir or at least chosen lineage. Thus, Paul gives a human analogy, whereby when a person works a job he is rightly entitled a wage (4:4a), but how much more blessed is it to receive a gift beyond what your job can get you? Abraham could produce a natural heir (working wages), but trusting in God and receive a supernatural blessing, such as Isaac coming from a barren Sarah, that's beyond natural or normal transactions (4:4b). Similarly, the Mosaic Covenant promised health and wealth for faithfulness to it, but these were earthly wages, whereby being a Believer in the higher things of life comes with the promise of forgiveness of sins and heaven. Thus, Paul is trying to condition us to start thinking in a spiritual way rather than the long time "fleshy" way of earthly blessings. 

Second, this sets up Paul for a second example, noting the first few words he uses: 

10 And not only this, but also when Rebecca had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

The Bible easily refutes the Lutheran & Reformed view of Original Sin

Sorry for the delay in posting, my life has been so busy that I've not had any chance to post, and when I sit down to post I run into all kinds of unfortunate distractions that leave many things as an unpublished "draft". That said, I have been occasionally active on Twitter (HERE), and have met some great Catholic and Protestant people on there, with some good topics that have been discussed. For this post I want to discuss a fundamental and serious error that I saw a Lutheran espousing about Original Sin, which is a major reason why they espouse Imputed Justification against Catholicism (and Scripture). I see it as a simple and short refutation of their erroneous view of Original Sin.

The Protestant Reformers erroneously saw the "evil desires" that remain within the Christian as truly and properly sinful before God. As one Lutheran put it on Twitter: "Man's fallen and wicked desire, Concupiscence, is itself actually sinful, for it is lawless and rebellion against God's law and holy will." This sinful desire, called "Concupiscence," is a major point of contention between Catholics and Protestants. If such desires as the temptation to lust after a woman, which are constantly arising within us, are truly sinful, then the Christian is in a serious bind, for how can they hope to live a life of holiness before God if they are constantly hit with lustful desires throughout their Christian life? The Protestant view is that these lustful desire are truly sinful, and thus the only way to "escape" this constant feeling of defeat and guilt before God is to "hide" behind Christ's Righteousness through Imputation, such that God now only sees Christ's holy life instead of you whenever God looks at you. It would seem that some kind of Imputation model would be the only "solution," even though this doesn't really amount to a solution when other factors are considered. Meanwhile, the Catholic view is that Concupiscence is not sinful in itself, but rather is an inclination to give into sin, and thus Concupiscence is only a temptation in the Catholic view, whereas sin is an act of the human will to choose to give into temptation. In short, for Catholicism and Scripture, we would say concupiscence is not sinful in itself but it certainly is a result of Original Sin and an unfortunate effect that remains even in Christians.

One primary Catholic proof text that concupiscence is not formally/truly sinful comes from the Epistle of James, chapter 1, which says:

12 Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial [temptation], for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire ["concupiscence" in Latin]. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

What James is saying is that there is a distinction between temptation/concupiscence versus that of sinning. Merely being tempted or feeling lustful desires is not sinful, but it is an effect of Original Sin. This passage would not even make sense if temptation itself was formally (i.e. truly) sinful rather than an effect of Adam's sin. In fact, this passage would seemingly undermine the Protestant view quite plainly, and I think it does. But to turn up the heat against the erroneous Protestant view, I pointed the Lutheran to many passages from the First Epistle of St John, which I will now cite here, and which he didn't seem to have any response to.

Consider these passages from First John:

Was Jesus "cursed" to Hell (Gal 3:13 - Part 2) - More problems with Penal Substitution

Years ago I had written about Galatians 3:13 and whether it supported the Protestant doctrine of Penal Substitution (see HERE), which I've written many posts on this blog about. The basic claim of Protestant advocates is that when St Paul says Jesus "became a curse," they say this 'clearly' teaches that Jesus suffered the eternal spiritual torments of hellfire that we deserved. One of the most popular conservative Protestant preachers of our time was RC Spoul, where he preached on this very issue at a major conference: "Jesus had some experience of the beauty of the Father until that moment that my sin was placed upon him, and the one who was pure was pure no more. And God cursed Him. It was as if there was a cry from heaven—excuse my language, but I can be no more accurate than to say—it was as if Jesus heard the words "God Damn You." Because that's what it meant to be cursed, to be damned, to be under the anathema of a Father." (Ligoner Ministries 2019). Protestants cite Gal 3:13 as if it explicitly meant God the Father cursed Jesus with eternal wrath, basically eternal damnation to hellfire. The reality is, that is reading way too much into the text and even causes many problems, some of which I have already highlighted in Part 1. In this Part 2, I will take a look at another historical view of this text that doesn't get much attention but which I feel makes far more sense.

The primary dispute on this verse is what does "cursed (by God)" mean. The Biblical term "curse" refers to speaking/wishing evil upon someone, whether deserved or not. It is not some generic term for "damn to hellfire". In fact, the term "curse" as it is used in the Bible refers almost always to physical evils that come upon someone or something. For example God curses the serpent, saying it will now slither across the ground (Gen 3:14), and God curses the ground after Adam sinned, saying the ground will now produce thorns (Gen 3:17). Noah curses Canaan saying Canaan will be a slave and mockery. In 2 Kings 2:24, Elisha calls a curse on some boys mocking him, and a bear came and tore them up. Jesus cursed the fig tree by saying it will never produce fruit again, and it withered and died (Mt 21:19). There are even times when God is said to make someone "a curse," such as in 2 Kings 22:19, Jeremiah 24:9, 25:18, all referring to the land becoming desolated as a result of the Israelites' sinful behavior. Most especially is Deuteronomy 28:15, which lists a bunch of curses God will do to the Israelites if they break the Mosaic Covenant, including sickness, drought, famine, defeated in battle, blindness, anxiety, scabs, tumors, etc. This Deut 28 curse section is the very context of Gal 3:10-13, which is what Paul is directly citing. This Biblical understanding of "curse" fits far better with the notion that Jesus was publicly humiliated with crucifixion than it does of the Protestant presumption that it must be speaking of some invisible damnation curse by the Father. And that leads us into the "new insight" of this post.

Recall that Paul is not 'randomly' saying Jesus became a curse in Gal 3:13, but that Paul is actually citing Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which says:

22 And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.

Notice the verse is largely focused on taking care not to defile the Promise Land, and thus the cursed language actually more of a parentheses. So what is it about a body on a tree that defiles the land? Many would say that what "defiles the holy land" is the presence of gravely sinful individuals, such as criminals running around unpunished, which is understandable (cf Num 35:34; Lev 18:24-25). But in this case, it is specifically focused on the burial process, which I'm not sure if other texts address. This verse is unique and somewhat mysterious. This is when I came upon some Biblical commentary that indicate some commentators interpret the "cursed" (by God) text not as God cursing the individual, but rather of the mutilated body being a blasphemy, reproach, curse, etc, against God. For example, the predominant Rabbinical reading is that since man is made in God's Image, then to mutilate or defile the body is basically an insult, blasphemy, etc, against God. This fits with why the Torah forbids certain tattoos, certain fashions, certain grooming, etc, because it is human mutilation. It not only messes with the people, but it is also a bad testimony to others when you're supposed to be a good example to them. (How tragic it is when we see our fellow citizens mutilating their bodies, often because they are deeply wounded inside.)

When the human body is treated like garbage then it is an insult to God's prized creation made in His image, and it is a very pagan thing to mutilate the body. We see how disgusted we get when we think about the Aztecs who used to mutilate their enemies while still alive, and how dark of a cloud comes upon our nation when we think about abortion happening everywhere. When we see in National Geographic type magazines the Islamic form of punishment, namely decapitation, cutting off heads, cutting off hands, cutting off feet, etc, we become repulsed. Similarly, when we see a corpse hanging from a tree or pole, we become grossed out. We are not grossed out or repulsed from mere capital punishment, but rather only those which are popularly called "cruel and unusual" punishment. So similarly, imagine what God sees when the human body is mutilated. In this situation, while it was necessary to have crucifixion for grave offenses, the Mosaic Law put limits on this.

Saint Jerome mentions that some translations had even captured this "curse in the sight of God" rendering, in his Commentary on Galatians (HERE):

Synagogues aren't Temples - kind of a big deal Pt.2

From my recent post (here) discussing the plain distinction between the synagogue versus the Temple, it has let me to look into the "Biblical details" more of each institution, including the key passages which were already cited. This study is important because if the Bible does use worship type language in regards to the synagogue, then it would mean the prior post would have to be significantly retracted or modified. However, if the Bible does not use worship type language with regards to the synagogue, then the prior post is more firmly established.

To begin, the Greek word "worship" appears about 60 times in the NT, and it is largely used to refer to people "bowing down" in reverence. That said, "worship" is clearly tied to Jerusalem, and specifically the Temple, is clear from Luke 2:37; John 4:20-21; 12:20; Acts 8:27; 24:11; Heb 9:1;  Rev 11:1 (1 Cor 14:23-25; 2 Thess 2:4; Rev 15:4-5). Worship is associated with "religion" and "altar" (Acts 17:22-23). Worship is "regulated" by "covenant" and holy places (Heb 9:1-2).

I did not see the synagogue mentioned in any of these verses, implying "worship" (in the Biblical sense) does not take place in the synagogue. So far this data fits with the Catholic thesis that I wrote about in the prior article. Now onto the next word to look at.

Does the Bible limit the Sacraments to only Baptism and Eucharist? (Sola Scriptura)

Protestants generally hold to only two Sacraments, claiming that Baptism and Eucharist are the only two "ordinances" that Jesus commanded. Reformed pastor R.C. Sproul's ministry has a reflection on this, which says (here):

Now that we have explored the sacraments in a general sense, we are prepared to look at each sacrament in more detail. Yet before we do that, we must determine the number of sacraments revealed in Scripture. Christ instituted two sacraments: baptism and the Lord’s Supper (The Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 68).

It is easy to see why the Heidelberg Catechism singles out these ordinances as sacraments. After all, the Gospels reveal explicitly our Savior’s command to baptize disciples and to partake of bread and wine in His memory (Matt. 28:18–20; Luke 22:14–20). Some churches, in addition, have viewed foot washing as a third sacrament. Other churches do not invest foot washing with sacramental significance, although they may have special foot-washing services during the year. Both groups cite John 13:1–20 in defense of the practice.

What shall we say about this? Clearly, whatever freedom churches might have to engage in foot washing, no church body may impose it as a sacrament upon its people. First, the early church did not see in John 13 a command for the church in every age to wash feet. Acts, for example, records the disciples administering the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (2:37–42), but this New Testament book never records Apostolic foot washing. Second, Dr. R.C. Sproul notes in his commentary John that the majority of the church has not regarded foot washing as a sacrament.

Finally, the Roman Catholic Church adds five sacraments to baptism and the Lord’s Supper: penance, confirmation, marriage, holy orders (priestly ordination), and extreme unction (last rites). Of course, Roman Catholicism is right to see some of these acts as helpful to Christian growth. A godly husband, for example, rightly regards his wife as one of the most sanctifying influences in his life. An ordinance such as penance, however, denies the gospel because it calls for sinners to make satisfaction for their sin.

While the above claims are standard Protestant claims, there are some obvious problems with the above claims that we should take a look at. First of all, the use of the terms "sacrament" and "ordinance" are not used in Scripture with regards to Baptism or the Eucharist. So it is somewhat of an "oral tradition" that Protestants are appealing to when they dogmatically apply "sacrament" to these two things. Second, the only time the Bible uses the term "sacrament" in regards to these is when Paul speaks of Marriage as a "great sacrament" in Ephesians 5:32, where the Greek term mysterion ("mystery") which is precisely what the Latin term "sacrament" means (see here). So this is another blatant inconsistency.

Third, the teaching of Jesus to wash the feet of others in John 13:1-20 does sound like something of a sacrament, especially in 13-14, where Jesus says: "If I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you." This is an outward ordinance or ritual, that Jesus expressly commands, and is clearly tied to being washed of sins and being part of the community (v8): "If I do not wash you, you have no share with me." This line of Jesus is especially noteworthy, because while Peter was already a believer in Jesus, here we see Jesus tell Peter that if Peter refuses to have his feet washed, then Jesus will disown Peter. This passage not only poses a problem for 'once saved always saved' but it also exposes the Protestant bias and inconsistency in their theology. And even if it is not a sacrament, the Church has historically seen it as an official part of the Liturgy, particularly on Holy Thursday, also called "Mandate Thursday" in Latin because Jesus "mandates" (commands) the washing of feet. So this is not "optional" for the Protestant side, yet most Protestants do not even practice the foot washing rite in any formal/concrete manner.

Were David's future sins forgiven at the moment of his conversion? (Quickie Apologetics)

I'm not sure if I have posted this before, but I want to make a quick post about it. I'd say that 'moderate/intermediate' level of Catholic apologetics knows that when Romans 4:6-8 speaks of the justification of David in Psalm 32, that this prayer in Psalm 32 was not the first time that David came to faith. Instead, David had been converted to God since David was a young man (1 Sam 17:33-37). In this case of Psalm 32, David was praying about repenting of his adultery/murder in 2 Samuel 12:13-14, where as an adult David committed mortal sin and needed to repent. Thus, if Psalm 32 is talking about Justification, as Paul says it is, this can only mean David lost his salvation by mortal sin and regained it when he repented. This refutes/undermines the standard Protestant claim that Justification cannot be lost by our sin (or regained by Repenting). This brilliant insight was first made by Robert Sungenis about 25 years ago in his published book Not By Faith Alone.

That said, certain Protestants like James White insist that David's future sins were (also) forgiven per David's words of Psalm 32, which is a serious presumption since the Bible only ever talks of past sins being forgiven. That's because the Reformed are forced to teach all future sins are forgiven in order to uphold their other erroneous views, namely Faith Alone and Imputation (discussed many times on this blog). But what if we can look even further into David's life, years later as King, and see him falling into sin again? That would obviously cause serious problems to the White/Reformed thesis. And indeed there is such a text, discovered by the Catholic blogger [HERE], where he points out that the final chapter of 2 Samuel, specifically 2 Sam 24:10, speaks of an elderly David disobeying God in another serious manner:

10 But David's heart struck him after he had numbered the people. And David said to the Lord, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. But now, O Lord, please take away the iniquity of your servant, for I have done very foolishly.” . . . 17 Then David spoke to the Lord when he saw the angel who was striking the people, and said, “Behold, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly. But these sheep, what have they done? Please let your hand be against me and against my father's house.”

It is clear that David had sin/iniquity on his conscience before God for his bad behavior, and David was again praying for forgiveness. It is clear that God was even punishing David for his sins and had to do Penance to fix it (2 Sam 24:24-25). This is impossible if David's future sins were forgiven years earlier when David prayed Psalm 32. This is impossible if David was "covered by Christ's imputed righteousness" such that God doesn't see David's behavior but rather only sees David as righteous at all times. I think this is a wonderful find and believe it raises a Catholic to 'advanced/expert' level when he includes 2 Samuel 24:10 along with pointing out that Psalm 32 was about David's sin in 2 Samuel 12. We simply must make use of powerful arguments like these, because they can be very effective against Protestants.

Was Abraham wicked in Genesis 15:6? (Another look at Rom 4:5)

Continuing on the same Romans 4:5 "justifies the ungodly" theme, since this verse is seen as a Protestant stronghold for Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, I want to present multiple reasons why the Protestant reading is untenable. Just as a reminder, the Protestant side insists that "justifies the ungodly" means that Abraham was a wicked ungodly unregenerate vile man at the time of Genesis 15:6, and thus had no good works of any kind to justify himself, and thus the only way God was able to justify Abraham is by imputing the Righteousness of Christ to Abraham. But if Romans 4:5 is not actually saying Abraham was wicked (such that he had no righteousness within or righteous behavior), then the Reformed reading of Genesis 15:6 fails, and thus so does Romans 4:3-5, their chief proof text for Justification by Faith Alone and Imputation. 

To prove that I'm not making this Protestant 'interpretation' up, consider the words of some respected Protestant scholars:

• Dr R. Scott Clark (12/2018 on his blog):
  

  There have been times when the church has given the impression to her members and to others that only the perfect are welcome. She did that in the Middle Ages when many of their theologians concluded that we are right with God (justified) only to the degree we are holy (sanctified). In the Protestant Reformation the story was clarified to a great degree. Martin Luther (1483–1546) helped us see that Scripture teaches that all believers are at the same time sinful and declared righteous (simul iustus et peccator) by God, that, as Paul says, Christ justifies the ungodly (Rom 4:5).”
  

• Dr Sam Waldron (Spring 2021 in a Reformed academic journal):
  

  The word “ungodly” implies that Abraham himself was not justified because he was the paradigm of obedience. Instead, he was the ungodly person justified by faith. . . . It is a significant mistake for Hays, who follows Sanders and others, to bring the concept of the merits of the patriarchs to the discussion of Abraham in Romans 4. He says, “Abraham’s faithfulness was reckoned by God to the benefit not only of Israel (as in the rabbinic exegetical tradition) but also of the Gentiles.” To speak of “the vicarious effects of Abraham’s faithfulness” is to obscure or miss the whole point. Abraham is the ungodly man - not the faithful man - in Romans 4. He is not a Christ-figure with a treasury of merit, but a sinner with no merit in need of justification. His faith is not admirable faithfulness, but empty-handed reliance on the promise of God. . . . The tension between Abraham the obedient (James 2:21–23) and Abraham the ungodly (Rom 4:3–5) must be considered. . . . But what of the assertion that Paul in Romans 4:5 refers to Abraham as ungodly in Genesis 15:6? The plain record of Abraham’s grievous failures after his calling are relevant to the question at hand. These grievous manifestations of remaining sin are a reminder of what Abraham had been, what he was by nature, and that his standing before God was not grounded on the very imperfect obedience which grew out of his faith in God’s promises. Thus, for the purposes of being justified by God, Abraham was (from the standpoint of the stringent requirements of God’s law) ungodly not only before his call, but afterwards.

• Dr John Fesko (Essay on Imputation):
  

  Abraham’s righteousness was not native to him; in fact, Paul says he was “ungodly.” So how did God consider him righteous? Because Abraham laid hold of Christ’s righteousness by faith. God therefore imputed Christ’s righteousness to Abraham. . . . This scriptural teaching stands in stark contrast to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches that God justifies sinners on the basis of inherent, rather than imputed, righteousness. In other words, a person must actually be holy in order to receive the verdict of righteous before the divine bar. Yet, such an opinion conflicts with Paul’s testimony that God justifies the “ungodly” (Rom. 4:5).
  

• Dr DA Carson (The Vindication of Imputation pdf):
  

  More importantly, it does not bear in mind Paul’s own powerful conclusion: it is the wicked person to whom the Lord imputes righteousness. In the context, that label is applied to Abraham no less than to anyone else. In Paul’s understanding, then, God’s imputation of Abraham’s faith to Abraham as righteousness cannot be grounded in the assumption that that faith is itself intrinsically righteous. If God is counting faith to Abraham as righteousness, he is counting him righteous — not because Abraham is righteous in some inherent way (How can he be? He is asebes / ungodly), but simply because Abraham trusts God and his gracious promise.

• Dr Charles Hodge (Essay on Justification):
  

  As this righteousness is not our own, as we are sinners, ungodly, without works, it must be the righteousness of another, even of Him who is our righteousness.

• Dr Joel Beeke (The relation of Faith to Justification):
  

  In the final analysis, if we base our justification on our faith, our works, or anything else of our own, the very foundations of justification must crumble. Inevitably the agonizing, perplexing, and hopeless questions of having "enough" would surface; Is my faith strong enough? Are the fruits of grace in my life fruitful enough? Are my experiences deep enough, clear enough, persistent enough? Every detected inadequacy in my faith is going to shake the very foundations of my spiritual life. My best believing is always defective. I am always too ungodly even in my faith.
  

These quotes are representative of mainstream conservative Protestant scholarship. These Protestant scholars are well aware of challenges to their interpretation of Romans 4:5, but the Protestant side is so stuck and has bet everything on Romans 4:5 in order to uphold Imputation that they cannot afford to budge. I can confidently say that the highest academic levels of conservative Protestant scholarship has no other hope than their desperate reading of Romans 4:5.

Here are some reasons I have gathered as to why “ungodly” in the case of Abraham in Genesis 15:6 refers merely to Gentile (i.e. uncircumcised) status and does not likely refer to something more severe or “morally corrupt” in Romans 4:5. These reasons are not mutually exclusive, but can overlap:

Justification of the Ungodly - a Reformed admission

I came across a wonderful admission from a Reformed article online [1] of something I've been saying for a while regarding the problematic situation of the Reformed reading of "justifies the ungodly" (Rom 4:5) that I'd like to share. The article is short, but I trimmed it down at spots to capture the most important points:

One of the most striking and comforting expressions in the Scriptures is that God justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5). Nonetheless, this statement creates a theological conundrum of sorts and has led in part some Reformed theologians, including puritans, to at least suggest if not advocate a subtle form of justification before faith. So what then is the problem?

Placing regeneration and faith before justification, as the Reformed do, appears to be incompatible with the fact that God justifies the ungodly. For how can a regenerated, holy sinner who exercises sincere faith and repentance be viewed as ungodly? Yet, placing regeneration after justification has its own problems, chiefly, how can a sinner dead in sins turn to Christ in true faith and repentance?

The Reformed officially teach that before a person can even believe, the Holy Spirit must first come and cause a radical transformation inside that person, taking them from spiritual death to spiritual life (Eph 2:5), born again (Jn 3:5), giving them a new heart (Rom 2:29), making them a new creation (2 Cor 5:17), and enabling them to exercise the gift of faith. This is called "Regeneration" or "Effectual Calling" in classical Reformed language. Only after Regeneration can they then believe in the Gospel and then get Justified. But this raises the question, how can someone so powerfully transformed inside by the Holy Spirit still remain "ungodly" in any reasonable sense? To remain "ungodly" would suggest that sin is more powerful than grace, which cannot be. So the Reformed must now explain how there can be an "ungodly" in the first place when it comes to the believer getting Justified.

Did God reckon Abraham's heart as faithful? (Nehemiah 9:8 and 13:13)

As you probably know, Protestants claim that since Abraham was "ungodly" he couldn't be justified before God by his sinful actions, and instead had to use his faith to receive the "imputed Righteousness of Christ" in order to appear righteous before God. While there are numerous proofs against Protestantism's perverted reading of Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3), I want to present two 'new' Biblical proofs that Protestant scholars and apologists quietly ignore. Both texts are from the book of Nehemiah, which is a fascinating new use for this book in apologetics.

The first text is:

Neh 9: 7 You are the Lord, the God who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and gave him the name Abraham. 8 You found his heart faithful before you, and made with him the covenant to give to his offspring the land of the Canaanite. And you have kept your promise, for you are righteous.

The term "faithful" here is the same term used in Genesis 15:6 - and in fact is the only time the term is used of Abraham in Genesis. The Hebrew term often means "faithful" and not merely believing. The connection to Abraham's "heart" being good further suggests that Abraham was not "ungodly" in the Protestant claim of being morally depraved, but rather being merely a Gentile (cf Rom 4:9-12). Also, the verse ends with God keeping his Promise (cf Rom 4:13), because God is "righteous". The connection with Promise Keeping and Righteousness suggests that the Righteousness in question here is more of a "faithfulness," rather than the Protetant error that claims Biblical "righteousness" means a lifetime of perfectly keeping the commandments (which doesn't even make sense when speaking of the Father's righteousness).

Is Peace (Shalom) unconditional in the Bible? (Romans 5:1)

Protestant apologist James White has a few claims he regularly brings up against Catholicism, and which many Protestants blindly repeat. The two most common claims I've seen him make are asking Catholics "who is the Blessed Man of Romans 4:8?" and "Roman Catholicism cannot provide the true peace which the Gospel provides us". White says in his book and website (see here):

There can be no doubt what lies behind Paul’s use of the term peace in this [Romans 5:1] passage. The Hebrew steeped in Scripture knew full well the meaning of shalom. It does not refer merely to a cessation of hostilities. It is not a temporary cease-fire. The term shalom would not refer to a situation where two armed forces face each other across a border, ready for conflict, but not yet at war. Shalom refers to a fullness of peace, a wellness of relationship. Those systems [e.g. Roman Catholicism] that proclaim a man-centered scheme of justification cannot explain the richness of this word. They cannot provide peace because a relationship that finds its source and origin in the actions of imperfect sinners will always be imperfect itself. The phrase "we have peace" [Rom 5:1] in regard to God, properly means, God is at peace with us, his wrath towards us is removed.

This all sounds well and good, but all too often it turns out that things that sound good to human ears are often not actually what the Bible teaches (cf 2 Tim 4:3). White's lack of Biblical analysis in his presentation of how the Bible uses the term "peace" was suspicious to me, so I decided to see for myself how the Bible uses the Greek/Hebrew terms Peace/Shalom (here). Does the Bible speak of Peace/Shalom as something that is permanent and unconditional the way White makes it out to be? Here are some texts I've found that use the same Greek/Hebrew term "peace" as in Romans 5:1 that I think cast serious doubt on White's bold assertions: 

Augustine's insights on Genesis 15 - Revisiting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness - Part 5

Since my radical reevaluation of Genesis 15 last year, which I have in my "Revisiting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness" series (Here), I have recently come across a fabulous commentary by St Augustine on this situation which I feel further vindicates my position. I truly believe this will change the way most informed folks read and comment upon Genesis 15 and Romans 4. Let's jump right into it, with this passage from St Augustine's masterpiece, City of God (Book 16; Section 26):

After these things in Gen 16, Ishmael was born of Hagar; and Abraham might think that in Ishmael was fulfilled what God had promised him in Gen 15, after Abraham originally wished to adopt his home-born servant Eliezer (Gen 15:2), to which God said "This servant shall not be your heir; but he that shall come forth from your own loins, he shall be your heir." (Gen 15:4) Therefore, lest Abraham should think that what was promised in Genesis 15:4 was fulfilled in Ishmael the handmaid's son in Genesis 16, God appeared to Abraham in Genesis 17 to promise the birth of Isaac, and said "I am God; be well-pleasing in my sight, and be without complaint, and I will make my covenant between me and you, and will fill you exceedingly."

Here in Genesis 17 there are more distinct promises about the calling of the nations in Isaac, that is, in the son of the promise, by which grace is signified, and not nature; for the son is promised from an old man and a barren old woman [Rom 4:19]. For although God effects even the natural course of procreation, yet where the agency of God is manifest, through the decay or failure of nature, grace is more plainly discerned. And because this was to be brought about, not by generation, but by regeneration, circumcision was enjoined now, when a son was promised of Sarah. For what else does circumcision signify than a nature renewed on the putting off of the old? And what else does the eighth day mean than Christ, who rose again when the week was completed, that is, after the Sabbath? The very names of the parents are changed [Gen 17:5; Rom 4:17]: all these details proclaim newness, and the new covenant is shadowed forth in the old. For what does the term old covenant imply but the concealing of the new? And what does the term new covenant imply but the revealing of the old?

Wow, if only this passage of St Augustine was more well-known, it might have changed the course of Catholic & Protestant dialog a long time ago and completely changed the way we read Romans 4. This passage confirms a lot of what my own 'regenerated' understanding of Romans 4 seems to be about as I've explained in my Revisiting series. As a summary: I do not see Romans 4 as about Abraham converting in Genesis 15, nor about him getting justified a second time after Genesis 12. I do not necessarily even see circumcision as portrayed as a "work" (more on this in an upcoming post). Rather, I think the only feasible reading of Rom 4:2 "if Abraham was justified by works" can refer to is bringing about the Promised Heir of Gen 15:4 by natural human means, namely Abraham sleeping with Hagar in Genesis 16, right after the Covenant was established in Genesis 15. It makes little to no sense contextually or logically for "works" of Abraham in Rom 4 to be sins, good deeds, or even circumcision itself, much less the ceremonial works of Moses. If you do a simple substitution of any of those meanings of "works", the train of thought for Paul makes no sense. It is possible that Paul is saying Abraham's "work" of sleeping with Hagar was a "type" for the merely natural "works of the Mosaic Law" which lacked grace. Abraham truly Believed God's promise in Genesis 12 that his offspring would be great and bless the whole world, but his natural, earthly, human "Reason" was unable to see how this was to actually be. Perhaps it was Eliezer, Abraham's distant relative would be the heir. So God showed up go clarify in Genesis 15 that it was not Eliezer, but rather someone "from his own loins" (15:4b). Perhaps then it was Ishmael, Abraham's actual biological child. So God showed up again to clarify in Genesis 17 that it wasn't Ishmael, but rather a miraculous birth, made possible by regenerative circumcision. In all this, we see types/shadows/images of the insufficiency of the Old Covenant and the need to make way for the New Covenant. Paul is far more concerned with Divine Revelation unfolding, seeing Genesis with the Glasses of Faith, that he is with some silly, shallow Protestant debate on faith "versus" deeds. 

Were "those whom God foreknew" the OT saints? (Rom 8:29)

While writing my article on Romans 11:6 (here), something jumped out at me in Romans 11:2, where Paul says: "God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew." This statement sounds very similar to a few chapters prior, in Romans 8:29, where Paul famously says: "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son". While I've already discussed Romans 8:29-30 in an older post (here), I haven't looked at it through this "foreknow" lens, so I'll do that today.

In the context of Rom 11:2, the "God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew" is clearly referring to the Israelites, at least those who were faithful, as the prior verse 11:1 asks "has God therefore rejected his people?" as he then lists off marks of Israelite identity. Using the principle of "Scripture interprets Scripture," would suggest that the Israelites of Rom 11:2, "his [chosen/elect] people," at least the faithful ones, are who Paul has principally in mind in Rom 8:29 when he says "those whom He foreknew". In other words, Rom 8:29-30 is actually focused on the Old Testament saints. Others have suggested this is what 8:29 means, but now that I've come across this link to Rom 11:2, I now think the claim has better merit.

If the OT Saints are in view in 8:29, this would better explain why Paul speaks of "those" instead of "us/we" whom God foreknew. It would also better explain why God puts the "called, predestined, justified," and "glorified" all in the past tense, since it would mean the OT Saints already experienced these things. We could even say Paul's repeated use of "also" is to suggest the OT saints "also" experience these blessings along with the NT saints, thus Paul isn't so much speaking of a chain of events, but rather simply saying every blessing the Gentiles experience in Christ, the OT saints "also" experience them. Given the context of Romans 8:29 being about enduring suffering, calling upon the example of the OT saints is an excellent lesson for Paul to draw upon, since we have historical proof of OT saints having to endure trials, and see how God helped them get through it. And, finally, since Paul is concerned about Jew-Gentile tensions, it helps to show the OT saints are blessed, so that the NT saints don't feel superior to them.

The righteous shall live by (God's) faithfulness - Part 3 (Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11; Heb 10:38)

One benefit of discussing your theological reflections with others (both Catholic and Protestant) is that, through their feedback, you can often further refine your original conclusions. In the case of Paul's mysterious appeal to the obscure text of Habakkuk 2:4 in key junctures of Romans and Galatians, I have come to write this unexpected Part 3 of this The Righteous Shall Life By Faith series (Part 2 is HERE). This time, I will try to bring the truths of the prior reflections together to form a fully cohesive understanding of why Paul appealed to such an obscure OT text if his goal was to make a convincing argument to his audience, both friend and foe.

First, let us recall that in Galatians 3:11, Paul says: "It is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”" I'll be honest, there is nothing obvious about how this brief phrase from Habakkuk evidently proves faith justifies while the law does not justify. I'm sure that if other folks were honest, they would admit this phrase is more mysterious than it is clear. Most commentaries that I have come across take the very simplistic approach of saying something akin to "Habakkuk says faith gives life, so that's all there is to salvation." Sorry, but I think that's an immature approach to the text, and is full of problems. For one, we already noted in Part 2 that "faith" in Hab 2:4 is more accurately translated/understood as "faithfulness," and nothing in the text or context suggest a person is incapable of doing good works or that everyone is unrighteous (e.g. God did not consider Habakkuk as unrighteous). And the way Hab2:4 is quoted in Hebrews 10:32-39, "you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised," there is nothing in Paul's lesson here that in any way suggests faith alone or "once saved always saved". (Protestants have shamefully and intentionally avoided the rule of "Scriptures interprets Scripture" by refusing to take Hebrews 10:38 into consideration when interpreting Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11.)

On top of that, there are many texts in the Bible that link having life, righteousness, etc, to obeying God's commandments, e.g., Proverbs 4:4; 7:2; 11:19; Eze 18:22; as well as very relevant passages similar in nature to Habakkuk, such as Ezekiel 14:12-14,

And the word of the Lord came to me: “When a land sins against me by acting faithlessly, and I stretch out my hand against it and break it, and send famine, and cut off from it man and beast, even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver only their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord God.

The plain logic here is that when the bulk of the people turn to evil for a sustained time, then even the most righteous saints in OT history wouldn't be able to intervene, and rather such saints would only spare their own life by their righteous behavior. So do we really think that Paul was so intellectually weak that Paul simply mined the OT until he found a text that sounded good to him? Any Jew would laugh at pulling out such an obscure OT text such as Hab 2:4, and they would easily throw a number of OT texts against Paul. Surely we cannot mock Paul's intelligence and gift of the Spirit by thinking he couldn't make a convincing argument! So we are forced to do some reflection and thus discover why Paul's appeal to Habakkuk 2 is actually a pretty solid argument.

To begin finding a satisfying answer, I think we should consider the key phrases which Paul uses when he appeals to Hab 2:4. First, as noted above in Galatians 3:11, Paul says Hab 2:4 somehow demonstrates that 'works of the law do not justify'. Second, in Romans 1:17, Paul says Hab 2:4 somehow demonstrates that 'the righteousness of God is revealed'. I think the answer that addresses both is a proof text along the lines of showing the Mosaic Law was broken and thus put the Israelites in a hopeless condition, yet which nonetheless God promises to rescue/save His people. The book Habakkuk was written to address the national punishment coming upon Judah for its unfaithfulness to the Mosaic Covenant, which did not contain any provision for atonement of major sins. Yet, despite providing no means of un-breaking the Mosaic Law, somehow throughout the OT prophets we are told God promises to rescue His people. This can only mean the Works of the Law do not justify (in the sense of saving a person from their sins and giving them spiritual life or even heaven). It also means that God's Righteousness, that is His promises to correct the issue of sin and bring about salvation, is promised in the prophets to come about in His due time by some other basis than the Law. Thus, when Paul brings up Habakkuk 2:4 to his Jewish opponents, they are reminded of their national disobedience to the Mosaic Law, requiring punishment since the Law does not allow them a second chance, while at the same time promising them a second chance at living through some other merciful provision apart from the Works of the Law. This "other merciful provision" is only revealed at the time of the Apostles, wherein Jesus arrives to deal with sin, and this message is known simply as the Gospel.

This would also explain why in both contexts, Romans 1:16-18 and Galatians 3:10-13, Paul quotes Habakukk right in the middle of talking about God's "wrath" due to disobedient behavior and "curses" for breaking the Law. Habakkuk, and the OT prophets as a whole, are precisely about God's wrath due to breaking the Law. But within Habakkuk and the OT prophets as a whole, there are also prophecies about how God will still have mercy and save. 

It is also possible that Paul was saying that Habakkuk was speaking of a time when it wasn't even possible to practice the Mosaic Law since the Israelites were now in exile and thus couldn't even live out the works of the Law due to living under pagans. Both then and in 70AD, the Temple was destroyed, meaning the Israelites couldn't even carry out their routine Levitical duties regarding sacrifices, purification, holidays, etc. Thus, they must live some other way than by the Law if they want to continue their religion and relationship with God, and that way must be common to both Gentiles and Jews (e.g. not restricted to the geographic land of Jerusalem). Within the context of Christianity, we are also living among the pagans, namely those outside forces that are constantly trying to persecute us, which we must suffer for now and persevere in faithfulness to God.  

 

Next to reflect upon what Habakkuk meant by "live," we should be able to at least assume this "life" was something more than just earthly comfort, since at the time of exile there was no comfy life on the horizon. If Habakkuk himself was going to suffer exile, he certainly wasn't "living" in any satisfying manner. Thus, his "faith(fulness)" had to be leading to some other kind of life, such as life in heavenly paradise. Just as the Jew was for the foreseen future going to endure life in a fallen world (i.e. Babylonian exile), so too Christians for the foreseen future are going to live life in a fallen world, and thus our faithfulness during this time must be looking to something more than earthly comfort.

One final point to consider is that, as with other posts on this blog, we see in Habakkuk 2:4 that the Greek OT (LXX) text contains inspired elaborations upon the Hebrew OT text. Consider the two OT texts of Habakkuk 2:3-4 and how they differ:

Greek Habakkuk: (3a) For the vision is yet for a time, and it shall shoot forth at the end, and not in vain: (3b) though he should tarry, wait for him; for he will surely come, and will not tarry. (4a) If he should draw back, my soul has no pleasure in him: (4b) but the just shall live by my faith.

Hebrew Habakkuk: (3a) For still the vision awaits its appointed time; it hastens to the end, it will not lie. (3b) If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay. (4a) Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him, (4b) but the righteous shall live by his faith.

For both texts, verse 3a is pretty similar, Habakkuk is given an prophecy of the future by God. In verse 3b, is not immediately clear if this is the return from Babylonian exile or if it is a prophecy of the arrival of Jesus, or perhaps both. The Greek rendering of "he" will come sounds a lot life the arrival of Jesus, either first or second coming, though "it" can mean the same thing, as in 'this prophecy will come to fulfillment'. In 4a, there is a remarkable difference in texts, though I maintain we should always assume differences in texts are merely difference in wording rather than in essential meaning (especially since the Hebrew terms can often be more broad in meaning). In this case of 4a in both, it seems certain that the prideful person whose soul is puffed up in the Hebrew text is to be understood as the one who draws back and has God's favor removed in the Greek. And given that, it means the (already) righteous individual of 4b is going to live by faithfulness. If there is any question as to whose faithfulness, you could read it either as God's Faithfulness, and thus more accurately God's Righteousness, or as man's faithfulness to God's commands. But even here, perhaps both God and man's faithfulness is in view. Thankfully, we have the New Testament book of Hebrews, chapter 10, that gives a better look at this:

Hebrews 10: 19 We have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

32 But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33 sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction. 34 For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. 35 Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. 37 For [as Habakkuk says],

“Yet a little while, and the Coming One will come and will not delay;
38 but my righteous one shall live by faith,
and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.”

39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls. 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. ² For by it the people of old received their commendation.

Within this text, we see Paul touch upon many of the themes we've already discussed. We see Paul talking about God's Judgment that is coming, and the reward for those who are obedient. We see that the Mosaic dispensation did not provide for forgiveness, and thus when it was broken there was only wrath to look forward to, while the New Covenant has more opportunities for mercy and greater rewards...though also greater punishments as well. We see that Hebrews definitely is looking to the Greek Habakkuk, showing that what was in mind was "the Coming One," that is He Who Is Coming, which can only be God, in Jesus Christ.

Paul was thus quoting Habakkuk as a prophecy of Jesus' Second Coming (or at least the judgment in AD70, or both), while we are in a time of exile, and the Mosaic Law has expired, leaving us to live by new Covenant rules and regulations. This applies to the Jew and Gentile alike, and thus "from faith to faith" means there is an analogy of our conditions found in the lesson of the OT conditions of Habakkuk and the Babylonian Exile. To me, this is a far more satisfying explanation of Paul's proof text than a mere surface level reading of a few words.