Nonconformist Chronicles

Credited as Righteousness

Martin Luther’s understanding of “imputed righteousness” was likely influenced by a number of sources. First was Augustine’s view of “infused righteousness” which maintains that God’s own righteousness is infused into believers from without empowering otherwise depraved humans to live righteous lives. Luther apparently took this a step farther, insisting that a righteous status before God is dependent upon perfected moral virtue which can only be transferred from Christ to humans who are otherwise depraved.

Luther’s notion of the righteous merit of Christ imputed to believers by faith alone, apart from works, was his answer to the Catholic teaching that the righteous merit of departed saints could be transferred to believers because of their good works. Luther was influenced by that to which he was reacting.

Another of Luther’s influences was Erasmus, whose second edition of the Greek New Testament was employed by Luther in his translation of the Scriptures into German.[i]  Erasmus’ Greek New Testament was published in 1516 with the Greek and Latin in parallel columns. Where the Greek had the word logizomai, Erasmus had the Latin word “imputat.” The question is whether logizomai really means “imputation.” New Perspective scholars would argue that logizomai does not inherently carry the meaning of imputation understood as the transfer of meritorious virtue from one party to another.

Translators of the 1611 King James Version, perhaps in the tradition of Erasmus and Luther, translated logizomai as “imputed” in Romans 4:22. Here the KJV states that Abraham’s belief in God’s promises was “imputed to him for righteousness.” Not being able to be righteous by works, God imputed righteousness to Abraham on the basis of his faith.

The King James translators, however, were not consistent in their translation of logizomai. The word appears eleven times in Romans 4 where the KJV translates it variously as “counted,” “reckoned,” and with variations of the word “impute.” The NIV consistently uses a form of the word “credit” except in verse 8 where the word “count” is used in reference to one whose sin the Lord will never “count” against him. Again, the question is whether imputation is inherent to the meaning of logizomai.

The term logizomia can be translated with several English terms such as “to reckon,” “to count,” “to conclude,” “to regard,” or “to consider.” Some examples of usage in the New Testament are helpful. In the following, the word translating logizomai is italicized:

• Paul instructed the Corinthians that they should regard him and his co-workers as servants of Christ (1 Cor. 4:1).
• Some people, due to a weak conscience, might consider certain foods to be unclean (Rom. 14:14).
• Paul says believers should count (or consider) themselves dead to sin, but alive to God (Rom. 6:11).
• Paul considered that the present sufferings of believers aren’t worth comparing to the glory that will follow (Rom. 8:18).
• Abraham considered that God is able to raise the dead (Heb. 11:19).
• Peter regarded Silas as a faithful brother (1 Pet. 5:12).

Logizomai basically has to do with regarding something, or someone, in a certain way. Things that were “considered” by Paul, Peter, or Abraham in the above examples do not involve regarding a situation as other than its reality. Though while some consider certain foods unclean when they are not inherently so, the conscience of these individuals do render the foods unclean to them.

For God to “consider,” “credit,” or “regard” Abraham as righteous in Romans 4 does not mean that God attributed or imputed something to Abraham that did not truly belong to him. Abraham was truly righteous and God declared this a reality. But it should be understood that righteousness does not here refer to perfected moral virtue, as in some Protestant thought, but to a right status before God. It was due to Abraham’s faith that God could consider him as being in a right status. 

The word logizomai also has commercial connotations and was borrowed from the world of commerce. It can mean “to calculate,” or “to credit.” The term is used in the Septuagint[ii] in regard to calculating the redemption price of a slave by counting the slave’s years of service (Lev. 27:50). Logizomai can refer to an appraisal of value, as when 2 Chronicles 9:20 says that silver was considered to be of little value in Solomon’s day.

Scriptures in which the term is used as a metaphor from commerce include

2 Corinthians 5:19 and 2 Timothy 4:16, both of which refer to people’s sins not being counted against them or “laid to their account” (ASV, 2 Timothy 4:16). If there were a ledger recording what was owed by them to pay for their sins, this ledger would be clear. The sins do not constitute a debit on their account because their debts have been paid by someone else. There is no mention of credits from their benefactor’s account having appeared in the forgiven sinner’s ledger, but the account has simply been settled.

A word related to logizomai, and sharing the same root, is ellogeo, meaning “to charge.” Nor does this word inherently denote imputation.  The word is used in Philemon 18 when Paul tells Philemon that if Onesimus owes him anything it can be charged to Paul’s account. While it’s true that money from Paul’s account will go into that of Onesimus, and in that sense constitutes what may be considered a transfer of funds, Paul’s own status has not been transferred to Onesimus. The slave does not become a Roman citizen because a Roman citizen paid his debt. Nor do Christians have the perfect moral virtue of Jesus transferred to them because he has paid their debt.

When it is said that Abraham’s faith was “credited to him as righteousness,” the use of logizomai, translated “credited,” does not mean that something, namely righteousness, was transferred to Abraham’s account from the account of God or anyone else. The King James translators’ use of “imputed” for logizomai was not the best choice. That God credited Abraham’s faith as righteousness does not mean that righteousness was imputed to him from someone else’s store of meritorious virtue. 

[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible

[ii] The Greek translation of the Old Testament popular in Jesus’ day and sometimes cited in the New Testament.

Historical Antecedents to Imputed Righteousness

The doctrine of Imputation is the Protestant teaching that when someone becomes a Christian the righteousness of Christ is imputed to that person. “Imputed” is understood to denote a transfer of moral virtue from Jesus to the believer. Jesus doesn’t lose any of his righteous status, but he shares it with the believer. Since being right with God is thought to depend on no less than perfection, the perfection of Christ is now received as a gift. The forgiven sinner stands before God with all of one’s sins covered by the righteousness of Christ. With one’s sins covered, God no longer sees a sinner standing before him, but someone who is completely righteous. Since no one is good enough to earn a righteous standing before God it must be accepted as a free gift from God through faith in Jesus. 

Imputation has been under scrutiny for a number of years by scholars adhering to the so-called New Perspective on Paul. A New Perspective scholar might argue that the transfer of merit is still a very ‘Roman Catholic’ idea. It’s true that Luther argued against the imputation of meritorious virtue from a treasury of the saints based on penance or on the purchase of indulgences. But it seems that he adjusted the doctrine of imputation so that it was no longer a matter of doing “works” to receive merit from the saints, but of simply trusting in Christ to receive his righteousness.

If imputation is not a biblical doctrine, however, then how might it have originated? The understanding that people are righteous (understood as morally virtuous) only by imputation of Christ’s righteousness was complemented, and perhaps influenced, by the long-held belief that people were sinners because of the imputation of Adam’s sin. So one can be righteous without ever having done a virtuous deed and one can carry the guilt of sin without ever having committed a wrong. While the alien righteousness of Christ is imputed to sinners, counting them “as if” they were righteous, the alien guilt of Adam is imputed even to those who have never committed sin.[i]  Infants, for example, were considered in need of baptism because of sin that is inherited or imputed from Adam. (Such conclusions were defended by appeal to passages like Romans 5:14-16).  

Augustine advanced the doctrine of imputed sin, having been influenced by Platonic dualism which disparaged all things material including the flesh. Augustine believed that humans were so damaged by the fall as to be rendered incapable of doing anything good apart from God’s initiative.[ii] 

While sinners shared in the imputed sin of Adam, Augustine advocated an “infused righteousness” by which God’s righteousness empowers believers to be transformed. The righteousness they receive from God is not merely a legal fiction, in reality belonging to another, but this righteousness becomes the believer’s own having been infused into one’s very being. Sinners are not righteous by nature, but through the empowerment of God’s righteousness one has become, and is becoming, a righteous person.

Pelagius, Augustine’s chief opponent, was conversely in favor of an “imitated” righteousness in which one is required to imitate the righteous life of Christ by exerting human effort. [iii]  He did not share Augustine’s low view of humanity, but believed that humans are capable of not sinning.[iv]  It’s not that Adam’s sin was imputed to sinners, but that their sins are in imitation of his. Pelagius contended that people neither share in Adam’s sin, nor in Christ’s righteousness, but righteousness or sin is the result of which path one imitates. Pelagius taught that humans take initiative toward salvation by their own effort apart from any divine inner prompting which might override free will.[v]   

While Pelagius rejected infant baptism as essential to eternal life, his student, Coelestius rejected it outright. This led to Pelagius’ rejection in the West, but he was accepted by the eastern churches. This should not be surprising since Platonic dualism’s low view of the flesh was a western phenomenon. Pelagius was a westerner, having come from Britain, but he was most successful teaching in Jerusalem.  

It is not surprising that Luther, an Augustinian monk, would have been influenced by Augustine’s emphasis on God’s initiative in salvation and sanctification. The depravity of humans, according to Augustine, meant they can only live righteously if they are infused with an alien righteousness from without. The depravity of humans, according to Luther, meant they could only saved by an alien righteousness imputed from without. Infused righteousness could easily have evolved into imputed righteousness. Moreover, Luther was reacting to the Catholic notion of imputed saintly merit, contending that only Christ’s righteousness is sufficient. 

 

[i] See R. K. Johnston, “Imputation,” in Walter A. Elwell, editor, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 555.

[ii] See Norman L. Geisler, “Augustine of Hippo,” in Elwell, 106.

[iii] Johnston, 555.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] See Bruce L. Shelley, “Pelagius” in Elwell, 834.

Paul, Luther, and Legalism

I began sorting through the differences between the “Lutheran” view of Paul versus the so-called “New Perspective” in some posts last fall. Below is a summary with links of the ground we've so far plowed:

1) First, some historical background regarding Luther's conflict with the Catholic hierarchy which led him to respond with some task theology on righteousness and justification:

    Luther versus Indulgences

    Why Luther Opposed Indulgences

    Surprised by Luther

2) Second, the popular Protestant view on righteousness and justification based upon Luther's work:

    Is Imputed Righteousness Really a Thing?

    Righteousness in Protestant Theology

    Righteousness in Protestant Theology II

3) Third, The "New Perspective" on Paul's Theology of Righteousness and Justification: 

    New Perspective Challenges to the Protestant Theology of Righteousness

    Justification

We're now ready to move on as I continue to pursue the background of Luther's views and critique his views in light of the New Perspective, while continuing to review where we've been. 

Martin Luther, like most biblical interpreters, turned to Scripture for guidance in every day life. He discovered what he believed to be something of a parallel between the situation Paul addressed in books like Romans and Galatians and what Luther himself confronted in the Catholic Church. The parallel that Luther saw was that of legalism in both the Judaism of Paul’s day and the Catholicism of Luther’s own time.

Both the Judaizers of Paul’s day and the Catholic hierarchy of Luther’s were allegedly teaching salvation by works. Paul’s proclamation of “justification by faith” was understood by Luther as a corrective against Jewish legalism, especially as it had infiltrated the church.

Perhaps Luther’s first mistake was equating “justification” with “salvation” as if they were synonymous terms. His second mistake was to assert that Paul was opposing legalism, or “salvation by works.” As N.T. Wright has explained, Luther and later Protestantism had wrongly assumed that Jews of Paul’s day thought they made themselves right with God by pulling themselves up by their moral bootstraps. [1]

E.P. Sanders was the first to publish a comprehensive study to demonstrate that Second Temple Judaism had long been misinterpreted as a legalistic religion. His book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, defends Judaism against the charge of legalism by quoting extensively from primary Jewish sources.  What Sanders did not develop, however, was a theology of “justification” that went beyond the Lutheran understanding. [2]

Here is where N. T. Wright has picked up the ball and ran with it. He argues that Paul’s phrase “justification by faith” was not a corrective against Jewish legalism. The Hebrew Scriptures had already taught that salvation is by faith and not by works.

'Justification' does not refer to a point in time at which one is saved, but it is the declaration that one indeed demonstrates being in a right standing with the court. As opposed to being a polemic against legalism, “justification by faith” is how one demonstrates that they are in the right. This demonstration is not by works, meaning not by works of the law which set people apart based on “ethnic identity markers” prescribed by Moses. On the contrary, Paul argues that the justification of one’s belonging to God and his people is by faith in Christ and not by works of the law of Moses.

The issue in Romans was not whether one is saved by faith or by works, but that one's right standing before God is declared by one's faith in Jesus apart from Jewish rituals such as circumcision and Sabbath keeping. Gentiles do not have to become Jews to show that they’ve been incorporated into the people of God. All they need is faith in Christ. Through this faith they are justified as belonging to the membership of God’s people.

This faith is not passive, however, but is proved genuine on the basis of works—not works of the law, however, but works of love. One cannot claim to have faith by simply telling a needy person to be warmed and filled without meeting their needs (James 2:14-19). One is justified by works and not faith alone. But again, this justification is not the same as salvation. We are not made right before God by our works. But our good works declare that we have indeed been made right.

We don’t do good works to be saved but because we are saved and its vitally important that we get that order right. To do otherwise is indeed legalism, but “New Perspective” scholars contend that legalism was not the problem Paul was up against in Romans and Galatians. This means that Luther was mistaken in his comparison of Second Temple Judaism with the legalistic Catholicism of his day.

The question is how any of this changes how Romans is taught or understood. That's next. 

 

[1] N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, 19.

[2] Ibid., 114.

 

Justification

While “New Perspective” scholars understand righteousness as the legal status that God grants to his people, justification is the pronouncement of that status. It is the Judge’s declaration that those who have been vindicated are now in a right standing with the court.[1]

“Justification by faith” does not mean, as is commonly thought, “salvation by faith.” Justification and salvation are not synonymous terms. One’s justification does not refer to a past moment in time at which one became a child of God.[2]    

While most English translations of Scripture have the phrase “are justified” in reference to “all who believe” (Rom. 3:22, 24), the King James Version rightly retains the present tense “being justified” meaning that justification takes place in the present time.[3] Lest anyone think that our “being justified” means that we are in any way in a process of earning or meriting this justification, the phrase “justified freely” should dispel all such notions.

That we are presently in a state of “being justified,” to my mind, would rule out justification as a one-time past event. But perhaps more importantly, being justified in the present means we don’t have to wait until the day of judgement to know where we stand with God. It’s not like he is keeping a hidden ledger which will only reveal who is righteous on the last day. That we are presently being justified means that the verdict to be declared on the last day has been brought into the present.[4]  We are even presently being "declared in the right” with God, or “justified.”   

While it is generally a bad idea to use English definitions to define biblical terms that were originally in Greek, in this case I think the English definition of “justify” can help us to articulate the meaning of the word. To justify something, according to Dictionary.com, is to uphold it as being warranted, meaning to demonstrate its feasibility. In other words, justification is the evidence of a claim. 

Justification is the demonstrable evidence which upholds the claim that one is righteous. “Justification by faith” (Rom. 3:28) does not mean “saved by mere belief.” It means being declared, or acknowledged, a true believer upon the evidence of one’s faithfulness to Christ. To be “justified by faith” means that the feasibility of one’s righteousness is demonstrated by that faithfulness. I’m taking “faith” to mean “faithfulness” here, as the word can reasonably be translated. It is not merely mental ascent since justification implies that this is something demonstrable.   

To ask how one is justified is to ask how one is declared to be “in the right” with God? What is the evidence? Paul says that one is “justified by faith apart from works of law” (Rom. 3:28). While Protestant theology has commonly taken “works of law” as referencing any attempt to merit salvation by moral effort, “works of law” is more narrowly defined as distinctively Jewish practices, not moral in nature, but more ritualistic. These are what Wright calls “Jewish boundary markers” which Jews used to set themselves apart from pagans in a world where compromise and assimilation were all too easy [5].

Some Jewish Christians apparently tried to hold on to such “badges” which they believed set them apart from the world, even to the point of binding the outward practices of circumcision, food laws, and the Sabbath on Gentiles coming into the church.

Paul’s argument is that this is not necessary. The justification of one’s claim to be right with God is simply faithfulness to Christ, without any of these distinctively Jewish add-ons. The distinctive feature of God’s covenant people is their faith in Christ and not works of the Law (Torah).  

In contrasting faith with works, Paul does not address a situation in which some Jewish Christians were trying to pull themselves up by their moral bootstraps and depend upon legalistic effort to be saved. The question was whether Christians, including Gentiles, had to bear Jewish boundary markers such as circumcision, to demonstrate that they were now among the people of God. Paul’s answer is a resounding “no!”

It is not faith and good works that are pitted against each other in Romans. Faith and works are not mutually exclusive. How else could faith be a sign of anything if not by one’s works? How else would others know that faith exists? That is the whole point of a controversial passage in James 2.

If Protestants would accept the definition of justification as a “sign” or “declaration” that one is saved as opposed to the “means” by which one is saved, reconciling James with Romans ceases to be a problem. It has been touted by some that Paul and James are contradictory since Paul says that justification is not by works, but James insists that a person is justified by works (Rom. 3:28; James 2:24).

There is no contradiction if “justification” is seen as demonstrable evidence that one belongs to the people of God, rather than the very means of salvation. Justification means exactly the same thing in James that it does in Paul, but there is a contextual difference in how each author speaks of “works.” Paul is talking about “works of Torah,” those specifically Jewish boundary markers, whereas James is speaking of works of love toward others, especially the needy.

To Paul’s insistence that we are justified by faith, Luther’s translation added the word “alone,” to insure that Paul was not understood as advocating justification by works. But ironically, the only place in Scripture where the phrase “faith alone” is used is in James 2:24 where the author insists that one is justified by works and not by faith alone. By faith alone, James does not mean “faithfulness, but “mere belief” as consistent with his use of the term in regard to demons (James 2:19). No one is justified in their claim to be a Christian because of mere belief. Belief must be accompanied by faithfulness. Paul and James are not contradictory.  

So if the New Perspective scholars are right, then how did Protestant theology and particularly Luther, come to misread Paul as attacking an alleged Jewish legalism and where did the notion of imputed righteousness originate? Stay tuned.  

 

[1] N. T. Wright, What What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 129; N. T. Wright, Justification (Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 213.   

[2] Wright, Saint Paul, 115, 119; N. T. Wright, “The Letter to the Romans,” In New Interpreter's Bible Commentary, vol. IX, edited by Leander E. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2015), ,” 395.  

[3] N. T. Wright, Letter to the Romans, 384-385.

[4] Wright, Justification, 215; N. T. Wright, Paul for Everyone: Romans, Part 1 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 60-61.

[5] N. T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus (Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 58-61. 

 

New Perspective Challenges to the Protestant Theology of Righteousness

The “New Perspective on Paul” refers to interpretations of the apostle’s writings that challenge some long held Protestant views that were popularized by Martin Luther. While there is great diversity of viewpoints among New Perspective scholars, they generally agree that Luther was mistaken in his reading of Pauline literature as a corrective against Jewish legalism which impacted many of his conclusions.

New Perspective scholars reject the Protestant definition of the righteousness of God (or “from God”) as the moral virtue of Christ imputed to believers [1].  “Righteousness” is rather God’s own attribute which is not imputed to believers, but determines how God deals with them. What follows is my summary of the “New Perspective” in contrast to the “Lutheran” view that was outlined in my previous post. 

The term ‘righteousness,’ dikaiosune, whose various nuances include “justice” and “impartiality,” refers to one’s right treatment of others. James Dunn says, “People are righteous when they meet the claims which others have on them by virtue of their relationship.” [2]. We would have no claims on God had he not bound himself to the human race in his covenant with Abraham. God is righteous in that he keeps his oath to rescue Abraham’s family from their enemies, to forgive their sins, and to bless all nations through them.

God’s righteous acts in Scripture are synonymous with his restoring and sustaining his people in his faithfulness to this covenant.  Daniel’s prayer for Israel’s deliverance from exile is an appeal to the God who “keeps his covenant of love” (Dan. 9:4). This appeal cannot be made on behalf of Israel’s righteousness, but is in keeping with God’s righteousness by which he is faithful to the covenant (Dan. 9:16-18). As God was faithful to his covenant with Abraham in bringing about the Exodus, Daniel now prays for a second Exodus by which God will demonstrate his mercy to the people because of his covenant, not because they deserve it (Gen. 15:13-14).[3].

In other Scriptures, petitions for deliverance, vindication, and salvation are made in appeal to God’s righteousness (Psalm 31:1; 35:24; 51:14). Salvation and faithfulness to the house of Israel are equated with his righteousness (Psalm 143:11-12). Isaiah often links righteousness and salvation as parallel (Isa. 46:13; 51:5-6).[4].  So God’s righteousness is faithfulness to his covenant obligations toward Abraham’s descendants.   

Paul says that in the gospel the righteousness of God is being made known (Rom. 1:17). God’s righteousness is on display in regard to how he treats us—in regard to how he is faithful to his covenant with Abraham to bless those of all nations who follow in the footsteps of Abraham’s faith.

Because God is righteous, in keeping with his covenant, he declares those who have faith as being righteous. We are not righteous by imputation of moral virtue. Righteousness is the legal status of being in a right standing with the court, but it is not the legal fiction of having another’s moral virtue conferred upon those who aren’t morally virtuous.

It is righteous for God to consider those of faith as righteous which is consistent with his covenant faithfulness. The faith upon which our being right with God is based is not a “do-nothing, easy-believism,” but it is faithfulness. To have the faith of Abraham is to imitate the faithful entrusting of one’s life to God.

This righteousness of God, in Romans 3:21, is said to be “apart from law.” The righteousness of God, (or ‘from God,’ as some prefer), is the status God grants us. This occurs “apart from law.” Righteousness “apart from law” cannot mean apart from obedient surrender to the lordship of Jesus. It simply means apart from the works of the Law of Moses that had traditionally distinguished Jews from Gentiles.

The argument Paul makes is not in response to Jews (or Jewish Christians) who allegedly thought believers had to pull themselves up by their moral bootstraps to be saved.[5].  Paul’s argument is in response to those who think the real evidence of one’s righteousness is in Jewish identity markers such as circumcision, the Sabbath, food laws, and purity rituals.[6]. Paul argues that Gentiles are not recognized as part of God’s people on the basis of this Jewish distinctiveness, but only on the basis of faithfulness to the Messiah. 

Next, a word about “justification by faith.” Stay tuned. I hope not to take as long to post as last time.

 

 [1] N. T. Wright, Justification (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 90, 206, 213; What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 101ff, 119.

[2] James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 Word Biblical Commentary, v. 38 (Nashville: Nelson, 1988), 41.

[3] N. T. Wright, Justification, 63.

[4] Scriptures suggested by Dunn.

[5] Wright. St. Paul, 19.

[6] N. T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press., 2015), 58; St. Paul, 132.  

link to photo credit

 

Righteousness in Protestant Theology II

In Protestant theology the “righteousness from God” in Romans 1:17 has been widely understood as the righteousness of Christ which God the judge imputes to a believer. This happens because of faith, defined as mere belief in terms of acceptance of Jesus as Savior. One simply believes the good news that Jesus died for our sins and was vindicated by his resurrection from the dead as having accomplished our salvation.

The righteousness imputed to us is not our own, but is the moral virtue of Christ which has now accomplished our perfection in the sight of God. God now sees us not as fallen sinners, but as righteous because we have put on Christ’s righteousness by faith.

We could not have achieved this perfectly virtuous standing before God on our own because we are simply not good enough to merit God’s acceptance. His acceptance of us is not performance based. Romans 1:18 through chapter 2 insists that all are sinners, objects of God’s wrath, since as 3:10 concludes “there is none righteous, not even one.” No one is morally virtuous enough to earn a right standing with God.

The only way to be made right with God is if we are justified by grace. The terms “righteousness” and “justified” are closely related in the Greek. While “righteousness” is the noun dikaiosune, “justified” is the verb dikaioo. While righteousness means “what is right,” referring to either a right standing or right behavior, to be justified refers to having been "put in the right." In a court of law the justified party is the party who has won the case. Any accusations against the justified party are dropped. The justified are those who have been vindicated or acquitted. 

While we are not justified in God’s sight on the basis of our own righteousness (because we’re all guilty) our only hope is to have the righteousness of an innocent party imputed to us. Since we cannot be justified (“put right”) in God’s court on the basis of our own righteous deeds (“moral virtue”) our only hope is if God will consider us righteous through some other means. He does so by providing us with the righteousness of his Son (which is in fact God’s own righteousness since Father and Son are one).

Romans 3:21 says, “But now a righteousness from God, apart from law has been made known…” Protestants take the “apart from law” phrase to mean our right standing before God is not based on the keeping of rules, such as those making up any legal system. People could only be righteous on the basis of law if they could keep it perfectly, which no one does. A perfect God, however, can only accept perfection, which is why the imputed righteousness of Christ is the only way a sinner can be right in his sight.

Romans 3:22-24 says “This righteousness from God comes only through faith to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified freely by his grace…” One only need faith to receive the imputed righteousness that comes from God. Whether one is Jew or Gentile, it’s all the same difference. All are equally sinners and none can make themselves righteous by doing any kind of works including even the works of the Jewish law. It’s often asserted that some Jewish Christians in Rome had sought to make themselves righteous by piling up moral virtue or ritualistic works based on Moses’ law. It is further asserted that Paul wrote Romans, at least in part, as a corrective against this type of “Jewish legalism.” Paul must show that all, both Jew and Gentile, are justified freely by God’s grace. Neither group can earn salvation by working, not even by doing the works prescribed by Moses.

Some Jews had allegedly turned the law into something it was never intended to be, a means of salvation—of making oneself righteous by works of law. Some went so far as to bind Jewish customs on Gentiles as a condition for being right with God. Circumcision was an especially controversial issue as Gentiles were pressured to accept it as a work which identifies them as being among the covenant people of God.

But Paul says, “No!” In Romans 4 he turns to Abraham as an example of one who had been justified (put right) before God on the basis of his faith and not his works (Rom. 4:1-5). Abraham’s mere belief in God’s Word resulted in God imputing righteousness to him. “Abraham believed God and it was credited (imputed) to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:3).

The word “credited” is from the Greek word logizomai. Some take it to mean “imputed” in the sense of something alien, or outside one’s self, gifted to an individual from without. Paul goes on to explain that the righteousness imputed to Abraham because of his faith, even before circumcision, rules out any works as a basis for Abraham’s right standing before God (Rom. 4:9-15).

This Protestant theology of righteousness has been taken for granted as correct by many over the centuries since Luther who popularized it. More recent scholarship has challenged the view, suggesting a so-called “New Perspective” on Paul. But if the New Perspective actually succeeds at getting us back to Paul’s original teaching predating Luther’s influence, then the New Perspective is actually older than the “Lutheran” view. So while “new perspective” might be a misnomer, it certainly represents a view that is new to many who were only familiar with Paul as interpreted through Luther their entire lives.

So I’ll be biting off quite a bit starting next post as I attempt to offer an evaluation and critique of both perspectives against one another.  

photo credit link 

Righteousness in Protestant Theology

Protestant theology has historically held, as Luther stated, that there are two kinds of righteousness. The term “righteous” is understood to mean basically “what is right” or “right-ness.”

Righteousness has a forensic, or legal, sense as in being declared “in the right” by a judge in a lawcourt. The judge may render a verdict in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant. He declares one party or the other as being “justified” which means put in a right standing with the court.

As sinners who stand before God, our judge, how might we be put into a right standing with him? A person is put into a right standing with God when one’s sins are forgiven. This means the sinner is reconciled to God since one’s sins no longer form a barrier that separates them from a God too holy to tolerate sin’s presence. Forgiveness means being saved from God’s wrath because of the sinner’s acknowledgement that the penalty for sins was paid by Christ.

While righteousness (“what is right”) can refer to a right standing before God it can also refer to right behavior in terms of moral virtue. God, who accepts nothing less than perfection, can only declare one righteous because the righteousness of Christ—his moral virtue—has been credited to one’s account. This changes a person’s status in God’s sight. He no longer sees the person as a sinner, but as a wholly righteous person.

We could never be right with God through our own moral efforts at doing right. Our righteous works could never contribute the slightest merit into our bankrupt account. Since God only accepts perfection, our works count for nothing. We can only depend upon the righteousness of Christ which he achieved by living the perfect life of moral virtue as the only person who ever kept God’s law perfectly.

Once we are made righteous, in the forensic sense of having been acquitted of all wrong and having been declared “in the right,” we are called to take on what Luther called “proper righteousness,” which might also be referred to as “ethical” or “moral” righteousness.  Having received an alien righteousness imputed to us from Christ’s account, this in turn motivates right living before God. The good works which flow from this righteousness have no bearing whatever upon whether we are saved or lost.

It is certain, however, that one whose life does not bear the fruit of righteousness is not saved. While good works are the evidence of a right standing before God, and the fruit of it, they are not the basis for it.

To understand the Protestant view that leads to this understanding, we must turn to the Book of Romans. We will do so in the next post. 

Is Imputed Righteousness Really a Thing?

Online banking makes it possible to transfer a monetary gift to someone. The gift is credited to their account which then shows a credit while the giver’s account shows a debit for whatever amount of gift was transferred.

Protestant theology has long insisted that a similar thing happens when one is saved. The righteousness of Christ is transferred from his account to the sinner’s account. While the sinner had been bankrupt, having a zero balance, his account now has an infinite supply of righteousness. My analogy breaks down in that there is no debit to Jesus’ account. He doesn’t give up any righteousness, but shares it with the gift recipient. One might even put it in terms of sharing a joint account with Jesus.

Martin Luther, in his 1519 sermon on “Two Kinds of Righteousness,” proposed that as the bride possesses all that belongs to the bridegroom so the believer now has the same righteousness as Christ. Luther declared, in his 1522 Introduction to Romans, that the Christian is “accounted wholly righteous before God.”

Righteousness is often understood in Protestant circles as a moral virtue. Since a holy God will accept nothing less than perfection, our sins have separated us from him. Our lack of righteousness, or moral virtue, has cut us off. No one can add righteousness to his personal account by doing any kind of work or good deeds since no one has achieved perfect righteousness and God will accept nothing less.

So adding a lawcourt analogy to the language of commerce or banking, not only is the sinner bankrupt, but also burdened with guilt. God the judge has rendered a guilty verdict upon every human being. There is no one righteous, not even one (Rom. 3:10). We are all sinners (Rom. 3:23). Since God, in his perfection, is perfectly just, he must punish all sin which is transgression of his law. A penalty must be exacted. Justice must be served. This makes the sinner the object of God’s wrath (Rom. 1:18). One can only be saved from God’s wrath by being made perfect in his sight. But the problem is that no one is perfect.  

While a perfectly just God is obligated to punish sin, his perfect love desires to forgive and reconcile the sinner to himself. How can God both punish the sin and forgive the sinner? How can he maintain the attributes of both justice and mercy? The answer, according to Protestantism, is imputed righteousness.  

The righteousness of Christ must be imputed to the sinner’s account. Imputation refers to the transfer of either a credit or a debit to another’s account. It is said that at the cross an exchange was made. Our guilt was imputed to Jesus’ account while his righteousness was imputed to ours.  

Jesus took all the sins of the world upon his person and endured the wrath of God against sin while on the cross. The believing sinner can now be made righteous since Jesus has removed the burden of guilt which has now been transferred to his account. Whereas Jesus has taken the believer’s sin upon himself, the sinner is now endowed with the righteousness of Christ which is credited (imputed) to the sinner’s account. The moral virtue of Christ is now bestowed upon the believer.  A verse often employed to assert this is 2 Corinthians 5:21: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

I’ll continue my examination of the Protestant doctrine of imputed righteousness, along with a critique of the doctrine, in near future posts. 

Surprised by Luther

Martin Luther, as with anyone, was right about some things and wrong about others. But he gets a bad rap from some who have never read him and know little about him.

Luther is often accused of being antinomian—that is, “anti-law.” He is misjudged as having promoted faith as being entirely passive, requiring nothing more of the Christian than an easy-believism that severs any ties between faith and works. The charge is a reaction to the well-known rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation: “Justification by faith alone, apart from works.” This did not mean, however, that Luther saw an uncomfortable alliance between faith and good works.

Luther argued in his 95 Theses, often considered the founding document of the Protestant Reformation, that the whole life of a believer should be characterized by repentance. It is not merely an inward change, but outward as well, resulting in the mortification of the flesh (see Rom. 8:13; Col. 3:5, KJV). Among Luther’s problem with indulgences was that those who possessed them might consider them a substitute for good works.

Luther insisted, in his 95 Theses, that works of mercy are preferred to the purchase of pardons. He had advised that the better use of a Christian’s money was to give to the poor or lend to the needy. Money is likewise better spent on the needs of one’s family as opposed to the purchase of pardons unless one just has extra money lying around.

In Luther’s 1522 “Introduction to Romans” he argued that while good works must be done, they are not to be done under compulsion as if one were under law. Luther explains that being without the law is not the same as having no laws, but what the law demands is a willing and happy heart.  It’s hypocrisy to live a good life while hating God’s law in one’s heart.  “But grace makes the law dear to us.”

Obedience to God’s laws is motivated by faith. Works must be prompted by faith, through which believers are made new by the Holy Spirit. The spiritual person is occupied with external works. Those failing to do good works are obviously faithless, whereas a true Christian is ready “to do good to everyone” and “suffer everything.”

It must be understood that the purpose of good works is not to make oneself righteous, in the sense of meriting a right standing before God. Luther states: “A man is justified without works, although he does not remain without works when he has been justified.”

Alluding to Paul in Romans 6, Luther went on, “…it is liberty only to do good with pleasure and live a good life without the compulsion of the law. Therefore this liberty is a spiritual liberty, which does not abolish the law, but presents what the law demands: namely, pleasure and love. Thus the law is quieted and no longer drives men or makes demands of them…Our liberty is…a liberty that does many works of all kinds, and thus is free from the demands and debts of law.”

The above post, where possible, borrows the exact phrasing of Luther's "Introduction to Romans" from J. Theodore Mueller's translation of Commentary on Romans by Martin Luther. The Introduction, sometimes called Luther's preface to Romans, was actually written years after his commentary, but has been placed before the commentary in some editions. While some sources wrongly state that the preface was written in 1552 (an impossibility since Luther died in 1546) it was actually written in 1522 when Luther was in hiding and considered an outlaw. During that time he wrote introductions to each book of the New Testament.

Why Luther Opposed Indulgences

The Catholic Church had long granted indulgences to remit temporal punishment (penance) for sins already forgiven. Indulgences weren't originally for sale, but by the time of Luther the selling of indulgences had been going on for centuries in support of papal projects including war. It was only a matter of time before indulgences were sold since select donations to the church had for some time been counted as penance. Indulgences were granted in exchange for contributions toward the renovation of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome under Pope Leo X.

The sale of indulgences did not immediately come to where Luther lived. Frederick III of Saxony, founder of Wittenberg University, would not allow the sale of indulgences in his realm. His extensive collection of relics at the Castle Church could be viewed for money, with the promise of years suspended from time in purgatory. Access to indulgences promising the same benefit might have competed with the veneration of these relics.

The sale of Indulgences did, however, make its way into the German lands. Albert, Archbishop of Mainz, allowed John Tetzel, a Dominican priest, to sell them in Albert’s territory for a cut of the proceeds. Albert needed the money, having gone into debt to purchase his high church rank.

While the sale of indulgences weren’t allowed in Wittenberg, some of Luther’s parishioners traveled to purchase them. Upon returning they rejected the need for repentance insisting that their sins had been forgiven because they purchased certificates of indulgence. Overzealous salesman had granted this new function to indulgences, whereas the original purpose was to suspend penance for sins already forgiven. Salesmen also claimed that one could spring a loved one from purgatory by purchasing an indulgence.

Luther was alarmed that people thought forgiveness of sins could be secured by a financial transaction. He argued that salvation was the free gift of God which would be a cornerstone of Luther’s teaching for the rest of his life.

Luther’s objections to the sale of indulgences were prompted by at least two recent experiences: (1) Luther’s trip to Rome on which he found himself appalled by the opulence of the clergy and (2) his study of the Book of Romans for teaching courses at the University of Wittenberg—the collected notes of which make up his famous Commentary on Romans.

Luther rightly saw indulgences as a big money grab by the church. The false security of indulgences conveyed the impression that repentance was unnecessary. Any charges that Luther was antinomian should be dropped in light of his 95 Theses where he argued that indulgences could too easily substitute for good works. He wrote that the buying of pardons is not preferable to “good works of love.” But if repentance and self-denial are no longer necessary, then why not pass by on the other side from a man in need since one is secure through the purchase of an indulgence?

Indulgences would lead to false discipleship. Contrition, benevolence, and care for one’s family could be replaced with the purchase of pardon from the pope.