The Importance Of Galatians 3:2

It's a highly significant passage in the context of justification. It's often neglected, though. I recommend committing the passage reference (Galatians 3:2) and at least a portion of its text to memory.

The verse begins with a reference to "the only thing" Paul wants to know, which reflects the verse's significance in the context of Galatians and, therefore, in the context of justification. And he goes on to refer to "hearing with faith", an important phrase that expresses two vital components of the gospel: the context in which justification occurs (hearing) and the means by which it's received (faith, not faith combined with baptism or faith combined with anything else). For a further discussion of the verse and its surrounding context (including the false claim that verse 27 supports baptismal regeneration), see here.

How unusual is Galatians' approach toward the gospel?

Critics of how Evangelicals use Galatians could raise objections to the effect that Galatians is just one document, it's such a short letter, the approach Paul takes there isn't found much or at all elsewhere, etc. On the more liberal side, Galatians could be dismissed as an occasion when Paul lost his temper, a reflection of a bad aspect of Paul's character that we shouldn't emulate, or whatever. From a more conservative or traditional Christian perspective, it could be argued that we should be agnostic about or not base much on certain aspects of Galatians, since it's such a short letter, we don't know much about the context, the themes in question there aren't found much or at all elsewhere, etc.

But even if something Paul said in Galatians were only found there, it ought to be accepted as part of apostolic teaching, what's taught by scripture, and so on. That point could be conceded, yet the alleged rarity of what Galatians says could be appealed to in order to argue that the themes shouldn't be as prominent in our thinking as they are among many Evangelicals. Though I think Galatians expresses views like the foundational nature of sola fide more forcefully than any other source, that sort of material in Galatians is corroborated elsewhere more than people typically suggest.

Is the gospel larger than sola fide?

Many Evangelicals have cited Galatians and other parts of scripture against Roman Catholicism and other groups they think hold a false gospel. A common response has been to cite passages in the Bible that refer to the gospel without defining it the way those Evangelicals are defining it (Mark 1:1, 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, etc.).

The Diversity Of Baptismal Beliefs And Practices In The Medieval Era

It's often claimed that every Christian before the Reformation believed in baptismal regeneration, that only heretics opposed it, that only an extremely small number of Christians did, or some such thing. That kind of claim simultaneously makes the concept of justification apart from baptism look weaker and baptismal regeneration look stronger.

But many people believed in justification apart from baptism prior to the Reformation, as I've documented elsewhere. And among those who assigned some type of soteriological efficacy to baptism, there was widespread disagreement about the sort of efficacy involved, and soteriological efficacy was also attributed to other rituals (or sacraments, ceremonies, or whatever you want to call them): the laying on of hands, foot washing, etc. See here for a discussion of many examples from the patristic era. So, justification apart from baptism was more widely held before the Reformation than is typically suggested, and there wasn't the sort of unified alternative to it that we're told there was. Rather, there was a wide diversity of alternatives.

Faith Alone In Celsus And His Sources

I've often mentioned that we need to take more than the church fathers into account when thinking about the patristic era. (See here for one of my posts discussing the topic.) Several decades ago, Thomas Torrance published a book that was highly critical (overly critical) of how the earliest church fathers viewed grace (The Doctrine Of Grace In The Apostolic Fathers [Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 1996]). Despite being so negative about the earliest fathers, he was more positive about some sources later in the second century:

What type of justification through works?

Critics of Protestantism often appeal to the popularity of justification through works among pre-Reformation sources as an argument against justification through faith alone. There's some merit to that argument, but it's often overestimated. The significance of the Biblical evidence is often underestimated, along the lines of what I've referred to elsewhere. And the amount of support for justification through works among the extrabiblical sources is often exaggerated.

Another point that should be made, which isn't made often enough, is that the extrabiblical sources who advocate justification through works widely disagree in what form of it they advocate. I've provided many examples with regard to what might be called initiatory rites, for example (baptism, the laying on of hands, anointing with oil, etc.). See here. And there was widespread disagreement about the issues surrounding whether justification can be lost and, if so, which sins are mortal. Think, for example, of what Hermas wrote about the concept of limited forgiveness or limited penance (The Shepherd, Visions, 2:2). Or see the post here for further examples. In the medieval era, think of Pope Boniface VIII's claim in 1302 that "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (Unam Sanctam).

It could be objected that people have also disagreed about what type of faith is justificatory. But justification through works includes faith alongside the works, so the same objection can be raised against justification through works. And proponents of justification through works disagree with each other about the nature of the works that justify, just as people disagree about the nature of justifying faith. When you add something to faith, whatever that something else is, you have a more complicated situation. And there have been many something elses added over the years, with widespread disagreements from the earliest centuries onward about what those something elses should be. So, the appeal to an alleged unified opposition to sola fide is weakened accordingly.

The King Is Here, Dispensing Favors

"And after rebuking the other [thief on a cross], he [the repentant thief] says, 'Lord, remember me; for with Thee is my account. Heed not this man, for the eyes of his understanding are blinded; but remember me. I say not, remember my works, for of these I am afraid.'...Therefore also he justly heard the words, 'Be of good cheer'; not that thy deeds are worthy of good cheer; but that the King is here, dispensing favours. The request reached unto a distant time; but the grace was very speedy. 'Verily I say unto thee, This day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise; because today thou hast heard My voice, and hast not hardened thine heart. Very speedily I passed sentence upon Adam, very speedily I pardon thee. To him it was said, 'In the day wherein ye eat, ye shall surely die'; but thou today hast obeyed the faith, today is thy salvation. Adam by the Tree fell away; thou by the Tree art brought into Paradise.'...O mighty and ineffable grace! The faithful Abraham had not yet entered, but the robber enters! Moses and the Prophets had not yet entered, and the robber enters though a breaker of the law. Paul also wondered at this before thee, saying, 'Where sin abounded, there grace did much more abound'. They who had borne the heat of the day had not yet entered; and he of the eleventh hour entered. Let none murmur against the goodman of the house, for he says, 'Friend, I do thee no wrong; is it not lawful for Me to do what I will with Mine own? The robber has a will to work righteousness, but death prevents him; I wait not exclusively for the work, but faith also I accept. I am come who feed My sheep among the lilies, I am come to feed them in the gardens. I have found a sheep that was lost, but I lay it on My shoulders; for he believes, since he himself has said, 'I have gone astray like a lost sheep'; 'Lord, remember me when Thou comest in Thy kingdom.''" (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 13:30-31)

Justification Through Faith Alone In The Second Century

In the excerpt from the Epistle To Diognetus below, notice the reference to "faith, to which alone", followed by the concluding references to "trust" and "faith", with no reference to baptism and other works. The first mention of faith is immediately followed by some comments on the kindness of God and the gracious benefits given to us in his Son, and the section of the document that follows (9) is highly soteriological, all of which indicate that justifying faith is being referred to. The author refers to having faith in God later in the Christian life as well and discusses good works and expects them to follow from faith, but the focus here is on faith, even including the qualifier "alone", and the substitutionary nature of Jesus' work. The reference to faith alone in such a soteriological context makes the most sense as a reference to justifying faith. At the opening of the document, the author refers to how Diognetus wants to know "what God they [Christians] trust in, and what form of religion they observe, so as all to look down upon the world itself, and despise death, while they neither esteem those to be gods that are reckoned such by the Greeks, nor hold to the superstition of the Jews; and what is the affection which they cherish among themselves; and why, in fine, this new kind or practice [of piety] has only now entered into the world" (1). So, it's evident that faith (trust) is being distinguished from the actions that result from faith, and other terms are being used to refer to works, such as "observe" and "practice". So, we shouldn't think that the references to faith in sections 8-10 of the document are including works within them. Even if we only had the usual meanings of words to go by, it would be unlikely that a reference to faith includes works. It's doubly unlikely when the document in question so clearly distinguishes between faith and works. Section 10 refers to love resulting in our imitation of God's kindness, saying, "if you love Him, you will be an imitator of His kindness". That which is in the heart leads to outward actions. The author seems to have in mind an inner response to God that's distinguished from the outer actions that follow, with the inner faith justifying. As Michael Bird and Kirsten Mackerras write, salvation in the Epistle To Diognetus is "by faith alone (8.6; 9.6; 10.1)" (in Michael Bird and Scott Harrower, edd., The Cambridge Companion To The Apostolic Fathers [New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2021], 323). In section 9, we're told that our works are excluded. The substitutionary nature of Christ's work is discussed, even with a reference to the "sweet exchange", the paralleling of Jesus' taking our sin with our taking his righteousness, and a reference to our sins' being covered by Jesus' righteousness, which is reminiscent of the dunghill analogy attributed to Martin Luther:

The case for Catholicism

1. I recently watched a roundtable defense of Catholicism by the best and the brightest:

2. On the one hand Tomaszewski is unusual among Catholic apologists in having gone to Catholic seminary. On the other hand he's a RadTrad, so his position is out of step with establishment Catholicism. He's a throwback to antimodernist Catholicism. So he's not a representative spokesman for post-Vatican II Catholic theology.

3. They appeal to the tradition of communal interpretation–a living oracle. Don't go it on your own. Rely on authority.

But that generates a Catholic dilemma: if unaided reason is that unreliable then you preemptively disqualified yourself from assessing the evidence for Catholicism.

4. They draw a parallel with the authority of Jewish tradition (oral torah) and the religious establishment (Mt 23), which repudiated Jesus. By that logic, Christians ought to submit to the rabbis and reject Jesus.

5. Tomaszewski mentions Japanese Catholics separated for 200 years, no priests, catechism, just some Bibles on hand.

6. The alleged flaw of sola scriptura is that the canon is not internal to scripture. So Protestants must arbitrarily trust the church regarding the canon. But that's incorrect. We go by evidence for the canon.

Catholic apologists operate with a topdown model where to know or have warranted belief in something you must be explicitly given the right answer. Knowledge by description, propositional information.

An alternative is knowledge by acquaintance. Fostering justified belief by putting someone in the right epistemic environment. In that setting a person will believe the right thing. God guided them to that conclusion. It's more providential, organic, bottom-up. A process by which God cultivates certain beliefs. It's a reliable process because God intended the result. Intended that to be truth-conducive.

7. Not a question of trusting the church but sifting multiple lines of evidence. Internal evidence for the canon based on authorship; external evidence from Jewish sources; from collections of the canon circulating in smaller units (e.g. the Gospels, the Pauline epistles); historical testimony from early or well-connected church fathers; hostile testimony.

i) You don't need a list to know everything. Suppose I'm on prescription meds. Do I need a list? Not necessarily. The pharmacist needs the list. I just need the meds. If those are the only meds I have, no more or less, I just take what I have.

Knowledge by description compared with knowledge by acquaintance. How do I know my parents aren't squatters? In principle, I could see the title deed, but that might be forged. Yet if we've never been evicted, that's evidence that we're not squatters. We pay property taxes. So there's no presumption that we're squatters. Indeed, there's a presumption to the contrary.

ii) How do I know my parents are my biological parents? A birth certificate would be official evidence. But other lines of evidence include family resemblance, shared character traits, and DNA.

iii) If I'm a local, a native, I don't need a street map. I just know where things are by experience, even though there can be ways to back that up through corroborative evidence. When I drive to a familiar location I'm not consciously thinking of directions. That's been internalized.

Suppose the Protestant canon is correct. Suppose I know the canon of Scripture because God raised me in a church with Protestant editions of the Bible. That's my table of contents. That's one reason God raised me in or directed me to that particular church. That's the true canon, and God meant for me to discover the true canon by that means.

8. In Jn 14,16, Jesus never said the Spirit will guide the church into all truth; in context the disciples in the Upper Room are the immediate recipients. Certainly nothing about Roman bishops

The church fathers are not analogous to founding fathers. The founding fathers drafted the Constitution. The church fathers didn't draft the NT.

9. Koons confuses eternal security (19C innovation) with perseverance of the saints. To my knowledge, eternal security was promoted by certain Dispensational Baptist circles in the 20C. It's not equivalent to perseverance.

10. Koons raises the stock objection objection to sola fide as a legal fiction. If so, that reduces the treasury of merit to a legal fiction. At the same time it leaves no room vicarious atonement–much less penal substitution. Yet the distinction is no more fictional than the distinction between ascribed status and achieved status. The royal son inherits the throne by virtue of his relationship with his father.

11. Koons accuses evangelicalism of theological innovation, which is self-defeating inasmuch as Catholicism is rife with theological innovation and reversal.

12. Tomaszewski asked what the manna/eucharist stands for if we deny the real presence. In what is that fulfilled? The answer is the crucifixion. In that regard the manna is forward looking while the eucharist is backward looking.

13. They say vicarious atonement is inferior to actual righteousness. What's required is a reversion to status quo ante. But that overlooks how a fallen and redeemed world is so much richer than a world that never fell.

14. They trot out the last rites, but it's not as if everyone anointed by a priest on their deathbed receives physical healing.

15. The participants are confused on the sufficiency of Christ's work. They fail to distinguish between the forensic work indexed to his redemptive sacrificial death and renewal through the regeneration, sanctification, and glorification by the Spirit. We're not saved by the work of Christ alone but in conjunction with the work of the Father and the Spirit. There's a division of labor in the economy of salvation.

16. There is no Petrine office in Lk 22 or Acts. There's Peter in his apostolic office, just like the other apostles. A generic apostolic office.

17. It doesn't occur to them that, in context, sitting on the throne of Moses (Mt 23) is sarcastic. Conversely, if we take it a face value, then we should be rabbinic Jews rather than Christians. Christian laymen lack the authority to make those judgments. So that appeal disproves Catholicism.

18. There's no exegetical evidence that the beloved disciple is a stand-in for the church in Jn 19.

19. Pace Tomaszewski, there's no exegetical evidence that Mary is omnipotent by grace (whatever that means), so that God cannot deny her or refuse her.

20. Technically it's true that natures don't have mothers. In context, nature is shorthand for a concretized nature or property instance that exemplifies nature.

21. Even if it happened as described, the "miracle of the sun" is not in itself a Marian apparition. Rather, it's reported in association with purported Marian apparitions at that time and place. Wasn't Lúcia dos Santos the only surviving witness to the apparition proper?

Midcourse corrections

A stock Catholic objection to Protestant theology is that you can't find Protestant distinctives in pre-Reformation church history. For instance, you can't find sola scriptura or sola fide in the church fathers. Suppose we grant that contention for the sake of argument. How does that disqualify Protestant theology?

i) Truth isn't determined by taking a headcount. The correct interpretation isn't determined by taking a headcount. Many or most folks believe much or most of what they do due to social conditioning, which is one reason appeal to consensus is a highly unreliable guide to truth. 

ii) Popular opinion carries no presumption that the opinion is true. For that matter, mere scholarly opinion carries no presumption that the opinion is true. An interpretation is only as good as the logic and evidence adduced in support of the interpretation. Reasons rather than opinions are what merits consideration.

iii) Whether or not people find an argument convincing is irrelevant to whether it's a good argument. Atheists find arguments for Christianity unconvincing. That, in itself, doesn't invalidate the arguments for Christianity. Most Jews are not persuaded by the messianic claims of Jesus. But that, in itself, doesn't make the messiahship of Jesus doubtful. 

iv) It's also the case, in the history of ideas, that an erroneous idea may not appear to be erroneous at the outset. Or it might seem to be a minor error. We may only come to recognize the error, or appreciate the magnitude of the error, as it works out in practice. As people begin to build a political or theological edifice on that seminal, seemingly innocuous idea. Marxism is appealing on paper because it's utopian. The irony is the chasm between how idealistic Marxism is on paper and how inhumane it is in reality. 

Likewise, certain theological ideas involving the status of Mary or the nature of justification (to mention two examples) may have unforeseen consequences until those undergo further development in theory and practice. At that juncture it's easier to recognize where things got off to a bad start. 

The Catholic doctrine of justification gets bundled with other things like Purgatory, indulgences, and the treasury of merit. Likewise, Catholic Mariology begins to usurp the prerogatives of Jesus. Consider, too, the role of Marian apparitions in popular Catholic piety.  

Seminal theological errors have a snowball effect over time. At that point Protestants may bypass long stretches of historical theology and go back to biblical revelation because the development of dogma went offtrack, and that's easier to see in hindsight. That's a stimulus to reexamine traditional Catholic interpretations of Scripture. Something went wrong early on, requiring a midcourse correction. For Catholic apologists to complain that these are theological innovations misses the point. If Catholic traditions are a source of error, they need to be replaced. Like installing a new car part to replace a defective part. Redesigning the defective car part. If Catholic theology suffers from design flaws, and that becomes increasingly evident after the fact, then fixing them after the fact is necessary. And repairs will take place at a later stage in church history because the historical process exposes the design flaws. 

Did Calvin teach secondary justification?

http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2020/02/did-john-calvin-teach-doctrine-of.html

Is King David an argument for purgatory?

Here's a Catholic argument for Purgatory:

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/11/is-purgatory-biblical

Several problems:

i) I think there's a bait-n-switch. To my knowledge, the traditional Catholic rationale for purgatory isn't the need for postmortem sanctification. It's not about remedial punishment but retributive punishment for the guilt of temporal sin. In addition, there's a role for human merit. So the framework is forensic rather than therapeutic.  

ii) In the case of King David, the issue is complicated by the fact that he was abusing his power as head-of-state. He was wronging other people. To keep him from becoming a tyrant, God punishes him. At best, we could only extrapolate from that case to analogous examples.

It's inapplicable to purgatory because in purgatory you're no longer in a position to wrong or harm others. 

iii) It also depends on what we mean by punishment. In David's case, it's not that God meted out direct, positive punishment. Rather, God withdrew some of his protection from David so that David was now liable to palace intrigue and sedition from members of his own family. 

Again, though, that's hardly analogous to purgatory punishments. 

In the same article, Prof. Anderson says:

The final move is one in which these merits are potentially transferable to another person.

i) But that undercuts the need for penitents to personally suffer punishment to remit the guilt of temporal punishment.

ii) In my experience, Catholic apologists denounce penal substitution as a "legal fiction", but if the doctrine of purgatory includes transferrable merit, then that trades on the same principle. 

Ceremonial holiness

A stock objection which Catholic apologists raise to classic Protestant theology is that justification by faith is a "legal fiction". Among other things, that's a highly ironic allegation given the Catholic alternative. For the Catholic alternative is ceremonial holiness. They imagine that sacraments like baptism "infuse" the soul with the grace of holiness. But that's something they attribute to the sacrament. The purported process of infused grace is utterly indetectable and unverifiable. So they replace the "legal fiction" of sola fide with an external rite. But why isn't that a legal fiction? 

Works of the law

In 3:28, Paul reiterates his thesis that "a man is justified by faith apart from works of Torah." To support this, he asks rhetorically, "Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also" (3:29). "Works of Torah" must therefore be something that are characteristic of Jews rather than Gentiles. If Paul has in mind anything particular here, it would presumably be the ceremonial components of Torah (circumcision, food laws, festival laws), which are distinctively characteristic of Jews. It would not be the moral components of Torah, since even Gentiles have these written on their hearts (2:15) and they consequently do them "by nature" (2:14).1

It is in chapter 4 that we have the first concrete example of what Paul means by "works of Torah," and the example confirms the thesis just advanced (that if Paul has anything in mind it is the ceremonial rather than the moral components of Torah). The example is circumcision (4:9-12). Paul emphasizes with great force the non-necessity of circumcision for justification. In fact, the whole purpose of his discussion of Abraham as the father of the faithful (chapter 4) is to show the non-necessity of circumcision.

This indicates that circumcision is the work of Torah par excellence which Paul has in mind—something confirmed by the fact that Paul had earlier conducted an extended discussion of the irrelevance of circumcision to salvation (2:25-3:1) and by the fact that right after his affirmation in 3:27 that works of Torah are not necessary he drew the implication that God "will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith" (3:30).

Our hypothesis that Paul has in mind primarily the ceremonial elements of Torah by "works of Torah" is thus confirmed by the discussion of circumcision in Romans. It is further confirmed by the discussion of circumcision in Galatians.

But while circumcision is the work of Torah par excellence which Paul has in mind, there are other works, as indicated by the text of Galatians. When Paul reminds Peter in Galatians 2:16 that they both "know that a man is not justified by works of Torah," it is in a context where Peter and the other Jews had separated themselves from eating with the Gentiles of Antioch (Gal. 2:12-13). This was because Gentiles were unclean and because they ate unclean food (Acts 10:9-16 with 11:3-12). Eating with Gentiles thus indicated a breach of the separation between clean and unclean people (clearly stressed in the Torah) and a partaking of unclean food (also stressed in the Torah). Thus the laws of separation between clean and unclean are also in view when Paul discusses "works of Torah."

Paul also laments that the Galatians "observe [Jewish] days, and months, and seasons, and years!" (Gal 4:10). This indicates that in addition to circumcision, separation laws, and food laws, Jewish festival laws are also subsumed under what Paul has in mind when he speaks of "works of Torah." In short, Paul has principally in mind the ceremonial works of Torah when he speaks of "works of Torah."2

But a question arises concerning whether Paul has in mind only the ceremonial works of Torah when he uses the phrase. Does he also have in mind the moral work of Torah? Many contemporary Protestant preachers assume that he does, but this is a judgement that must be established by exegesis and evidence rather than by a simple assertion that it is so.

3. Furthermore, Paul not only does not stress the non-necessity of love but that he lays a great deal of stress on the importance of love and obedience. For example, when Paul states that "we wait for the hope of [justification]" (Gal 5:5) he says that "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail [toward that hope], but faith working through love" (or "faith made effective through love," RSV margin; Gal 5:6).

4. Also, Paul indicates that eternal life is a reward for "perseverance in good work" (Rom 2:7) and that we "seek . . . immortality by perseverance in good work" (ibid.). He also states that "he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life" (Gal 6:8) and sowing to the Spirit is defined in context as "sharing all good things with him who teaches" (Gal 6:6, see also 2 Cor 9:1-6), "doing the good" (Gal 6:9), and "doing good to all men" (Gal 6:10). These clearly indicate the necessity of doing good in order to receive the gift of eternal life on the last day.

...love is not necessary for initial justification, leaving intact the fact that they are necessary for the reward of eternal life on the last day (Rom 2:7, Gal 6:6-10) and final, eschatological justification (Gal 5:5-6).

The thesis that love is not necessary for initial justification is something to which everyone in Christendom is agreed. The fact Protestants agree to it is so well-known it does not need documentation. But the agreement of Catholics to this thesis is so commonly denied (in Protestant preaching) that it does need documentation.

A Catholic can be perfectly happy saying that "works of Torah" (including works of love) are not necessary to become justified because the Council of Trent, the official Catholic response to the Protestant Reformers, states, "[N]othing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification. For if it is by grace, it is no more by works. Otherwise, as the apostle says, grace is no more grace."6 Trent thus teaches that nothing prior to justification, including works (of whatever kind) merits justification.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/WORK-LAW.HTM

The analysis is flawed on several grounds:

i) The reason Paul stresses the "ceremonial Torah" is due to the nature of the opponent. The Judaizers regarded observance of the "ceremonial Torah" as necessary for salvation. Not just for Jews or Messianic Jews but Gentile Christians. To be a convert to Christianity, you had to be a convert to Judaism. 

ii) Trent invents a dichotomy between initial justification, which isn't meritorious, and final justification, which is. 

iii) Citing passages about the necessity of sanctification for salvation doesn't conflict with the opposing position since classic evangelical theology grants the necessity of sanctification for salvation. So that's not inconsistent with the opposing position. Moreover, it commits a category mistake by conflating justification with sanctification. 

iv) We can grant the Catholic distinction for argument's sake. It backfires. They wish to restrict what Paul says to the "ceremonial Torah". But that's the part that Jews were able to keep. Although ritual purity was a cumbersome chore, that part of the law could be executed to perfection. It was quite possible to obey the ceremonial law. Inability to perform the ceremonial law wasn't the source of the problem. It was possible to fully comply with the purity codes and offerings. It's the moral rather than ritual demands that defeated Jews, however devout.

v) Finally, as one commentator notes:

"Works of the law" most naturally means deeds or actions which the law requires (Exod 18:20)…Paul uses "law" and "works of the law" synonymous (e.g. Gal 2:16; 3:10-11). Andrew Das, Galatians (Concordia 2014), 249.

Patronage

A common rap against vicarious atonement, penal substitution, sole fide, and imputation is the charge of legal fiction. Merit and demerit are not transferrable. 

Keep in mind that that's just an intuitive objection. It's not a claim that's demonstrably true or false in the sense that a weather forecast is demonstrably true or false. Moreover, intuition often depends on the particular illustration.

Consider an analogy. Take the caste-system in the stereotypical high school. An honor/shame culture in miniature. You have high-status students and low-status students. 

Imagine the cafeteria. A low-status student is walking past the tables, looking for a spot to sit, as he carries his lunch tray. As a low-status student, he's picked on. In addition, he can't sit just anywhere. Some students don't want to sit by him. 

Another student sticks his foot out and trips the low-status student. He falls down, spilling the food and drink on his clothes. The other students cheer. He feels humiliated. 

Then another student gets up and walks over to him. A high-status student. He's the star quarterback. Most popular kid in school. Hip and cool. The boys wish they could be him while the girls wish they could be with him.

The quarterback has achieved status. He attained his topspot on the pecking order through athletic prowess, by winning state championships.

The cafeteria falls dead silent, waiting to see how the high-status student will respond to the plight of the low-status student, sprawled on the floor. Will he make fun of him? Will he shame him further by taunting him. The suspense is intense.

The quarterback reaches out his hand, raises the fallen student, and pats him on the chest. His action instantly transforms the social dynamic. By siding with the humiliated student, by expressing symbolic solidarity through his physical gesture, he transfers his high-status to the low-status student. He instantly elevates the student's social standing. The unpopular student now has ascribed status by virtue of his patron's achieved status. 

By the same token, the quarterback's action implicitly condemns the schadenfreude of the other students. Now they feel humiliated. His noble action exposes their ignoble reaction. His gesture lowers their status. They've gone down a notch while the unpopular student went up a notch. As students exit the cafeteria, the pecking order has undergone a sudden adjustment. 

The righteousness of God

https://vimeo.com/239267346

Clement of Rome on faith & works

http://dennis-ingolfsland.blogspot.com/2009/11/this-afternoon-i-presented-following.html

Piper on sola fide

1. Last month John Piper did a post which some self-identified Calvinists view as an attack on sola fide:

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-really-save-us-by-faith-alone

However, it's the critics who seem to be confused about Reformed theology. 

2. In Calvinism, sin has two basic dimensions:

i) An objective dimension, viz. guilt, culpability. 

That's the forensic dimension of sin.

ii) A subjective dimension: moral corruption. A predisposition to commit sin. Sinful attitudes. Sinful inclinations.

That's the psychological dimension of sin.

3. It follows that in Calvinism, salvation has two basic, corresponding dimensions:

i) An objective dimension, viz. justification, imputation.

That's the forensic dimension of salvation. That's concerns our legal or spiritual status or standing before God. Something God does for (elect) sinners. 

ii) A subjective dimension, viz. regeneration, sanctification.

That concerns our moral and spiritual transformation. Our subjective state or psychological condition, as rational, moral agents. That's something God does in (elect) sinners.

4. In addition, Reformed soteriology has a Trinitarian division of labor. The work of Christ rectifies the objective dimension of sin. His death on the cross redeems (elect) sinners.

Likewise, the work of the Spirit rectifies the subjective dimension of sin. Spiritual renewal. 

5. Reformed theology says we are justified by faith alone, not that we are saved by faith alone. There's more to salvation than justification. There's no salvation without sanctification. The work of Christ alone doesn't save you. The Spirit's work is necessary, too. 

Critics of Piper's statement are eerily reminiscent of antinomians and Sandemanians like Charles Ryrie, Zane Hodges, Charles Stanley, and R. T. Kendall.

“Mere Protestant” Confession Seeks to Reclaim the Word “Catholic”

By 1529, a dozen years after the start of the Reformation, there was an on-going dispute, both political and theological, between Martin Luther’s German Reformation, and the Swiss Reform led by Ulrich Zwingli. In an effort to bring the two sides together, Philip of Hesse, a local Protestant ruler, brought Luther, Zwingli, and a number of other Reformers (including the Stephan Agricola, Johannes Brenz, Martin Bucer, Caspar Hedio, Justus Jonas, Philipp Melanchthon, Johannes Oecolampadius, and Andreas Osiander) at the castle hall at Marburg for what has become known as the “Marburg Colloquy”. Primarily a political conference, the colloquy nevertheless marked the start of a long-standing division. According to Alister McGrath’s account:

This attempt foundered on one point, and one point only. On 14 articles, Luther and Zwingli felt able to agree. The fifteenth contained six points, on which they were able to reach agreement on five. The sixth posed difficulties. Luther and Zwingli reluctantly were forced to declare that they had not “reached an agreement as to whether the true body and blood of Christ are bodily present in the bread and wine.” From Alister McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction (p. 183). Wiley. Kindle Edition.

This week, more than 250 Protestant leaders and theologians published what they call a “Reforming Catholic Confession”, “A ‘Mere Protestant’ Statement of Faith to mark the 500th anniversary of the Reformation”.

Just on the surface, I don’t like the word “catholic”, because of the kinds of confusion it can lead to, but this statement seems to genuinely re-capture and re-establish the proper meaning of that word.

Repentance, remission, and justification

A recent exchange I had with a Catholic apologist (indeed, a sedevacantist!):

Here St. Paul says that washing of regeneration (i.e. internal change within the believer done by the Holy Spirit) is how God justifies the sinner. This means that justification involves an ontological change within the believer, not merely a legal declaration. This also refutes the Protestant claim that sanctification is separated from justification and happens after it - to the contrary, in Titus 3:4-7 St. Paul says that sanctification is the basis for justification.

i) At most, your conclusion only follows if the relationship between v6 and v7 is chronological, where justification is the effect of spiritual renewal. But more likely Paul is saying that inheriting eternal life is the combined effect of spiritual renewal and justification by grace.

ii) And even if there's a chronological sequence, that's entirely consistent with Calvinism: justification is contingent on faith while faith is contingent on regeneration. 

This is also why Paul says in Romans 6:16 that obedience leads to righteousness - exactly as the Catholic Church teaches.

To the contrary, the Catholic church teaches infant baptismal justification. But the justification of infants is hardly contingent on their prior obedience.

It is also consistent with his teaching in Romans 4:3-5. Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness. This faith was something that Abraham possessed within himself, i.e. God counted his ontological state as his righteousness.

You're equivocating. Paul doesn't equate faith with righteousness; indeed, he distinguishes them. Righteousness is "credited" to Abraham by virtue of faith, as if faith is righteousness. Paul is speaking in shorthand. Faith in what? Faith in Christ. The merit of Christ's vicarious atonement is credited to the believer (Rom 3:21-26; 5:6-11).

Moreover, Scripture clearly teaches that justification is a process. In 1 John 1:9 we learn that me must confess our sins as a condition to be forgiven. That proves that forigveness of sins occurs not in a single moment when we 'accept Christ', but is continuous as we repent of subsequent sins and confess them - it is a process which is conditional.

You fail to distinguish between the atonement and the application of the atonement.

There is not a single passage of Scripture which explicitly says that obedience/righteousness/perfect life of Jesus Christ is imputed to a believer.

You're ignoring the elephant in the room: vicarious atonement.

It is more than just chronological relationship.

Actually, I'd say it's a teleological relationship rather than a chronological relationship.

But Reformed theology insists that regeneration (i.e. the internal change done by the Holy Spirit within the believer) comes after justification.

I have no idea where you came up with that. In Reformed theology, justification is a consequence of faith while faith is a consequence of regeneration. So you've got the causal sequence out of order.

Furthermore, you have not explained why St. Paul teaches that obediance leads to righteousness, while in reformed theology righteousness comes from imputation of Christ's righteousness, obediance (sanctification) being only the result of justification. That goes against Romans 6:16.

i) You're assuming that Paul always uses the "righteous" vocabulary the same way, but that varies according to context. In Rom 6:16, I think "righteousness" denotes eschatological vindication rather than vicarious righteousness.

ii) I don't know where you get the idea that in Reformed theology, sanctification is the result of justification. Rather, sanctification is an outgrowth of regeneration. Justification is categorically different from regeneration or sanctification in Reformed theology. Justification is an ascribed status whereas sanctification is a process of moral and spiritual transformation. 

Your next paraphrase is simply a repetition of your original assertion, which I critiqued.

Nowhere does St. Paul say that perfect record of Christ's obedience is imputed to the believer as his righteousness.

Well, I didn't frame my position in those terms, so you're shadowboxing with someone else. 

Your next paragraph illogically assumes that "one-time forensic justification" must be unconditional (i.e. irrespective of contrition).

Penal substitution is not taught explicitly in Scripture either.

Even if true, that's an arbitrary demand. Logical implication is sufficient.

…especially since Romans 4:3-5 is a standard Protestant prooftexts allegedly proving the doctrine of imputation.

I already addressed that.
Your next paragraph illogically assumes that "one-time forensic justification" must be unconditional (i.e. irrespective of contrition).

In Reformed view justification can never be lost and all sins are forgiven in the moment of justification.

What makes you think that in Reformed theology, all sins are forgiven in the moment of justification?

1) Future sins are not forgiven in the moment when we are justified. We have to continuously confess them and repent in order to be forgiven. Thus, justification is a life-long process.

That's a repetition of your failure to distinguish justification from the application thereof.

2) If we stop confessing our sins, they will not be forgiven (since 1 John 1:9 sets confession of sins and repentance as condition for forgiveness). Thus, justification and salvation are conditional and can be lost by one's failure to confess and repent.

You're confusing conditionality with uncertainty. That only follows if the condition may not be met. But in the case of the elect, God ensures the satisfaction of the condition. 

It is rather ironic in light of Protestant demands of explicit prooftexts for Marian dogmas, logical implications of which are present in Scripture (like Mary's perpetual virginity in Luke 1:34).

I, for one, never said we need "explicit" prooftexts for Marian dogmas. 

How does Lk 1:34 entail the perpetual virginity of Mary? Not to mention in partu virginity. 

But logical implication must be demonstrated from the text, not from presuppositions which Protestants carry into texts like 2 Corinthians 5:21.

You're just asserting that that's a presupposition which Protestants bring to 2 Cor 5:21 rather than an implication of 2 Cor 5:21.

Comparing and contrasting justification and damnation in Rom 6:16 proves my point, because damnation is the eschatological counterpart to eschatological vindication. Both refer to the final judgment.

"In Reformed view justification…all sins are forgiven in the moment of justification".

Really? "God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified" (WCF 11:5).

Future sins are not forgiven in the moment when we are justified. We have to continuously confess them and repent in order to be forgiven. Thus, justification is a life-long process.

i) If 1 Jn 1:9 is inconsistent with justification as a permanent, unrepeatable, once-for-all-time status, the contradiction wouldn't originate in Reformed theology. Rather, this would mean Paul and John have contradictory paradigms. Reformed theology simply reproduces that contradiction by affirming both Pauline and Johannine paradigms. 

ii) You may claim the Reformed interpretation of Pauline justification is mistaken, but you can't legitimately do so by simply quoting a different Bible writer. Paul and John must be understood on their own terms. It's hermeneutically illicit to use John as the interpretive grid through which you filter Paul. To disprove the Reformed interpretation of Pauline justification, you need to demonstrate how that misinterprets Paul in the context of Paul's exposition of his own position. 

iii) This is an issue of systematic theology. How to harmonize the "theologies" of different Bible writers. In this case, the Bible itself doesn't explain how Paul and John are reconcilable. Therefore, any harmonization will be philosophical.

Is it even meaningful to say a sin is forgiven before it's committed? At that stage there's no actual sin to forgive. Here's how Reformed theologians finesse the issue:

Justification means the forgiveness of all past and present sins, and the judicial ground for the forgiveness of future sins, Anthony Hoekema, Saved by Grace, 180. 

Remission is extended to all the sins entirely of believers, of whatever kind they may be, future as well as past and present, but in their own order…All sins (future as well as past) cannot be said to be remitted at the same time…All our sins are remitted by God, whether past or present or future, but with respect to the time in which they are committed; so that past and present are actually remitted, the future when they are committed will most certainly be remitted according to God's promise, Turretin, Institutes, 2:665.