1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Robert Sungenis responds

Michael Horton's comments will be in black. Robert Sungenis' comments will be in blue and will be numbered for reference.

Are We Justified By Faith Alone?

Michael S. Horton

Referring to the schism of the 14th and 15th centuries, one scholar observes, "For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation." I hope that the credibility of this historical assessment will not be called into question, as it comes to us from the pen of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, current head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196).

1) No, the credibility of the historical assessment will not be called into question, but Dr. Horton's use of it certainly will. Due to the existense of some upheavals in the Middle Ages, Dr. Horton implys that Cardinal Ratzinger believes Martin Luther was justified in his attack on the Catholic Church's doctrine of salvation. Actually, the divisions in the Church during the 14-15th centuries had very little to do with the specific doctrines of soteriology, and had much more to do with politics. Cardinal Ratzinger believes, to this day, that the Council of Trent was absolutely correct in condemning the soteriology of Luther. Consequently, the only thing the Cardinal is saying in the 1989 quote is that the impetus for Luther's rebellion may have been fomented by the divisions he saw in the Church of his day. In other words, the Cardinal is surmizing what Luther may have been thinking during the upheaval, not what the Cardinal is thinking.

That Cardinal Ratzinger has some strong opinions against Luther is well known. As far back as 1970, he said the following about Luther:

"The fact is that today both sides of the two faiths (Catholic and Lutheran) to a great extent regard it as necessary to speak of Luther only in terms of praise. But does the effort to understand one another exclude a critical study if the cause of truth is served in this way? Is it not true that, besides the known differences in the tenets of the Catholic and Lutheran religions, there is a basis of differences even in the writings of Luther himself?" (The Ego in Faith: Martin Luther and the Origin of Anthropocentric Religion, by Paul Hacker, p. v.)

As the gavel came down to close the final session of the Council of Trent in 1563, Rome had officially and, according to her own commitment down to the present moment, irreversably, declared that the Gospel announced by the prophets, revealed in and by Christ, and proclaimed by the apostles, was actually heretical. The most relevant Canons are the following: Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone..., let him be anathema.

2) It amazes me that Protestants, the very ones who claim to go by Scripture alone, continue to this day to use a non-biblical phrase ("faith alone") to describe how one is justified. In fact, Scripture goes out of its way to avoid using "faith alone" in reference to justification. For example, St. Paul used the word "faith" and its derivatives over 200 times; and the words "alone" or "only" a few dozen times. Some of the appearances of "alone" or "only" occur right in the very contexts that address the subject of Justification (Romans 3:29; 4:12; 4:16; 4:23; Galatians 2:10; 3:2; 4:18; 5:13). Yet in not one instance did St. Paul feel compelled to combine the two words to specify how Justification was procured. What would have kept him from using such an all-telling, all-important, phrase, if, indeed, the concept of "faith alone" was on the forefront of his mind? A haunting question, indeed, for anyone of Dr. Horton's burden to contemplate.

The burden is compounded when we recognize that Scripture considers the phrase "faith alone" to have the utmost importance, since it uses it in one very crucial place - - the very place it decides that it is appropriate to nullify the concept that Justification is by faith alone -- James 2:24. In fact, not only does Scripture nullify "faith alone" as justifying, it reinforces its nullity by prefacing it with the clause, "You see, a man is justified by works" prior to adding "and not by faith alone."

Now, the way Dr. Horton tries to dismiss the fact that Paul refrained from using "faith alone" is to say that when Paul condemns justification by works, we are to interpret this to mean that Paul believed in faith alone for Justification. This may seem plausible to him, but it is quite wrong. Condemning works does not automatically mean faith is alone. There are other things that could be added to faith that are not considered works, and thus faith would not be alone. In fact, Paul condemned only one kind of work. He called them works of DEBT (Romans 3:28-4:4). How do we know there is a distinction? Because in the previous chapter Paul says that those who do good works will receive eternal life (Romans 2:6-7) and that those who obey the Law will be justified (Romans 2:13).

As for works of DEBT, Catholics also condemn the idea that man can put God in debt to save him by his own works. The very first canon of the Council of Trent states this quite plainly:

If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done either by his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law, and without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be anathema.

If you ask Dr. Horton how he deals with Paul's teaching in Romans 2:6-13 9 (that those who do good works will be justified and receive eternal life), he will answer something like this: "Oh, Paul didn't really mean that one can receive justification and eternal life for good works. It only appears that way. Actually, Paul was setting up an impossible task for man in order to drive him to the next chapter where he teaches that only faith without works will justify." I know he will say this because I've heard him speak on Romans 2. But notice what he's done. Without any indication from Paul that he is setting up an impossible task, Dr. Horton imposes such a disclaimer on the text of Romans 2.

Why does Dr. Horton do this? Because he must in order to make his theology work. Look at it this way: There are two solutions to the seeming contradiction between what Paul says in Romans 2:6-13 and what he says in Romans 3:23-4:4. Either you conclude that Paul is dealing with two different kinds of works (works of debt and works of grace), or you say he is dealing with only one kind of work (any work). The Catholic Church has chosen the former; Dr. Horton has chosen the latter. How do I know he has? Because later in this paper he admits it. Here are Dr. Horton's exact words:

"The Scriptures are hardly ambiguous in excluding all human activity from being the instrument of justification with the exception of faith. This is the same as saying 'faith alone.' Or, to put it another way, if the Scriptures teach that we are justified by faith and not by works, then they teach 'faith alone."

Of course, once you choose that option, then you have no choice but to make the teaching of Romans 2:6-13 hypothetical (that is, something impossible to obey), and elevate the teaching of Romans 3:28-4:4 as the only reality. Otherwise, if you give only one meaning for "works," you would make Paul contradict himself between Romans 2 and Romans 3.

Now here is the fair question for Dr. Horton: Does Paul claim anywhere in Romans 2 that his teaching (that those who do good works will be justified and receive eternal life) is hypothetical? Dr. Horton knows that the answer to this question is no. Paul never even hints that his teaching in Romans 2 is hypothetical. He speaks as plainly in Romans 2 as he does in Romans 3.

In fact, the teaching that men will receive justification and eternal life for their works is taught all over Paul's epistles. It is one of the most abundant and most clearly taught ideas in the New Testament (cf., Matthew 12:36-39; 16:27; John 5:28-29; Romans 14:10-12; 1 Corinthians 3:12-17; 4:1-5; 2 Corinthians 5:9-11; Revelation 22:10-12, et al). But what do Protestants do with these Scriptures? Either they make them hypothetical, or they say they only apply to Christians who receive rewards. But you will find, as is the case with Romans 2, that none of the above texts ever claim to be hypothetical, or do they claim that the judgment for works only applies to Christians. This has severe ramifications for Dr. Horton, for if he has no proof that Paul's teaching in Romans 2:6-13 is hypothetical, and yet Dr. Horton maintains that Romans 2:6-13 does not represent the true means of salvation (which he thinks is "faith alone"), then he has ultimately accused Paul of heresy, as absurd as that sounds.

James 2:24

In other writings, Dr. Horton tries to dismiss the clear language of James 2:24 ("You see a man is justified by works and not by faith alone") by claiming that James is only talking about a "vindication" of Abraham, not a real justification. Obviously, Dr. Horton feels he has the right to change the meaning of the word dikaiow in James to mean something different than what Paul means for dikaiow in Romans 4. Just as we discovered with Dr. Horton's treatment of justification in Romans 2-3, you will find often that the only way he can make his theology fit is by changing the meaning of certain words and concepts.

But his attempts will not get very far, for Scripture is wise to such efforts. Let me show you how: If, by James' use of dikaiow he meant only that Abraham was "vindicated" when he sacrificed Isaac, then we could translate James 2:21 as follows. "Was not Abraham our father vindicated by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?" No problems yet.

But now let's drop down to James 2:24 and make the same replacement: "You see that a man is vindicated by works, and not by faith alone." Do you see the problem? Here it is: Since "vindicated" is the only main verb in the sentence, then it must be shared between the two clauses. In other words, the verse would have to mean: "You see that a man is vindicated by works, and not vindicated by faith alone." If "vindicated" is assigned to works it must also be assigned to faith, but then that means that faith itself is not justifying, it is only vindicating, and therefore Dr. Horton destroys the very thing he was trying to save. Yes, Scripture is wise to such attempts, and does an excellent job in trapping those who would twist its words. If Paul had meant "vindicated," there were about six different Greek words at his disposal that he could have used, but obviously he didn't.

Dr. Horton may retort by pointing out the lone verse of Matthew 11:19 which may use dikaiow in the sense of "vindicated." But this will not save him. Matthew 11:19 is a poetic context, and therefore its words can take on different shades of meaning. James 2:21-24 is not a poetic context, and therefore its words must mean what they indicate.

This can be proven by looking at how James uses the noun form of dikaiow, which is dikaiosune, in James 2:23. Here James quotes from Genesis 15:6: "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." The word "righteousness" is the Greek dikaiosune. Now let's build our case. It just so happens that in Romans 4:3 Paul also quotes from the same passage, Genesis 15:6: "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." In fact, the Greek word order is identical in both James 2:23 and Romans 4:3, so we know that both James and Paul are quoting from the same source. Now here is where the Protestants are trapped. They assert that the dikaiosune Paul takes from Genesis 15:6 and uses in Romans 4:3 refers to real salvific righteousness leading to a real salvific justification. If so, then they would have to admit that, since James 2:23 also quotes from Genesis 15:6, then James must be referring to a real salvific righteousness. But here's the problem: How can James be referring to a real salvific righteousness in James 2:23 but then be referring to a non-salvific "vindication" in James 2:24, considering that James 2:24 is using the verbal form, dikaiow, of the noun, dikaiosune in 2:23?

In effect, what the Protestants are proposing is that James uses a non-salvific form of the dikaiow derivatives in verse 21, switches to a salvific derivative in James 2:23 when he quotes Genesis 15:6, and then switches back to a non-salvific derivative in James 2:24, all in the space of four verses. Suffice it to say, that schema is one of the most elaborately contrived I ever seen, and it is certainly not supported by Scripture.

James give us further evidence that such a schema won't work by introducing Rahab to the discussion. The all-important words James uses in 2:25 are "And in the same way" (Greek: homoiws). Here is the rest of it: "And in the same way was not Rahab the harlot also justified (Greek: dikaiow) when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?" James is telling us that Rahab was justified "in the same way" that Abraham was justified. But here's the curious lacuna for Protestant theology: Scripture never describes Rahab's justification as an instance in which faith was manifested before her works. Rather, Joshua 2 shows that Rahab's faith and works were simultaneous. Thus, Protestants can't treat Rahab's justification in the same way they treat Abraham's, for they hold that Abraham's justification occurred in Genesis 15:6, many years prior to the work (supposedly for vindication), that Abraham did in Genesis 22 when he offered Isaac.

Again, we see how Scripture traps those who impose artificial systems on it. It seemed plausible to them to separate Abraham's justification into two components (one justifying, one vindicating) but they can't do so with Rahab's justification. Here is where the haunting words "And in the same way" come to roost, for this means that Abraham was justified identical to Rahab. There can be no difference, otherwise there would be two salvation plans, one for Abraham and one for Rahab, but that is not possible. No, the reality is that Rahab's justification occurred when she exhibited faith and works, simultaneously. In fact, Hebrews 11:31 calls Rahab's incident with the spys an act of "faith," whereas we have seen James call it a "work." Thus, her faith was working together with her works to give her justification. We certainly cannot say that the work James ascribes to Rahab was merely something to vindicate her.

And it is no surprise to see Scripture speak of Abraham in the same way, for Hebrew 11:19 says that his attempt to offer Isaac to God was an act of "faith," whereas we have seen James call it a "work." In both Rahab and Abraham, faith and works are simultaneous, and thus it is no surprise that James says they were justified "in the same way," and thus it is conclusive that "faith alone" did not justify either of them. There are more proofs to what I have introduced above. I suggest that those who are interested should read Chapters 1 and 2 of Not By Faith Alone to get the full picture.

M. Horton continues:

Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins,... let him be anathema.

Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy (supra, chapter 9), which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.

Canon 30. If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.

Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ...does not truly merit an increase of grac and eternal life... let him be anathema.

It was, therefore, not the evangelicals who were condemned in 1564, but the evangel itself. The "good news," which alone is "the power of God unto salvation" was judged by Rome to be so erroneous that anyone who embraced it was to be regarded as condemned. Let us now consider the key questions and passages relating to this doctrine.

What Is Justification? Infusion or Imputation, Process or Declaration?

In the Roman system, as we have seen, justification is sanctification. Through baptism, we are renewed and by cooperating with grace infused we merit final justification. The long and short of this was that on the eve of the Reformation itself, there were many different interpretations of this doctrine, but the decisive moment occurred not with Luther, but with the Roman Catholic humanist, Erasmus, to whose criticism of the Latin text of Scripture we have already briefly alluded. The Latin Vulgate, Jerome's 4th century translation of the Scriptures, had been the official translation throughout the middle ages, and its integrity was generally assumed. But then came the Renaissance, a recovery of classical learning that included a return to the original Greek text of Scripture.

As Oxford theologian Alister McGrath observes, the best example of the errors in the Latin Vulgate, corrected in tail end of the Renaissance, concerns its translation of the Greek word "dikaiosune," which means "to declare righteous." It is a legal term, a verdict. But the Latin Vulgate had translated "dikaiosune" with the Latin word iustificare, which means "to make righteous." Erasmus and a host of classical scholars recognized that the Greek text required an understanding of justification that referred to a change in status rather than to a change in behavior or mode of being. Again, Erasmus had no doctrinal stake in this matter. He was not only a loyal son of the Roman church; he had engaged in heated polemics with Luther over free will. Nevertheless, he was Europe's leading authority on the classical languages and could not overlook the glaring mistranslations. For this reason it has been said that Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7