1 2 3 4 5 6 7

But we can even go a step beyond Sacramentum Mundi and Fitzmyer, citing an article that our opponents will no doubt respect, since it is published in their magazine, This Rock (April 1995). After attacking the Protestant doctrine of "faith alone," Leslie Rumble concedes, "Now it is quite true that Paul made use of a word which in the Greek language had the technical meaning of legal acquittal. And if the word can have no other meaning than that, one could scarcely dispute the interpretation of justification as implying no more than to be accounted as righteous or not guilty in the sight of God." But alas, "Luther had not the advantages of modern scholarship." "He belonged to an age when it was thought that the real meaning of the New Testament could be best ascertained by discovering the exact sense of the Greek language in which its books were originally written."

Rumble evidently thinks that the meaning of the biblical text cannot be discerned in the same manner as Homer or Aristotle. Having conceded that the New Testament Greek text agrees with Luther, Rumble nevertheless rejects this view on the basis that "the whole religious outlook" takes precedence over the fine print. Although he admits that this interpretation is at odds with the Scriptures in their original language, we are supposed to take Rumble's word for it that "the whole religious outlook" of the Bible endorses the Roman position, even though its actual words contradict it.

5) Has any Catholic theologian ever contested that dikaiow and its derivatives are totally void or incapable of being used in a legal sense? No, never. There were various instances in which the Greeks used the word in legal contexts. Paul could have done the same thing, if he desired to do so. But that just begs the question: DID he do so? Take the word "marriage," for example. Is that a legal term or a personal term? It can be either, depending on the context in which it is placed. When applying for a marriage license, or when in divorce court, the word "marriage" becomes very legal, does it not? But when a husband loves his wife (as opposed to merely giving her food, clothing and shelter) is "marriage" merely a legal term? No, certainly not. It takes on a whole new meaning that law knows nothing about, for law can't love. Only people who make a personal commitment of trust and care can love each other.

In the same way, Protestants think that just because they can find some examples where Greek culture used dikaiow in a legal sense that this automatically allows them to conclude that Paul is using it thusly, and, in fact, is confined to such a meaning in the New Testament. It is the all-or-nothing meaning that Protestants attempt to assign to dikaiow that is the problem. They tell us that it can ONLY refer to legal matters, and thus Paul is forced to use it forensically. But they have never proven this. They have never shown that dikaiow has such an exclusive meaning in Greek, nor have they produced a clear passage of Scripture which shows that Paul used dikaiow forensically, and only forensically. What they have done is give a lot of misinformation about dikaiow and Paul's use of the term in the New Testament, not the least of which is Dr. Horton's attempt below.

The verbal ending of dikaiow is declarative; if the biblical writers intended by "justification" a process of moral transformation, there is a perfectly good verbal ending for that sort of thing in Greek: adzo rather than ow. For instance, "to make holy" is translated from the Greek verb, "hagiodzo," and this word is never rendered "to justify." When the biblical writers refer to justification, they use the declarative ending; when they refer to sanctification, they use the progressive ending. If it is good enough of a distinction for the biblical writers themselves, surely we should have not trouble with the Bible's own language.

6) Although Protestants have touted the ow ending as being exclusively forensic, the reality is that this is simply not true. We can find disproof for Dr. Horton's contention in one of the very Protestant sources Dr. Horton admires. Philip Schaff, for example, says "Modern exegesis has justified this view of dikaiow and dikaiowsis, according to Hellenistic usage." and then Schaff makes the admission: ".although etymologically the verb may mean to make just, i.e., to sanctify, in accordance with verbs in ow (e.g., delow, phanerow, tuphow, to make manifest, etc." (History of the Christian Church, Vol. VII, f. 2, p. 123).

A study of these three NT words confirms Schaff's admission. The word delow appears seven times in the epistles, all of which denote a recognition of an actual manifestation (e.g., 1 Cor 3:13; Col 1:8); phenerow appears fifty times, denoting the same (e.g., 1 Cor 4:5; 1 Tim 3:16); tuphow is used three times, referring to an actual blindness (John 12:40).

We also have the witness of M. J. LaGrange stating: "First, we should not that verbs in ow mean to make whatever the root indicates. Thus dikaiow would properly mean "make just" (La Justification selon saint Paul, RB 1914, 121, cited by C. Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, 1995, 1:341).

Protestants attempt to defend their forensic use of dikaiow by appealing to equally dubious definitions of associated words. For example, Protestants attempt to support an exclusively forensic meaning to dikaiow by appealing to the Greek word logizomai, normally translated as "credited" or "reckoned" in modern translations (cf., Romans 4:3). As taken from pages 324-325 of NBFA, here is what happens when they do so:

"This matter concerns the use of the Greek word logizomai, translated as 'reckoned,' 'credited,' 'accepted,' 'counted,' 'considered.'.Protestant exegesis, especially that of Romans 4 where the Greek word logizomai appears twelve times, has consistently understood the word in the sense of 'credited.'.Abraham is understood as one who has 'something to his credit' so that when God looks at his ledger book, as it were, he sees that, in accounting terms, Abraham is in the black.

Evangelical Joel Beeke comments on this verb:

'This verb most often indicates 'what a person, considered by himself, is not, or does not have, but is reckoned, held or regarded to be, or to have. It is clear then that when Abraham was justified by his faith, the righteousness which was reckoned or 'charged to his account' was a righteousness not his own but that of another, namely, the righteousness of Christ.'

Unfortunately, Beeke presents a false premise which leads a false conclusion. First, the Greek verb logizomai does not 'most often indicate' what someone or something is merely 'considered' to be but is not so in reality. The New Testament uses logizomai 41 times. Most of these refer to what someone is thinking as a mental representation of the reality they are witnessing (cf., Luke 22:37; Rom 3:28; 6:11; 9:8; 1 Cor 4:1; 13:5, 11; Phil 3:13; 4:8; Heb 11:19, et al). Contrary to Beeke's proposition, in only a few instances is logizomai used as a mental representation of something that does not exist in reality (cf., Rom 2:26; 2 Cor 12:6).

Hence, the preponderant evidence shows that logizomai denotes more of what is recognized or understood intrinsically of a person or thing than a mere crediting to the person or thing something that is not intrinsic to it. In the case of Abraham, we can then understand the phrase "his faith is reckoned as righteousness" in Romans 4:3 such that God is recognizing or viewing Abraham's faith as righteousness.This is very different from saying, as Beeke claims, that God 'credited' Abraham with righteousness as if to say that Abraham was not really showing any righteous qualities when he demonstrated his faith but that God, because of the alien righteousness of Christ, merely gave him the label of righteousness.'

I recommend to the reader that he consult pages 324-354 in Not By Faith Alone to see all the arguments refuting the contention of Dr. Horton that dikaiow is exclusively forensic.

Furthermore, it is an imputation of an "alien righteousness" rather than an infusion of righteous into the soul.

7) Here's the challenge for Dr. Horton: Can he tell us where Scripture shows us that justification is an imputation of alien righteousness? Here's his first problem: The word normally associated with Protestant "imputation" is the Greek word logizomai, which I covered above. We have seen that, from the Scriptural usage of the term, Protestants are wrong in assuming that logizomai refers to a mere crediting of righteousness, that is, a crediting of something that in reality does not exist.

Here's his second problem: where does Scripture distinguish between the individual's righteousness and "alien" righteousness in regards to the criterion for justification? This is a real dilemma for Protestants (although in listening to Dr. Horton you would never know it). For those who are interested in this, please consult pages 346-354 in Not By Faith Alone for the details.

In brief, the dilemma is this: Romans 4:5; 4:9; and 4:22, by strict use of Greek grammar, show that it is precisely Abraham's faith which is counted for righteousness, not an "alien" righteousness from Christ.

Joel Beeke recognized it, but he tried to twist the meaning of the Greek word eis ("for") (just as he had done with the Greek word logizomai, noted above) in order to escape the problem.

Esteemed Reformed theologian John Murray recognized it, but rather than twist the meaning of eis as Beeke did, Murray said, "It may not be possible to answer this question with any decisiveness" (Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 1965, p. 358).

Esteemed Reformed theologian Charles Hodge admitted the grammatical meaning of Romans 4:5, 9, 22, but says that it is "inconsistent" with other things we know about Scripture, which means that Hodge puts Scripture in the dubious position of being at odds with itself (Justification by Faith Alone, p. 48).

It is not, as it has been caricatured, a "legal fiction," as if God could judge contrary to the facts. We maintain that God's judgment is strictly according to the facts, but that it is Christ's righteousness imputed to our account that allows God to be both "just and the justifier of those who believe." It is not a legal fiction because Christ's righteousness is real and perfect and it has been truly credited to the account of the believing sinner.

8) Dr. Horton is saying what others have said. For instance, R. C. Sproul says: "The forensic declaration of justification is not a legal fiction. It is real and authentic because the imputation upon which it is based is no fiction. It is a real imputation of real righteousness of a real Christ" (Justification by Faith Alone, p. 39).

Geisler and MacKenzie attempt the same argument with a little more subtlety: "Our status is not merely legal (as in forensic justification) but also ontological (real) for we become the actual children of God at the initial moment of salvation" (Evangelicals and Catholics Together, p. 239).

Here is our answer: Catholicism has no contention with Protestants if they desire to think of their imputation as "real." The Counter-Reformation charge of "legal fiction" referred rather to the forensic justification's theory that the individual was still internally unjust, though justified. This infringed on the integrity of God, who was put in the position of calling something just that was not really just. Analogously, a gold-plated coin is real (just as Protestants think their forensic imputation is real) but that does not mean that the metal underneath the plating is real gold. Thus, for someone to call the gold-plated coin a genuine gold coin would be a lie. So, Dr. Horton can consider his imputation "real," and his Christ "real," but that is not the issue at stake. The issue is: Is there "real" gold underneath the label? Dr. Horton believes that the individual, in the act of Justification, is intrinsically the same as he was before he was Justified. The only change is that, at the moment of Justification, he has a legal label on him that says he is "Justified."

Let me illustrate the point: 11 yrs. ago now, I went to Europe with a group of college friends. It will come as no surprise to parents everywhere that by the last week, I had run out of money and had to phone home. My parents graciously transferred funds from their account to mine and I was saved from disaster. Was that my money? In the sense that it was in my account, surely it was my money. But had I earned it? Certainly not. The only reason that my account showed a full credit instead of a deficit was because my parents, who had earned that money, had transferred it to my account. Was this a "banking fiction"?

9) No, it wasn't a "banking fiction." They really transferred the money, and Dr. Horton really used it. But just as before, Dr. Horton is not dealing with the real issue, for he doesn't tell us whether his parents merely lent him the money and expected him to pay it back, or that they gave him the money and did not expect repayment. Let's say they lent him a million dollars, but expected it to be repaid. Would it be proper for Dr. Horton to tell his friends in Europe that he was now a "Rich Man" and that all his money worries in life were over? No, because he knows that the million dollars is not really his money, for he has to pay it all back. However, if Dr. Horton's parents gave him the money and didn't expect any repayment, then it would be perfectly acceptable for him to claim to his friend that he was a Rich Man, for he would actually have a million dollars to his name. This example illustrates well the difference between Catholicism and Dr. Horton. Catholicism will only call Dr. Horton a "Rich Man" if he actually possesses the million dollars and doesn't have to pay it back.

In the same way, God's judgment that we are righteous before him even though we are not inherently righteous in ourselves is not a "legal fiction." The perfect righteousness of Christ is credited to the believer's account as though the believer had never sinned and had perfectly loved God and his neighbor with all of his heart, soul, mind, and strength.

10) Its really amazing to me how Dr. Horton can say in one phrase the words "as though" and yet claim in another phrase that this is "not a legal fiction." The words "as though" mean that it is not real; it only appears to be real. And its even more insidious when we see what Dr. Horton attaches to the "as though" category: "the believer had never sinned and had perfectly loved God and his neighbor with all of his heart, soul, mind, and strength." In other words, he uses "as though" to make it appear that the believer hasn't sinned and has perfectly loved God, yet Dr. Horton knows that the believer has not done either of these things. If he had just said that Christ imputes righteousness in spite of the fact that the believer has sinned and remains a sinner, it might not be half as bad, but his goal is to make the sinner appear as if he never sinned and always did the things he was commanded.

Why? Why does Dr. Horton need to have a "sinless" believer? Because his system demands it. In order for the believer to get to heaven, Dr. Horton maintains that the believer cannot merely have Christ's righteousness imputed to him, he must, in the final analysis be "sinless," for God cannot accept sinful people into heaven. Essentially, Protestantism and Catholicism are bound by the same principle: God cannot accept sinful people into heaven. Catholicism answers the problem by saying that all sin and its punishment, whether in Baptism, Confession, or in Purgatory, will be erased from the individual and will be replaced with grace so that he can enter heaven as a pure, undefiled individual (cf. Revelation 21:27). Protestants answer it by saying that Christ imputes righteousness, legally, not substantively, so that the individual can stand before God with a legal label that says "I am justified," and which God will accept, even though God knows the person is still a dirty rotten sinner inside.

The account not only lacks any debt; it shows a balance of perfect righteousness. Luther's phrase was "simul iustus et peccator," "simultaneously justified and sinful." God judges a believing sinner righteous not because the individual is actually righteous, but because Christ is actually righteous and the believer is covered in his righteousness. That is not to say that the believer is not being made righteous, but it is to say that this process is sanctification rather than justification; it is the effect of justification rather than its cause.

11) Well, Dr. Horton has just opened up a whole new can of worms here. Notice how he merely asserts, not proves from Scripture, that justification is a wholly different process than sanctification. But before we get to that, notice also that Dr. Horton says that in the "process of sanctification" the believer is "made righteous," as if to placate his opponents so that he can say, "See, I believe we are made righteous, too. I am not denying that." But to what avail, Dr. Horton? Your concept of "making righteous" has absolutely nothing to do with anything soteriological. It is merely an inconsequential passing of time before the believer dies and goes to heaven.

For that matter, to what degree is the believer "made righteous" on this earth, considering that he, according to Dr. Horton, is never free from the stench of sin in this life? How much "making righteous" does it take to counterbalance the very sin for which he was originally condemned to Hell? What is God supposed to do, look at the believer's intrinsic righteousness out of one eye, and look at the intrinsic sin out of the other eye and come up with a composite view? You see how silly this whole enterprise becomes, for there is no degree of "making righteous" in Dr. Horton's scheme of things that could ever counterbalance the stench of sin, and thus the whole idea of "making righteous," in the Protestant sense of the term, is theologically superfluous.

Now let's deal with Dr. Horton's attempt to make a gulf between justification and sanctification. Dr. Horton has a problem. Why? Because there is only one verse in the whole New Testament that refers to justification and sanctification in the same sentence. That single verse is 1 Corinthians 6:11, and thus we are uniquely dependent on it for the relationship between justification and sanctification. From the Greek, the verse literally reads: "And these things were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

The first thing we notice is that, although a Protestant ordo salutis would prefer to see justification preceding sanctification, this order is just the opposite in 1 Cor. 6:11. Why would Paul allow this seeming discrepancy if the chronological, or even logical, precedence of justification over sanctification was already presumed by him? Second, the context of 1 Cor. 6 has nothing even remotely to do with forensic imputation; rather, it is concerned with the life of the Corinthians, and more specifically, with their inner spiritual life. Dr. Horton would have to admit to this specification, since he has already said that in sanctification the individual is "made righteous."

But if the individual is "made righteous" by being "sanctified," yet if "justified" means, according to Dr. Horton, "imputed, not made, righteous," then what is "justified" doing in a context that is speaking only about being "made righteous"? "Justified" and "sanctified" are both Greek aorists referring to an act in past time. They are both passives, which means the acts were performed on the individual. They both occur when the "washing" occurs, and thus it is presumed that the washing (in the Greek aorist, middle voice, which means that the Corinthians submitted themselves to it, i.e., in Baptism) occurs simultaneously with the justification and the sanctification. The grammar certainly doesn't bode well for the contention of Dr. Horton that justification precedes sanctification, whether temporally or logically, or that there is a distinction between the effects of justification and the effects of sanctification, since, obviously, 1 Cor. 6:11 makes no distinction.

We should also add that, Protestant lexicons which might normally be predisposed to interpret dikaiow as forensic, do not hesitate to call its usage in 1 Cor. 6:11 as "causative" (that is, to make one pure or righteous as opposed to declaring one forensically righteous), adding that "in the mystery religions dikaiousthai refers to a radical inner change which the initiate experiences.and approaches the sense of becoming deified. Some are inclined to find in 1 Tim. 3:165 a similar use" (Walter Bauer's Lexicon, p. 197).

Here are some other proofs: In many instances, the New Testament writers use the word "sanctified" or "sanctification" where one would expect to see "justified" or "justification." For example, Acts 26:18, in which Jesus connects the turning away from Satan to God and in being forgiven with sanctification, not justification; 1 Peter 1:2, in which Peter connects predestination with sanctification; 2 Thess 2:13 in which sanctification and faith are connected directly to being chosen for salvation; Hebrews 10:29 in which the sacred writer connects blood with sanctification.

I would recommend the reader to consult pages 223-225; 339-345 in Not By Faith Alone for more detail on the above arguments.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7