tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4551091045009117018.post2302551355183193891..comments2023-11-02T01:09:07.463-07:00Comments on <center>[affectional theology]</center>: The Reformed Doctrine of Justification: the Heart of the Christian GospelUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4551091045009117018.post-58712825440975197982009-06-17T01:17:21.662-07:002009-06-17T01:17:21.662-07:00Hi,
I'd like to make a few comments on some o...Hi,<br /><br />I'd like to make a few comments on some of what you said.<br /><br />You said: "For Luther, there are really only two legitimate options to obtaining a right standing before God. The first is to perfectly obey the demands of the Law. The second is to rely on the work of another; namely, the perfect law-keeping merits of Christ in one’s place."<br /><br />Nick: I believe this is a false dilemma. The Law never was designed to save, even if kept perfectly, so whether you or Christ (in your place) keeps it doesn't translate into salvation. Gal 2:21; 3:17,21,25 explain the Law was temporal and never designed to save.<br /><br /><br /><br />You said: The Reformers maintained, with St. Augustine, that Adam’s sin was imputed, or reckon, to all his progenies. <br /><br />Nick: This is incorrect, Adam's guilt was not "imputed" to others, that's not a teaching of Scripture (because it never uses "impute" in that manner) and not accurate to St Augustine. Original Sin is true, it does affect all, but it is not "imputed." Think of it more as a genetic disease, which makes someone physically unable to do good works.<br /><br />Further, the dispute with Pelagius went deeper than you and most other Protestants realize. The issue was a battle between nature and grace, which Augustine and Catholics see as grace added to nature, with original sin stripping grace from nature. With Pelagius, he denied grace added to nature, and saw only nature, so when Adam "fell" Pelagius saw nothing to fall from. The alternative to Pelagius' conclusion is the path Protestantism took, which was that human nature itself became corrupt. So while it might sound surprising, Protestantism is actually founded upon Pelagianism, because they start off with the same pre-fallen view of Adam.<br /><br />And this is in fact the heart of the Catholic-Protestant dispute. We have the doctor diagnosing TWO DIFFERENT illnesses (two understandings of original sin), and thus there are TWO DIFFERENT treatments given (corresponding to each disease that needs to be cured). This leads to the two different views of justification.<br /><br /><br />You said: "In Romans 4:5, Paul tells us that God “justifies the ungodly.” How can this be?"<br /><br />Nick: The Protestant interpretation doesn't make much sense here, because if justification is a declaration only, then God is saying "you unrighteous man are righteous," which is a lie. If righteousness is imputed to the sinner's account, then God is not looking at a unrighteous man but a righteous one, contradicting the "ungodly" term used.<br />The Catholic interpretation is that of God transforming the sinner so that they are righteous, seen nicely in 1 Cor 6:10-11. <br /><br /><br />You said: Here, we move to the center of the doctrine justification; namely, the reckoning of Christ’s righteousness on sin stricken, guilty sinners. <br /><br />Nick: Though many don't realize it, the Bible never says "christ's righteousness" is imputed. That simply isn't found in Scripture.<br /><br /><br />You said: "What is meant by imputation? The Reformers often appealed to 2 Corinthians 5:21...there is only a twofold imputation found"<br /><br />Nick: The main problem here is that the term "impute" is not used here, it's projected on this verse, which is invalid exegesis. The Bible never says sin is "impute" to Christ or that Adam's sin is "imputed" to us, nor that Christ's Righteousness is imputed. It might make the theology easier to speak like this, but Scripture does not use such terminology. Paul was well aware of the term "impute," so given that he never used it in this sense is problematic for your argument. <br /><br /><br />You said: "The good news of the gospel is that God has done for us what we could not do for ourselves; Christ obeyed the demands of God’s perfect law and he took the punishment that we deserve to present us as faultless before the Father."<br /><br />Nick: Nowhere does the Bible say Christ obeyed the Law 'in our place', nor does it say Jesus was punished in our place in the Penal Substitution sense. Unfortunately, these things are repeated so often people begin to think the Bible teaches them.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.com