09/28/06
The Biblical
Christian faith does not consist of contradictory Biblical propositions. This is why we read, “But [as] God
[is] true, our word toward you was not yea and nay.“ (II Corinthians 1:18). This distinguishes the Christian faith from
other worldviews, which are internally inconsistent, containing contradictory
propositions. Biblical propositions
that are paradoxical on the surface can be resolved. This must be the case, for two contradictory propositions are
ultimately meaningless together. For
instance, it is meaningless to say that “a ball is spherical **and** it is not
spherical”. One purpose of Biblical
systematic theology is to show how the chief doctrinal propositions of
scripture relate and teach a comprehensive coherent revelation to mankind that
is internally consistent and without contradiction.
Two Biblical
propositions that have been the subject of much historical debate as to how
they should be resolved are these:
The Westminster
Confession of Faith, summarizing the two doctrinal propositions above, records:
1. “Those whom God effectually calleth, he
also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by
pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as
righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's
sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other
evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the
obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on
him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it
is the gift of God. Faith, thus receiving and resting on
Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification…” [Note: The last statement goes on to say “…
yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all
other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.”]
The correct manner
to resolve these two propositions is that found in Mr. Robert Shaw’s commentary
on the Westminster Confession of Faith, where he writes:
“The sentence to be pronounced will be
answerable to the several states in which mankind shall be found. They shall receive
their doom according to their works. - Rev. xx. 13. It is to be
remarked, that the good works of the righteous will be produced in that day,
not as the grounds of their acquittal, and of their being adjudged to eternal
life, but as the evidences of their gracious state, as being interested in the
righteousness of Christ. But the evil deeds of the wicked will be brought
forward, not only as evidences of their being strangers to Christ, but also as
the grounds of their condemnation.”
Dr. John Calvin similarly
resolved it, as evidenced, for example, in his exposition of Romans 2:6:
“6. Who will render to every one,
etc. As he had
to do with blind saintlings, who thought that the wickedness of their hearts
was well covered, provided it was spread over with some disguises, I know not
what, of empty works, he pointed out the true character of the righteousness of
works, even that which is of account before God; and he did this, lest they
should feel confident that it was enough to pacify him, if they brought words
and trifles, or leaves only. But there is not so much difficulty in this verse,
as it is commonly thought. For the Lord, by visiting the wickedness of the
reprobate with just vengeance, will recompense them with what they have
deserved: and as he sanctifies those whom he has previously resolved to
glorify, he will also crown their good works, but not on account of any merit:
nor can this be proved from this verse; for though it declares what reward good
works are to have, it does yet by no means show what they are worth, or what
price is due to them. And it is an absurd inference, to deduce merit from
reward.”
Calvin’s point,
like that of Shaw, is that the manifest good works of the elect on the Day of
Judgment are not the grounds of their salvation (in other words, their
salvation is not merited on the basis of their good works), but the good works
distinguishing the elect can be used by God to cull out His elect from the
reprobate, because **only** those can manifest **true** good works who have first
been justified by God, so that God may then sanctify and enable them to do true
good works.
But other
solutions to resolve these propositions have been proposed. One proposed solution, common to the Romish
Church and her ideological allies, is found on the Roman Catholic website http://www.catholicintl.com/ . For instance, at http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/justification/horton-rebutal.htm
we
read these arguments by Dr. Robert A. Sungenis:
“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…”
“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.’”
“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.”
So a typical Roman
Catholic resolution of the seeming paradox is that the term “works” in Romans
chapter 2 means something different from what it means in Romans chapter
3. It asserts that man can be saved on
the basis of (or on the grounds of) “works of grace” but not on the grounds of
“works of debt”.
Another proposed
solution, generally by professing Protestants of a more antinomian sort,
asserts that really the judgment according to works on the Great Day of
Judgment is merely hypothetical, or else it has reference to Christ’s works
imputed to the believer. Such would
deny that human works can be used to separate the elect from the non-elect,
either because such proponents mistakenly believe it would imply such good
works are the grounds of the elect’s salvation, or they mistakenly believe true
Christians cannot be distinguished by their works from the reprobate. It should be noted that it is this proposed
solution that Dr. Robert A. Sungenis is chiefly taking aim in his
arguments at http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/justification/horton-rebutal.htm
. He never satisfactorily addresses the
historic and correct Protestant position as we find it in the Westminster
Confession, as well as the writings of such theologians as Dr. John Calvin or
Mr. Robert Shaw.