At the start of this year, I got heavily into the doctrine of justification, specifically, studying the imputed righteousness of Christ due initially to N.T. Wright and the NPP. The rest of the year, though I studied many things and read many books (more than I have in any year in my life), the study of justification remained throughout. I learned the arguments of the NPP, Rome, the Eastern Orthodox, and I learned to disprove them biblically from great scholars like D.A. Carson and Tom Schreiner. It is fitting therefore that my year ended with a debate on justification. 1 day ago, I had an extended online discussion with an Eastern Orthodox believer (at least this is what I assume he is based on some comments he made. He never identified himself specifically, so he might be Roman Catholic, though I lean toward him being Orthodox). I had a large chunk of time engaging the EO and their theology earlier this year as well, so this was definitely not my first discussion with them at all. I thought that posting the entire thing would be helpful, if only at least to catalog his arguments and my responses. Text that is bold and in brackets [like this] is just my own comments in this post on whatever has been said that I think would be helpful. Now, I know internet debates are (99.99% of the time) a big waste of time, though I had a lot of time on my hands, and I was pretty satisfied with the outcome.
Anyways, this whole thing started from a comment I made about the Anglican Church being inconsistent on justification sola fide similar to the Lutherans—as I hope the proceeding post will show, setting forth the Biblical logic of justification. We will see Paul excludes all "works" period, those done by grace included. So the response that baptism is something "God does to us" by grace is no different than what the Jews believed about circumcision. We must also remember that justification by faith alone is not a statement about the grounds/meritorious cause of justification, which is always the obedience of Christ, but rather sola fide is a statement about the instrumental cause/means of justification. Therefore to add anything to faith as an instrument of justification (such as making baptism the instrument or means of justification…faith and baptism...or the faith which is in baptism), by definition contradicts justification sola fide. All those who believe in baptismal regeneration make baptism an instrumental cause/means of justification along with faith and thereby contradict sola fide. We can see this in Galatians 3:2 when Paul asks, “I only want to learn this from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by believing what you heard?”, not that regeneration (the Spirit) is received by faith (regeneration precedes faith), but Paul means that faith (believing) is the sole instrument/means by which one receives the benefits of the Spirit, not any sort of work, be it circumcision or baptism or penance.
Baptismal regeneration furthermore replaces the normative means of the external call (the preached word through men according to Romans 10:14, “How, then, can they call on him they have not believed in? And how can they believe without hearing about him? And how can they hear without a preacher?”) with baptism, or "the word preached in the water". They will try to get around the argument paralleling baptism and circumcision in Gal. 3:2 by using this argument, distinguishing the external/objective instrument from the internal/subjective instrument. However, you must bring them back to Romans 10:14, showing that the external/objective instrument is not baptism, but the preached word.
So, anyways, I referenced this Themelois article: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/sola-fide-compromised-martin-luther-and-the-doctrine-of-baptism/ This caused some discussion, and so we begin.
(on the rejection of baptismal regeneration in the Early Church see Josephus: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2021/06/dont-forget-about-josephus.html?m=1 It is not absolutely solid given the substantial covenantal discontinuity between John's OT baptism and Christ's NT baptism, however, I will only add that if Josephus was aware that Christian baptism was believed to remit sins and yet John's was not believed to have done so, he does not make his readers aware of this important distinction. Furthermore, the language regarding remission of sins is no different between the two (compare Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3 with Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16). And see Tertullian, who spoke of some "miscreants", who say, “Baptism is not necessary for them to whom faith is sufficient; for withal, Abraham pleased God by a sacrament of no water, but of faith". Independently of my own research, I have found out that Triablogue has also come to the conclusion that Tertullian speaks of Christians here: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2022/04/belief-in-justification-apart-from.html?m=1)
EO: And to you BrandonCorley1689 [Epic username, I know], Augustine and all the early church taught baptismal regeneration and the scary boogey-man “works salvation.” If you had decent theology of how God sustains all goodness and fills true Christian by the power of the Holy Spirit, you’d realize how absurd that boogey-man is. The 1689 London Baptist Confession is as unbiblical and ahistorical as any false teaching, and thank God a few Anglicans decided not to put their heads in the sand and blindly follow Calvin. Repent and obey the gospel of Christ’s kingdom.
ME: The Bible does not teach you are "saved by faithfulness" as you say, or justified "by love" as Augustine taught (which he also erroneously took to mean "make righteous" instead of the biblical "declare righteous"). The Bible teaches you are justified "by faith apart from works" (Rom 3:28). The ground of justification is the righteous obedience of Christ imputed to us (Rom 5:19, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Corinthians 1:30), which we take hold of by faith. This was the teaching of the Epistle to Diognetus and of Clement of Rome. Christ was the Last Adam, and as such, his obedience is counted/imputed to all whom He represents. Because He was obedient where Adam was not, even to the point of death, He won eternal life and brought in the New Creation for all whom He represents (2 Corin. 5:17), as Adam was supposed to do. He was then raised from the dead as a reward for His obedience, which was God's proclamation of justification upon Christ, which means that all in Him are also justified (Rom. 4:25). Christ must be the only grounds of justification This is because all works and all faith even after regeneration can never suffice for eternal life, which God requires perfect obedience for, and even if we were to be perfect, this would not earn a single thing, as this is what was already due of us anyways (Luke 17:10). The argument Paul was having with the Jews was never over the necessity of divine grace (the Pharisee believed in divine grace when he prayed, "I thank you God that I am not like the other people...") rather the argument was over the sufficiency of grace alone through faith alone unto justification apart from all works, so a "get in by faith, stay in by faith and works" cannot be what the bible teaches, because this was the very position Paul was arguing against. God is absolutely holy and perfect and therefore cannot be content with anything less than a perfect righteousness. Therefore, the only way for our salvation, is for God to graciously condescend and create a covenant with Christ in order to represent us, so that his entire life, his obedience in life and in death, is wholly counted to those whom He federally represents. Nor can those federally represented by Christ ever lose their salvation and resort back to federal representation by Adam because this is inconsistent with the nature of the New Covenant, which was not like the Old Covenant because those in the Old Covenant "did not continue" in it, but in the New Covenant God says He "will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more", as Hebrews 8 makes clear, for Christ is an eternal High Priest after the order of Melchizedek and consequently is able to save to the uttermost since He always lives to intercede for us. The objection in Romans 6:1 is "are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?". Paul assumes the result of "continuing in sin" is "grace abound[ing]". He does not answer the objection by saying, "if you continue in sin, you will loose your justification", rather, v. 2-14 argues we have already been justified through Christ and therefore a life of righteousness is sure.
EO: False, the Bible explicitly tells us we are justified by works and NOT faith alone, just as Abraham was (James 2:20-26). It’s not my problem that you follow Luther’s novel interpretation of Romans 3-4, Ephesians 2, etc. and reject the historical interpretation of Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, etc that Paul was clearly talking about Jewish ceremonial works of the law (ie circumcision) and works performed before union with Christ [This is the interpretation of the NPP (and Thomas Aquinas) regarding the meaning of "works of the law". I quoted from part of a paper I found online in my reply to address it quickly, but there has been so much written against this that more resources are easy to find. See especially Schreiner's "Works of the Law"]. Point to me any of your supposed faith apart from works prooftexts and I will show you the word “circumcision” appears within 20 words because that is what Paul was talking about.
Of course we are saved only by union with Christ. He is the justified one who alone possesses eternal life in Himself (John 5:26). How does one stay united to Christ? By abiding in His love and obeying His commands! (John 14-15). You kinda missed the most important part: how one stays united to Christ! He then fills us with His Spirit to enable us to do good works, and that is what saves (Romans 8:4).
There is not a single verse in the Bible which teaches God expects perfect obedience of those who are abiding in Christ. You prove you know nothing about the Law of Moses compared to the Law of Christ if you think Janes 2:10 proves your case. James’ entire argument in chapter 2 is that if one disobeys Christ and shows no mercy, then Christ will not show you mercy (just as He said in the parable of the unforgiving servant in Luke) and will let you return to being judged by the condemning law of Moses (See James 2:12-13). Judgment under Christ’s law is of grace if you abide by Him, but condemnation under Moses’ law has no grace.
Those who do not abide in Christ by walking in the Spirit are judged because they remain in Adam. Your fancy federalism theology doesn’t save your heterodox justification from being unbiblical. Nowhere does the Bible teach imputed righteousness. It is amazing that you cite 2 Corinthians 5:21 without actually reading it. It says we “have become the righteousness of God.” Not imputed by some “extra nos” righteousness, the false doctrine of Luther. There is no such thing as imputed righteousness. The Bible teaches the one who “does what is right is righteous, just as He is righteous.” 1 John 3:7. Stop plugging your mind up with false teachers, read the Bible for what it actually says, and repent. I talk bluntly because you need to open the word and be delivered from your false doctrine.
ME: James uses "justified" in a different sense than Paul does when he argues we are justified by faith apart from works. James means that men are vindicated by their works so as to prove their justification is genuine as he says, "faith without works is dead". Take this Roman Catholic commentary, for example: "James does not here imply the possibility of true faith existing apart from deeds, but merely of the making of such a claim ... James is not opposing faith and works, but living faith and dead faith ... What was true in the case of Abraham is true universally. 'by works and not by faith alone': As is clear from the context, this does not mean that genuine faith is insufficient for justification, but that faith unaccompanied by works is not genuine".
Paul does not use "works" to refer merely to ceremonial works of the law, he rather uses it to refer to the entire law. This is evident by James 2:10, "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it". You can also look at the OT to show this. In passages like Deut 28:58 (cf. 29:29 [Heb 29:28]; 31:12; 32:46), Josh 1:7 (cf. 22:5; 23:6) and Neh 9:34 (cf. 2 Chr 14:3; 33:8), "do/perform the law” has reference to the entire law, not to one particular ordinance. And of course, we can see this just by looking at Paul's argument in context. “Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God". Here obviously referring to the entire law and not just ceremonial ordinances. "For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus". A look at “the works of the law” and “law” in Rom 3:20-21 shows that the two are interchangeable. The passage contains no hint that the meaning should be limited to specific statutes in the law. All of the references occur within contexts dealing with justification or righteousness with regard to salvation rather than sanctification.
You affirm that we are saved by union with Christ but fail to see the implications of this. As our federal head, we, as his body, receive from Him all that He is. Because He was justified in His resurrection, we too are justified because of it (Romans 4:25). He becomes to us wisdom, sanctification, righteousness, and redemption (1 Corinthians 1:30), because the whole Christ is imputed to us. If He represents us (and He does), and He is righteous (and He is), then His righteousness is imputed to us. This can easily be proven typologically in that the Davidic King represented Israel, so that his righteousness or unrighteousness was imputed unto the nation depending upon his obedience. And of course, it can be proven through the original biblical king, Adam, as Paul does in Romans 5:18-19. You say that we remain united to Christ by obeying his commandments and cite John 14:15. Indeed, it is true that we persevere in faith and good works as a means of salvation as the Reformed have always taught, but this does not prove that one can actually fail to do so. Indeed, it is actually you who have missed my previous point which I will repeat: this is inconsistent with the nature of the New Covenant, which was not like the Old Covenant because those in the Old Covenant "did not continue" in it, but in the New Covenant God says He "will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more", as Hebrews 8 makes clear, for Christ is an eternal High Priest after the order of Melchizedek and consequently is able to save to the uttermost since He always lives to intercede for us. The objection in Romans 6:1 is "are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?". Paul assumes the result of "continuing in sin" is "grace abound[ing]". He does not answer the objection by saying, "if you continue in sin, you will loose your justification", rather, v. 2-14 argues we have already been justified through Christ and therefore a life of righteousness is sure. Next, you quote Romans 8:4, which says only that the Spirit has been given to us so that we may "fulfill the righteous requirement of the law" in your interpretation. All this means, even if your reading is correct, is that the Holy Spirit releases man from total depravity, so that he may obey (fulfill) the law. This certainly has nothing to do with meriting justification. However, another reading is more likely. The verse states that Christ "condemned sin in the flesh", establishing Christ as the actor and the subject of the sentence. "In order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us", in other words, Christ's death is what substitutionally "fulfills the law" in us by way of representation. The verse, therefore, speaks of the imputation of Christ's obedience in death unto us [I've since changed my mind on this. See Schreiner 400-402, Beale NTBT 254. I really want Moo to be correct here, but sadly I think Beale's argument is decisive].
That "there is not a single verse" that teaches God does not expect perfect obedience for justification (which was, more accurately, my argument) is patently false. Matthew 5:48: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect". Moreover, to contend that God should be content with anything less than a perfect righteousness is utterly repugnant to the holy nature of God and turns Him into an antinomian.
Finally, you appear to interpret 2 Corinthians 5:21 as meaning we become "the righteousness of God" in and of ourselves (i.e. such as augustine's "make righteous"), rather than imputationally. However, this is not careful exegesis. The verse states that Christ was "made to be sin" (alluding back to the Old Testament idea of a "sin offering" in which the sacrificed animal was identified with the guilt of the one for whom it was sacrificed). Obviously, Paul does not mean that Christ was made intrinsically sinful, but rather that He was identified with an alien guilt. The parallel should then be construed as that when we "become the righteousness of God", this righteousness is alien and external to us, as "becoming sin" was alien and external to Christ (indeed, it says we become the righteousness of God, not in ourselves, but in Him!). And what's more, the text does not say that we become righteous (the adjective), but rather, we become "the righteousness of God" (the noun). The verse is not saying we become in ourselves righteous, but rather, in Christ we receive the status of righteousness. Consider Chrysostom's comments on the verse, "what words, what thought shall be adequate to realize these things? 'For the righteous,' says he, 'He made a sinner; that He might make the sinners righteous.' Yea rather, he said not even so, but what was greater far; for the word he employed is not the habit, but the quality itself. For he said not “made” [Him] a sinner, but “sin” not, 'Him that had not sinend' only, but “that had not even known sin; that we” also “might become,” he did not say 'righteous,' but, “righteousness,” and, “the righteousness of God.” For this is [the righteousness] “of God” when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is “the righteousness of God".
EO: You missed the crux of the argument. Yes, Paul is referring to all Mosaic law keeping in chapter 3 as a support for his circumcision argument. This includes all natural law kept by one's own power, whether by Jew or by conscience, but that is still done by one's own insufficient righteousness, and does not save. That is what Augustine taught: one's righteous deeds are only meritorious once done through the power of the Holy Spirit, with the Law of Christ written on your hearts. It is not about the act so much as the one doing the law. That's Paul's conclusion in Romans 8:4, the righteous requirement is met INSIDE us because the Spirit/Christ's active righteousness justifies us from within and through our "walking" in the Spirit. It is not extra nos independent of our actions.
Chrysostom believed as Augustine did, stop quote mining fathers who reject your faith alone, imputed righteous bologna. Chrysostom is saying the same thing: works done without union to Christ, no matter how good, cannot justify. Only joining union with Christ by faith are we then justified, and this is without works initially, since no works, neither circumcision, nor giving to the poor, etc. merit anything.
Matthew 5:48 only proves that God calls us to be perfect, not that he will damn us for not being so. Only the mosaic law damns for the slightest imperfection if one is still under its condemnation. You pretend like you believe in a covenant of grace and Christ's law of grace but you deny it with your theology.
Just because "sin" is said in a sense to be imputed to Christ in 2 Corinthians 5:21 doesn't mean the righteousness is imputed. That is fallacy. Paul would have simply said both are imputed if that were the case. He didn't. The reason he says "become" is for the internal parallel and to emphasize the actual becoming righteous.
[I do not understand what the next 2 paragraphs attempt to argue]
The NT is filled with Christians being called righteous by partaking in Christ's righteousness. One can only be a "slave of righteousness" as Paul says in Romans 6:18 by being a slave to good works. It makes no sense to say one is a slave to an imputed identity that has no bearing on one's actions.
You are Reformed so you claim to believe in divine simplicity, but your soteriology denies it. This is what Peter says when he says we partake in the divine nature (1 Peter 1:4). God is righteous in deed, and we become righteous in deed by partaking in His nature and actually being holy. You dismiss John when his entire first epistle is written to refute gnostics who believed righteousness was imputed just like you. John destroys their argument: only those who do what is righteous are righteous just as He is righteous (1 John 3:7) [While I currently think this most probably refers to practical, inherent righteousness and the "just as" should then be seen only as an analogy, I had never considered this verse in regard to justification before and so I can now see a good argument here for imputed righteousness. John Gill, Matthew Henry, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, and possibly F.F. Bruce? take it in this sense of imputed righteousness. I cannot find much that actually interacts with this position though]. They cannot sin because they are born of God, ie have a new nature that partakes of Christ's actual righteousness (1 John 3:9). Is Jesus righteous by imputation? No, He is the real deal. If you are a real Christian, you are righteous just as He is righteous . This is only possible by union with Christ: partaking of His actual, living righteousness.
Your whole theology of Adam imputing sin and then Christ imputing righteousness is not in the Bible. Original sin as Augustine invented is an unbiblical fiction. The Bible is clear: we receive sin nature from Adam which we cannot free ourselves from without God's grace, contra Pelagius. But we are only judged eternally without faith in Jesus because we all actually sin (Romans 5:12).
The only "federal headship" is with regards to to our fleshly and spiritually dead nature, not wages of eternal condemnation for sin artificially imputed from Adam. That is nowhere in the Bible. Likewise, Christ came to undo our spiritually dead nature in Adam and resurrect a new man in Christ (Romans 6:6). This is also not an artificial imputation of righteousness, but a change of our nature to be able to perform righteousness. Notice Jeremiah and Ezekiel never say the New Covenant is realized by an imputed law keeping. They say we will not break the law because our hearts are changed and we have Christ's law on our hearts.
ME: We'll go in order again.
First, you admit that Paul is referring to the entirety of the law in Romans 3, so your previous comments were incorrect. Very good.
However, you then state that our deeds are only meritorious when done through the power of the Spirit. This may be what Augustine believed, but this is clearly not Paul's argument. Paul excludes works from justification. Period. Works done after regeneration and works done before regeneration are works period. Once again, Paul was not arguing with the Pharisees over the necessity of divine grace (once again, the Pharisee who prayed, "I thank you God that I am not like the other people…" believed in grace), but the sufficiency of grace alone through faith alone unto justification. And, once again, Luke 17:10 excludes merit altogether, as all the works that we do are already due to God and we are but "unprofitable servants" and are anyways always imperfect, as Chrysostom has already said, "we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,)".
Take, too, his homily on Galatians 3, "For the Law requires not only Faith but works also, but grace saves and justifies by Faith".
You say that Matthew 5:48 "only proves that God calls us to be perfect, not that he will damn us for not being so". Again, this is impious and repugnant to the holiness of God and turns Him into an antinomian. God calls us to be perfect because He is perfect. He is the standard, perfection is the Law, for God is the Law. The Law says "do this and live", and if you disobey the Law, you must die. God must punish you because He is just, for He cannot "acquit the guilty". Thus you stand damned in your works and helpless in the sight of God. You must have another's righteousness imputed to you to live. It is the only way, for God cannot deny His own justice. Consider these things and you will see that it is you who deny the Covenant of Grace. To add in any conditions to the Covenant of Grace is to make it the Covenant of Works. We are not justified by works, we do not retain our justification by works, but we are justified unconditionally by the God who declares righteous the ungodly by the imputation of Christ's righteousness so that it may rest solely on grace and not on our works and we are kept totally by the mediation of Christ which ensures that we cannot fall from grace, for otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
On 2 Corinthians 5:21, you have not at all addressed the exegetical arguments I provided. I will repeat it here, as these considerations show that the verse must be understood as an extrinsic righteousness, not an infused inherent one: You appear to interpret 2 Corinthians 5:21 as meaning we become "the righteousness of God" in and of ourselves (i.e. such as augustine's "make righteous"), rather than imputationally. However, this is not careful exegesis. The verse states that Christ was "made to be sin" (alluding back to the Old Testament idea of a "sin offering" in which the sacrificed animal was identified with the guilt of the one for whom it was sacrificed). Obviously, Paul does not mean that Christ was made intrinsically unrighteous, but rather that He was identified with an alien guilt. The parallel should then be construed as that when we "become the righteousness of God", this righteousness is alien and external to us, as "becoming sin" was alien and external to Christ (indeed, it says we become the righteousness of God, not in ourselves, but in Him!). And what's more, the text does not say that we become righteous (the adjective), but rather, we become "the righteousness of God" (the noun). The verse is not saying we become in ourselves righteous, but rather, in Christ we receive the status of righteousness. You must provide actual exercise arguments in order to determine the meaning of a passage. The Epistle to Diognetus, clearly working off this passage along with Romans 5:18-19, is clear: "He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for those who are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!"
Your next comments appear to be based on a simple confusion about Reformed theology. We do not deny that habits are infused so as to make us inherently righteous [This lagnuage is often wrongly denied by Evangelicals today for reasons I cannot understand other than that they confuse "infused habits/grace" with "infused habits/grace **which merit justification**", as in Catholicism. Obviously, habits are infused in regeneration which is what allows us to do good, freeing us from our total depravity. See Turretin, Owen and here: https://calvinistinternational.com/2015/12/17/9838/ , where a comment points out the language is even in the Westminster Catechsism]. so that we may obey the law. We only argue that this follows after imputation. [This was my best shot at answering whatever the attempted objection may have been on his part in the 2 paragraphs I am responding to].
You then deny the imputation of Adam's sin and of Christ's righteousness. This is, once again, contrary to Romans 5:18-19:
“Therefore, as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were constituted sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be constituted righteous.”
The verb "constituted" is forensic and refers to one's status. Indeed the entirety of the two verses here are forensic ("condemnation" contrasted with "justification"). This can only be taken to mean that Adam's disobedience is counted to all those whom he represents, just as Christ's obedience is counted to all those whom He represents.
You believe we inherit a sinful nature from Adam, but ask yourself what the basis for this is? We inherit a sinful nature from him because we are condemned in him, just as we receive eternal life from Christ because we are justified in Him. To say that we inherit a sinful nature from Adam is to say that we suffer the consequences of his sin, which is precisely what it means for something to be imputed to us (to be held accountable for it as though we ourselves have done it and therefore to suffer the consequences of it; it was precisely this that Christ suffered when our sins were imputed to us, evidenced by his death, see Gal. 3:10-13). You blame Augustine for this reasoning, but as a matter of historical fact, Irenaeus articulated the same thing, clearly viewing Adam in terms of federal representation, "We, however, are all from him [Adam] and as we are from him, we have inherited his title [of sin]...Indeed, through the first Adam, we offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death". [Note, the imputation of Christ's obedience unto us here. Irenaeus is being thoroughly biblical, working off Romans 5:18-19].
You enter the New Covenant through the imputation of Christ's obedience. Consider Rom. 7:4, where we are told we have "died to the Law" (released from the Covenant of Works), "through the body of Christ" (the imputed obedience in death of Christ), that we may be "joined to another" (Christ the Covenant head of the New Covenant). Finally, you have yet to fully consider the fact the one cannot loose their salvation and justification from the nature of the Covenant of Grace, which, again is "not like the Old Covenant" because the Covenant of Grace is unconditional. Whereas those in the Old Covenant, "did not continue in it", the New Covenant cannot be broken. The Law is written upon your heart so that you keep it. It is therefore assured that you cannot loose your salvation. Consider again my previous comments about the New Covenant of Hebrews 8 and Christ's eternal priesthood as well as Paul's response to the objector of Romans 6. It would do well to consider Chrysostom's comments on 2 Corinthians 5:21, as well.
EO: I never said Paul was talking about all the law in Romans 3, and I never said he only mentioned circumcision in Romans 3. I have not changed one bit of my argument. Read my words precisely.
Paul was speaking about all the law of Moses in Romans 3 as support for his main point of circumcision. Jews without faith in Jesus follow the law of Moses, but the Law of Moses as a system does not save nor does it even apply to Christians. Paul makes this clear in 1 Corinthians 9:21 and James likewise in James 2:12. Paul also says this in 1 Timothy that the law (law of Moses) is not for the righteous but for those who strike their parents and other capital crimes under Mosaic law. Only those who disobey Christ are under Mosaic law condemnation.
Your theology hinges on conflating the two law systems of the Bible contrary to the NT. They have the same moral principles but are not the same. Mosaic law requires strict compliance to avoid condemnation (Hebrews 10:26-31) (James 2:10), but the Law of Christ does not (1 John 2:1). It only condemns for willful sin (Hebrews 10:26-31). You have not provided one verse that the law of Christ requires strict compliance to avoid condemnation. That is what you would need to prove we cannot be saved by our righteous deeds performed by walking in the Spirit and in Christ. You have not done so and cannot do so because that is not what the Bible teaches.
Luke 17:10 does not exclude merit by grace, it only excludes strict merit and excludes boasting. We are servants of God and only do righteous deeds through God's power. There is no boasting in that, there is only no condemnation.
You say: "The Law says "do this and live", and if you disobey the Law, you must die. God must punish you because He is just, for He cannot "acquit the guilty".
False. There is no singular "the Law". There is the Law of Moses and there is the Law of Christ. The gospel is that God acquits those guilty under the Law of Moses if they have faith and obey the Law of Christ [This is the great error of Neonomianism. See the classic, "The Marrow of Modern Divinity"]. We have a new teacher and master (Galatians 3:24-26).
Now you are denying the gospel. You might as well join the Hebrew Roots movement or Judaism. If God "cannot acquit the guilty" as you so heretically claim, then you remain condemned because you are guilty of violating the law of Moses. Christ has bought us and forgiven us, and all he asks for is our faith (Greek "pistis" = allegiance/faithfulness) [This is Matthew Bates' interpretation. See a critique here: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/salvation-by-allegiance-alone/]. Your theology is a mess of contradictions.
You can't read Romans 5:18-19 in a vacuum outside of the context of Romans 5:12 and the entire Bible. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23. "Sin is lawlessness" 1 John 3:4. The Bible never says "sin is an inherited trait from Adam that has nothing to do with what you actually do." The reason Paul speaks of sin filling the world through Adam is a two step process: (1) Adam's sin nature is passed on to us, and (2) we sin. It is so simple. Likewise, Christ's righteousness is a two step process. (1) Christ's righteous nature is planted into us by His Spirit through faith and baptism, and (2) we actually do righteousness, the only way anyone is righteous (1 John 3:7).
You say: "Finally, you have yet to fully consider the fact the one cannot loose their salvation and justification from the nature of the Covenant of Grace, which, again is 'not like the Old Covenant' because the Covenant of Grace is unconditional."
I have considered the false doctrine taught in your novel Calvinist confession and reject it because the Bible clearly teaches God revokes the atonement for those who willfully disobey Him and salvation is forfeited (Hebrews 10:26-31; Matthew 18:21-35). There is not one early church writer prior to Calvin who taught one was eternally secure at the moment of initial justification. It's an obvious false doctrine.
ME: Your interpretation of Paul's argument in Romans 3 simply won't do. I'm glad you acknowledge he refers to the entire Mosaic Law, however, he does so in so far as it is a republished Covenant of Works that reveals the moral law. Were Paul referring strictly to the Mosaic Law in itself, his argument becomes inapplicable to anyone who's lived in the past 2,000 years who have never at any time in their life been under the Mosaic Law. You're right the Mosaic Law doesn't apply to Christians, but neither does it apply to anyone after 70 A.D. This is evident that Paul's argument deals with works in general when he says “Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God [Jews and Gentiles. Whether the Jews have the revealed Law of Moses, or Gentiles the law of nature. Both reveal God's righteous standard]. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight [That is all comprehensive. It includes works done after regeneration since, once again, Paul's argument was never over the sufficiency of grace. A get in by faith, stay in by works system can't work. Look at Paul's argument against the necessity of circumcision in Galatians] since through the law comes knowledge of sin.”
You say my theology hinges on "conflating two law systems", but even in that very sentence, we see that it is you who are conflating two covenants. The Covenant of Grace (the New Covenant) is not a law system. It cannot be (it is of grace, not the law). We are not under the law, but under grace. “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery". Therefore, Paul responds to those who were trying to be justified by works that, “Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace", but the Law demands perfection, so it only serves to reveal our sin. But your system makes the Covenant of Grace into a new Covenant of Works! This is the most serious error one could make. Yet what's even worse is that in your system, not only does God demand works in the Covenant of Grace, but He is content with works that are less than perfect, making God an antinomian. You have made the Covenant of Grace into a Covenant of Law (you even refer to it as a "law system"!). Yet it cannot be another Covenant of Works, for "if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.” (Rom 11:6).
You say Luke 17:10 does not exclude "merit by grace, it only excludes strict merit and excludes boating". Yet this does not do justice to Luke 17:10. We are the servants of the parable and Christ says, “So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty". Christ makes no distinction between "works done by grace" and works not done by grace here. In fact, this verse is obviously said of those who do their works by grace (Christians, Christ's regenerate servants, as He here speaks to the disciples). What is Christ's logic here? Were we to do "all that is required" (and all that is required of us is to love God perfectly, which nobody even amounts to), we would still be unworthy of any merit, for we would only have done our duty that was required of us anyways. Therefore, not even our rewards in Heaven will be by merit, but by grace, as Christ says, “These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’ So the last will be first, and the first last.”” Matthew 20:12-16 , for merit, by the very nature of it, is completely opposed to grace (Rom 11:6, again), and “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.”
Romans 4:2-4 . Once again, it matters not if Abraham did what he did through grace (which he did), but if he did any works at all, if he had any merit at all, he has something to boast about says Paul, for meritorious works are contrary to grace. Period.
What has been shown above is sufficient to show that it is you who are denying the Gospel by turning it into a new Law. That God "will not acquit the guilty" is no heresy, it is Scripture, “Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty.” Exodus 23:7 . God is holy and just, and for Him to acquit the guilty would be unjust. You say if He cannot acquit the guilty, then we remain condemned. But you have missed the entire point of imputation. It is precisely because God cannot acquit the guilty, that we must have another's righteousness imputed to us, for otherwise we could never be justified through the Law since it only serves to reveal our sin and failure to meet the righteous standard of God, as Paul says, “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.””
Galatians 2:21 . Though the righteous obedience of Christ, He took the curse of the Law for us, so that our sins being imputed to Him, His death and righteousness is imputed to us, "for if one died for all, then all died". We are not therefore legally guilty if we are federally in Christ, for His life and death are legally imputed to us.
On to Romans 5:18-19, you have not dealt with the verse (indeed you cannot, since the meaning is clearly contrary to you). Yes, Romans 5:13-17 (as Romans 5:12, likely means "in Adam" all men sinned federally, yet even if it doesn't, this is irrelevant to 18 and 19) speaks of inheriting a sin nature from Adam, as does the rest of the Bible. I guarantee you that no Calvinist denies this, lol. Nor has anyone ever claimed "sin has nothing to do with what you actually do". Again, I guarantee you no Calvinist denies this. But the question is, what does Romans 5:18 and 5:19 actually say? Paul affirms that men become actually sinful through Adam's inherited sin nature in Romans 5:12-21, just as he affirms men actually receive eternal life through Christ, but 5:18-19 focuses on what the basis for this actually is. Why do all Adam's posterity receive a passed-on sinful nature from Adam? Because they are condemned in him due to his transgression. Why do all men in Christ receive eternal life? Because they are justified in Him due to His righteousness. The two verses are clear and they are clearly forensic, not transformative. Any exegetical commentary with tell you this, yet if you really want to get in to it, as I happen to know these two verses quite well, we can do that too: “So then as through one man's transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one man's righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were constituted sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be constituted righteous.”
You again have failed to address my actual arguments for the impossibility of loosing salvation based on the nature of the New Covenant, Christ's eternal intercession and priesthood, and Paul's response to the objector of Romans 6. Instead you bring up the warning passages, yet this fails to consider the Bible as a whole. We'll take Hebrews as an example to illustrate. You claim Hebrews 10 shows that one can loose their salvation. Yet this passage can be understood in two ways: some take the warnings as addressed to professing believers, that is, to the visible church, and not specifically to true believers alone, that is, the invisible church. All Christian communions, even those in the believers’ church tradition such as Baptists, acknowledge that it is possible for people to make false professions of faith. No visible church on earth is perfectly pure; false professors may creep in unnoticed (Jude 4) So, in that case, the warnings are real but are not necessarily teaching the apostasy of true believers. Second, some see the warnings as the means by which God keeps true believers in the faith. In this case, the warnings are real in their threats but say nothing about the actuality of those threats being carried out in reality. Why? Because the writer (and God through him) uses the warnings as a way of keeping believers on the path of obedience–believers about whom the writer is confident of “better things.” [I copy and pasted this from an article by Luke Stamps on TGC, who summarized this well. The correct view of the warning passages is found in Schreiner and Caneday's "The Race Set Before Us"] Again, to take the warning passages in Hebrews as meaning one can loose their salvation is not to consider the entirety of the author's argument. He has already argued in Hebrews 8 that the New Covenant "is not like the Old Covenant". How is it qualitatively different from it? Because those in the Old Covenant, "did not continue in it". In other words, it was a breakable covenant which consisted of earthly and unsaved people. Whereas the New Covenant is unbreakable, for “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, And I will write them on their hearts. And I will be their God, And they shall be My people.” and “For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And I will remember their sins no more". This coming on the heels of his argument about Christ's Melchizedekian priesthood, saying, “For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.” Hebrews 7:18-19 but whereas the Law could not make any perfect, Christ stands in contrast, to it, being able to save perfectly, “The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.”
Hebrews 7:23-25 See how Paul answers the objection in Romans 6:1, "are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?". Paul assumes the result of "continuing in sin" is "grace abound[ing]". He does not answer the objection by saying, "if you continue in sin, you will loose your justification" or "God will revoke the atonement", rather, v. 2-14 argues we have already been justified through Christ with whom we have previously been buried and therefore a life of righteousness is sure and Paul exhorts us to live in accordance with this positional reality, as Tertullian said, "No one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the end".
I have picked out a few quotes from here https://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/calvinism-in-the-early-church-the-doctrines-of-grace-taught-by-the-early-church-fathers/ that I do not believe can be taken any other way. A lot of the quotations from this site definitely need to be checked. Some of the quotes I don't think do what they need to do, but these, I think do:
And therefore Isaiah himself, distinguishing the things already mentioned, again exclaims, For the Spirit shall go forth from Me, and I have made every breath. Thus does he attribute the Spirit as peculiar to God which in the last times He pours forth upon the human race by the adoption of sons; but he shows that breath was common throughout the creation, and points it out as something created. Now what has been made is a different thing from him who makes it. The breath, then, is temporal, but the Spirit eternal. The breath, too, increases in strength for a short period, and continues for a certain time; after that it takes its departure, leaving its former abode destitute of breath. But when the Spirit pervades the man within and without, inasmuch as it continues there, it never leaves him. (Irenaeus).
Comment: The most natural way to read Irenaeus is teaching here that man, having received the Holy Spirit, cannot loose Him. This is the entire point of Irenaeus' contrast between temporal breath which enters a man and then leaves him, and the Holy Spirit which remains forever. His comparison does not make any sense if read in any other way.
“God forbid that we should believe that the soul of any saint should be drawn out by the devil…For what is of God is never extinguished.” (Tertullian, again).
Now, of course, the triumph of the doctrines of infant baptism and baptismal regeneration in the early/medieval church made the established theological system quite hostile to notions of eternal security, but this is sufficient to disprove that absolutely no notion of the perseverance of the saints existed before Calvin.
John Gill has a good section here (though again, not everything): https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/gill/The_Cause_of_God_and_Truth_-_John_Gill.pdf#page768 His sections on Irenaeus and especially Tertullian are very good and accurate. I want someone to do a comprehensive study of all the writings of a father on this topic, but others I would put forward as possibly holding to it are Athanasius, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Origen though probably inconsistently.
For imputed righteousness (and guilt) see:
Indeed, through the first Adam, we offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death.
(Irenaeus)
Christ has fulfilled the righteousness of the law on your behalf so that you are not subject to its curse
(Chrysostom on Romans 8:3-4)
Adam is a type of Christ in that just as those who descended from him inherited death, even though they had not eaten of the fruit of the tree. So also those who are descended from Christ inherit his righteousness, even though they did not produce it themselves
(Chrysostom)
Christ therefore ransomed from the curse of the law those who being subject to it, had been unable to keep its enactments. And in what way did He ransom them? By fulfilling it. And to put it in another way: in order that He might expiate the guilt of Adam's transgression, He showed Himself obedient and submissive in every respect to God the Father in our stead: for it is written, "That as through the disobedience of the One man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One, the many shall be made just." He yielded therefore His neck to the law in company with us, because the plan of salvation so required: for it became Him to fulfil all righteousness.
(Cyril of Alexandria)
And for more on justification in the ECFs, see Nathan Busenitz's "Long Before Luther" and Nick Needham's chapter in "Justification in Perspective"
Finally, the guy responded to someone else, and I just wanted to post this one brilliant part of his response here: "we are saved/initially justified by faith alone (Romans 3-4) and baptism (1 Peter 3:21)". That's right guys; faith alone...and baptism.
Anyways, some recommended resources on justification/active obedience/the NPP for those interested:
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Biblical-Theology-Unfolding/dp/0801026970 (see the chapter on "justification in the already and not yet")
(see the chapter by Wellum on theological implications and Christology near the end)
https://www.amazon.com/Justification-2-New-Studies-Dogmatics/dp/0310578388/ref=asc_df_0310578388/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312748656151&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=992962993557986041&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9030097&hvtargid=pla-775127054632&psc=1 (though I would disagree with him that there is no future "not-yet" dimension to adoption, as this is clearly contrary to Romans 8:23. I would also disagree there is not a future "not-yet" dimension to justification as well; see here: https://theaquilareport.com/g-k-beale-doctrine-justification-future-judgment/. Horton is trying to protect the fact that the "already" of initial justification/adoption, based solely on Christ's work alone, is sufficient and secure, which is surely true, but he disregards the clear statements of the Bible of an eschatological "not-yet" element to these. Fesko makes the same mistake in a footnote on Beale's view in his book on the CoR. The Escondido guys have done great work defending the Law/Gospel distinction but in doing so, they have sometimes misunderstood it and disregarded the Bible's clearer statements and have thus actually hurt it. Steve Fernandez has written a helpful book, "Free Justification", which I recommend, but he also makes this same mistake and confuses Schreiner's position with Rome's, which Owen was arguing against (when Owen and Turretin decry "second justification", what they are arguing against is the Roman Catholic idea that one is "made just" initially w/o works, but later legally justified before God through meritorious works. To fault Beale/Schreiner/Piper for using the term "second/final justification" and citing Owen/Turretin as a source here is a textbook example of equivocation. The meaning is literally not the same. It is like conflating a dog's "bark" with a tree's "bark".) and evidencing that he misunderstands both Rome and Owen—see chapter 5 of Owen's "The Doctrine of Justification by Faith" where he explains Rome's position and differentiates it from his own, which is the exact same as what Beale/Piper/Schreiner hold to! [Beale in his BT literally cites Owen in support of his position, btw. WSCAL simply does not understand Owen here]—and this leads him to make strange statements, such as perseverance not being a "condition" of final salvation, yet is still "absolutely necessary", and furthermore, I cannot understand how he can possibly affirm a final eschatological vindication. The Bible clearly teaches there will be one in which God will declare righteous—hence, justify—men based on their works as evidence of their genuine prior justification in Christ. This is not in any way contradictory to the fact that our justification in Christ which we now possess is based solely on His imputed righteousness and is secure and complete, for Christ's obedience is the only meritorious cause/ground of our justification, both now in the eschatological verdict brought forth, and then in the eschaton itself. A better way forward are the comments in Turretin's Second Volume of the Institutes, Seventeenth Topic, Third Question; though I would disagree with section VII, as this is a clear mixing of the Covenant of Grace and Works, and section XII can be unhelpful unless it is also stressed that good works are not a **meritorious** condition/grounds of final salvation. Many in my own camp of 1689 Federalists, out of good but misguided desire, have argued against the idea of a final justification, but in doing so they must disregard many clear Biblical passages. As Turretin says, the "pardoning sentence of believers will not be so much a justification of them a priori (which is made only from faith and is intimated to them in this life in the court of conscience by the Holy Spirit), as a declaration of it a posteriori from their works, as the judgements and proofs of faith" (Vol. 3 Institutes, pg. 603; Twentieth Topic, Sixth Question, XX). I hope the linked Aquila Report article sufficiently explains the correct position and vindicates men who have been unjustly accused of holding an unbiblical position here such as Piper, Schreiner, and Beale—even if they have not all been helpful and clear in all areas related to this [Piper]. I would love to do the easier thing, to join the rest of my camp and condemn these men for lacking in such a crucial area that is far more important to me than any other doctrine, indeed there are some legitimate concerns with them, for example, Piper's denial of the CoW, yet on this issue, I cannot, because the Scriptures and right reason are clearly against my camp once Beale et al's position is understood. Anyone who wishes to contend with this will have to deal with Beale's rigorous exegesis of the relevant passages in his Biblical Theology. Joel Beeke in RST Vol. 3 also agrees with me here; see pg. 524 for example).