Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967), under the entry 'metanoia' (4:1002-3, emphasis
he makes such an effort to describe it as an activity solely intellectual that seems to contradict himself.
5.Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 613.
6.The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1967), under the entry 'conversion' (1:358).
7. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967), under the entry 'metanoia' (4:1002-3, emphasis added)
8.Lewis Sperry Chafer,Teología Sistemática, trad. Evis Carballosa, Rodolfo Mendieta, M. Francisco Liévano (Dousman, WI: Spanish Publications) tomo I, vol. 3, 1204.
9.There.
10.Here Hodges is quoting my book The Gospel According to Jesus Christ, trans. Rafael C. de Bustamante (El Paso: Hispanic World Publishing, 2015), 205.
11.H. A. Ironside, Except Ye Repent (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1937) 37-38.
Chapter 6
JUSTIFIED BY FAITH
The difference between Rome and the Reformation can be seen in these simple formulas:
Roman perspective Faith + works = justification
Protestant Perspective Faith = justification + works
None of these two perspectives dismisses works. The Protestant perspective eliminate human merits and acknowledge that, although the deeds are the evidence or the fruit of true faith does not contribute or add anything as merits for our redemption. The current debate about salvation and lordship must strive a lot to protect on two fronts: on one hand, it is important to emphasize that faith true produces fruit; on the other hand, it is essential to highlight that the only the merit that saves us is that of Christ, received only by faith.
1 R.C.SROUL
In the 16th century, a scrupulous monk who in his own words "hated to God", he was studying the epistle to the Romans. He could not go beyond the first half of Romans 1:17: "For in it [the gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed through faith and for faith." He wrote:
With fervent longing, I yearned to understand the Epistle of Paul to the Romans and it only prevented me from one expression: 'the justice of God', as I interpreted it as that justice by which God is just and acts justly by punishing the unjust. My situation was that, despite being a blameless monk, I was before God as a sinner with a restless conscience and could not believe that I could appease it with my merits. That is why I did not love the just God who punishes sinners, but rather rather I hated him and murmured against him. However, I held onto Pablo and I longed with burning thirst to know what it meant. . 2
A simple biblical truth changed the life of that monk and ignited the
Protestant Reformation: the discovery that God's justice could be attained to be the justice of sinners and that this could only happen to starting from faith. Martin Luther found the truth in the same verse with the that had stumbled, Romans 1:17: "For in it the righteousness of God is It reveals by faith and for faith as it is written: 'But the just shall live by faith.' Luther had always seen 'the justice of God' as a attribute by which the sovereign Lord judged sinners, but not as an attribute that sinners could come to possess. Thus he described the moment that put an end to the darkness:
I saw the connection between God's justice and the assertion that "the righteous will live by" the faith." Then I understood that the justice of God is that by which God us justified in his grace and pure mercy. Since then I felt reborn and as if I had entered paradise through doors wide open. All the Sacred Scripture acquired a new aspect, and whereas before the "justice of God" I had been filled with hatred, now it has become ineffably sweet and worthy of love. This passage from Paul became for me an entrance to heaven. . 3
Justification by faith was the immense truth revealed to Luther that altered dramatically the church, but it is also the doctrine that provides balance to the position of lordship. Critics often argue that salvation of lordship is salvation by works, so justification by faith is the answer to that accusation.
Since Christians are justified solely by faith, their position before God has nothing to do with your personal merits, so the Good works and practical holiness provide no basis for being accepted. For God. He receives those who believe as righteous, not by seeing something in them. good (not even by their own work of sanctification in their lives), but only from the justice of Christ, considered in his favor: 'But to the that does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is considered as righteousness" (Rom. 4:5). That is justification.
What really changes?
When are we declared righteous?
In the theological sense, 'justification' is a forensic or purely legal term. legal that describes what God declares about the believer, not what he does
to change this; in fact, the justification does not make any changes practical in the nature or the character of the sinner. Justification is a divine judicial edict that only changes our state, although it brings along branches that guarantee subsequent changes. Forensic decrees como este son bastante comunes en la vida cotidiana.
When I got married, for example, Patricia and I introduced ourselves to the minister (my father) and we recite our vows. Towards the end of the ceremony my father declared: "By the authority that has been granted to me by the state of California, I declare you husband and wife." We instantly became husband and wife; although seconds before we had been a couple committed, now we were married. In reality, nothing had changed within us when those words were spoken, but our state changed before God, before the law and before our relatives and friends. The implications of that simple statement changed our existence and have been for a lifetime (something for which I am grateful), but when my father uttered those words it was only about a legal statement.
Similarly, when the spokesperson of a jury reads the verdict, the the defendant ceases to be "the accused" to, legally and officially, transform into immediately guilty or innocent, depending on the verdict. Nothing changes in its nature, but if declared innocent, he will leave the court as a free man before the law, completely justified.
In biblical terms, justification is a divine verdict of 'innocent.' (that is, "completely just"), the revocation of God's attitude towards the sinner: he who was condemned before, now he declares him free of blame; although he sinner once lived under the wrath of God, now as a believer he finds himself under your blessing. Justification is more than a simple pardon, for this by itself would still leave the sinner without merits before God. Thus, when God also justifies and attributes divine righteousness to the sinner (Rom. 4:22-25) and the infinite merits of Christ then become the foundation upon which the believer rests before God (Rom. 5:19; 1 Cor. 1:30; Phil. 3:9). The justification, therefore, elevates the believer to a sphere of complete acceptance y de privilegio divino en Jesucristo.
Therefore, because of justification, believers are not only left absolutely free from charges of guilt (Rom. 8:33) but also they have all the merits of Christ attributed to their personal account (Rom.
5:17). In justification we are adopted as sons and daughters (Rom. 8:15), we become co-heirs with Christ (v. 17), we are united with Christ to be one with him (1 Cor. 6:17) and from then on we are "in Christ" (Gal. 3:27) and he is in us (Col. 1:27). All of these are realities. forensic that flows from the justification.
Differences between justification and sanctification
Justification is different from sanctification because in justification God does not act justly towards the sinner, but declares that the person is just. 3:28; Gal. 2:16). Justification attributes the righteousness of Christ to the sinner. (Rom. 4:11b), sanctification imparts righteousness to the personal sinner and practically (Rom. 6:1-7; 8:11-14); justification occurs outside of the fishers and affects their position (Rom. 5:1, 2), sanctification is internal and changes the state of the believer (Rom. 6:19); justification is a event, sanctification is a process. Both things must distinguish one from another, but they can never be separated, for God does not justify he who does not sanctify, nor does he sanctify he who does not justify: both are essential elements of salvation.
Why differentiate between both things? If justification and sanctification they are so closely related that one cannot have one without the other another, why bother defining them differently?
That question, crucial for the debate on lordship, was also the main one. problem between Rome and the reformers in the 16th century.
Justification in Roman Catholic doctrine
Roman Catholicism mixes the doctrines of sanctification and the justificación: la teología católica ve la justificación como una infusión de grace that converts the sinner into the righteous, so that in it the foundation of the justification is something that becomes good within the sinner, not the attribution of the justice of Christ.
The Council of Trent, Rome's response to the Reformation, declared anathema. anyone who said that "the sinner is justified by faith alone [sic], understanding that nothing else is required to help achieve the grace of justification This Catholic council decreed that "the 4
justification... is not only the forgiveness of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inner man through voluntary admission of the grace and gifts... from where it results that the unjust man goes on to be just So Catholic theology confuses the concepts of 5
justification and sanctification, in addition to replacing the justice of Christ with the justice of the believer.
This difference between Rome and the reformers does not consist of simple theological subtleties, since the corruption of the doctrine of justification it provokes other serious theological errors. If sanctification is included in the justification, then justification is a process, not an event, what which makes her something progressive instead of complete. The position of the the person's relationship with God is based on a subjective experience that is not secured by an objective statement, according to which the justification can to experience oneself and then to get lost. The guarantee of salvation in this life is turns into something practically impossible, because its security cannot be guaranteed. The basis of justification is, ultimately, the virtue continues to be present in the sinner and not the perfect justice of Christ and his redemptive work.
These issues were vehemently debated in the Reformation and they they marked very clear boundaries. Reformed theology clings to until now to the biblical doctrine of justification by faith, in opposition to the Roman perspective on justification by works or merits.
Justification in the teachings of the Reformation
The defenders of the theology of denial of lordship often they suggest that lordship salvation has more in common with Catholicism Roman that with the teachings of the Reformation. One of the greatest defenders. Franco from the radical perspective of the denial of lordship has expressed repeatedly his concern that the salvation of lordship is not 'opening the way back to Wittenberg, but rather back to Rome . 6 Such suggestion ignores both the history of the church and the true topics under discussion in the contemporary debate on lordship. None of the defenders of the doctrine of lordship that I know deny the doctrine of justification by faith, but on the contrary, their theology represents a negative to separate justification and sanctification. In that we are in
complete agreement with all the major reformers.
The teaching of the Reformation was very clear in this aspect. Calvin, for example, wrote:
Christ does not justify anyone without also sanctifying them. Because these graces go always united, and they cannot be separated or divided, in such a way that to those whom He He illuminates with his wisdom, redeems them; those whom he redeems, he justifies; and those who justifies, sanctifies them.
But as our discussion only concerns justification and the sanctification, let us pause on them. And although we distinguish between them, without the Christ embargo contains both indivisibly. Do we want, then, achieve justice in Christ? We must first possess Christ. But we do not we can possess without being made participants in its sanctification; because He cannot to be divided into pieces. Thus, since the Lord never grants us enjoy these benefits and grants not by giving oneself, grants us to the both things together, and never gives one separated from the other. This way it is seen. clearly how great the truth is that we are not justified without works, and not nevertheless, we are not justified by works; because in the participation of Christ, in which all our justice consists, no less is contained the sanctification that justice . 7
Elsewhere, when speaking of James 2:21, 22, ('Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect.') works our father Abraham, when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You can see that faith was working together with his works and that faith was. completed by the works"), Calvino adds:
It is clear that it speaks of the declaration and manifestation of justice, and not from the imputation; as if to say: those who are righteous by true faith provide evidence of his justice with obedience and good works, and not with a false appearance and dreamed of faith. In summary: he does not discuss the reason why we are justified, but rather calls on the faithful for a justice that is not idle, which manifests itself in works. And just as Paul intends to prove that men are justified without any help from the works, similarly in this place Santiago denies that those who They who are considered just do not do good works.
This consideration will free us from all doubt and hesitation. Because our adversaries deceive themselves mainly by thinking that Santiago determines the way in which men are justified, as they do not intend anything other than to bring down the they trust and ensure those who excuse their negligence in doing good they act, they falsely boast of the name and title of faith. And so, no matter how much twist and turn Santiago's words, they will conclude nothing else but these two statements: that the vain imagination of faith does not justify; and that the believer declares his justice with good works . 8
Martin Luther defended justification by faith as passionately as any other reformer. Did he believe that sanctification was optional? Of no way. When some of Luther's colleagues began to teach antinomianism (the idea that behavior is not related to the he, as Christians do not submit to any moral law), opposed them and he called these teachings 'the most flagrant error,' designed to 'trample me and make the gospel immersed in confusion." Such teaching, according to Luther "throws to the ground" the saving work of God. . 9 Someone informed Luther that one of these men, Jacob Schenck, "had predicate the carnal libertinism and had taught the following: 'Do what you please. Just believe and you will be saved' . 10
Luther replied: "This is an evil dilemma. They turn the matter around: Beloved, believe in God and then, when you have been born again and are a new man, etc., do what pleases you.' The fools do not know what faith is, They suppose it is just an idea without life... It is impossible for a person to be reborn.
of God and continue sinning [without cease], because these two things contradict each other. . 11
Although many additional examples could be offered, only I will mention one more: the Formula of Concord, the statement of faith Lutheran par excellence (written in 1576), extensively dealt with the relationship between the justification and obedience of the believer. This document reveals that the reformers also had in mind the same questions that today are the center of the controversy of the lordship. The Formula of Concord refused to separate the justification from sanctification just like the other creeds important protesters, although he highlighted the difference between the two.
This creed speaks of 'the renewal of man, unlike the justification by faith." The formula explicitly states that "although the contrition that precedes faith, and the good works that follow it, not they belong to the article of justification before God . 12 But he immediately added: "However, no one should imagine a faith that can exist and remain alongside and in addition to a bad intention of to sin. Once a man has been justified by faith, this true faith and live work for love, Galatians 5:6, so that in this way, the justifying faith it is always accompanied and followed by good works, if it is truly faith true and alive; for it never exists alone, but in union with love and the hope . 13
The Formula of Concord rejected the teaching that justifying means to become just before God in all work." But he also condemned the concept that faith is such a confidence in the obedience of Christ that it can exist and remain in man even when he lacks true repentance nor evidence of the fruits of love, but persists in to sin even against their own conscience . 14
The well-known motto of the Reformation is "Only faith justifies, but the faith that justification never remains alone," to which F. W. Robertson adds: "Only the
"Lightning strikes, but that lightning never comes without a thunder." The most reformers 15 important ones agreed on these matters, only the antinomians taught that true faith may not bring good works as a result.
The justification in the debate of lordship
The contemporary doctrine of the denial of lordship is nothing more than a modern antinomianism. Although the majority of the defenders of that doctrine oppose that term it is an accurate characterization of its 16 doctrine.
Zane Hodges is wrong to refer to antinomianism as 'the bad favorite word of Reformed theology He says about it: 17
We could define 'antinomianism' as the American Heritage does. to state that only faith is necessary for salvation." If that were the meaning of the term, I would feel very comfortable with him, but unfortunately 'antinomianism' implies for many minds the indifference towards moral matters, so I must reject such designation. I encourage my reformed counterparts to reject this term for its connotations and derogatory suggestions are often unjust. But no I have high hopes that they will do it! . 18
It is important to understand the term antinomianism in its sense. theological. I am not using this word in a derogatory sense, in a way To say that someone is antinomian does not necessarily imply considering who despises holiness or excuses impiety. The majority of antinomians strongly appeals for Christians to live in a manner worthy of their call, but at the same time minimizes the relationship between obedience and the For example, antinomians generally believe that Christians should
submit to the lordship of Christ; the only thing they do not believe is that submission is An absolute requirement in the call of the gospel to faith. The antinomians. they do not necessarily disdain the law of God, they simply believe that it is irrelevant to saving faith and suggest that obedience to the just the demands of faith may not become a pattern of Christian behavior (cf. Rom. 8:4; 10:4). To summarize, antinomianism is the belief that it allows for justification without sanctification.
Antinomianism makes obedience optional. While the the majority of antinomians firmly advise that Christians they obey (and they even urge them to obey), they do not believe that obedience is a necessary consequence of true faith. Zane Hodges, for example, It includes a chapter on obedience titled: 'The decision is yours' (CL). The leading theologian of the lordship denial movement wrote: The unsaved person has only one way of operation, to serve sin and to himself, or leave God out of his life, while the believer has a option. You can serve God, and while you are in your human body you can also deciding to leave God out and live according to his old nature It is 19 of course the theology of the denial of lordship makes obedience something optional. And that is what makes the doctrine of the denial of lordship be antinomian.
This type of antinomianism tends to see justification by faith as the everything about the saving work of God, to the point that the antinomians they minimize the sanctification or even consider it as something that it is not mandatory. Antinomian discussions about salvation often omit all consideration of practical holiness, while emphasizing the justification by faith and Christian liberty, to such an extent that they lose the balance out of fear of talking about personal justice, obedience, the law of God or anything that is not purely forensic aspects of the salvation.
The theology of the denial of lordship is classic antinomianism and there is none. way of denying it. As it is important to understand the perspective of the denial of lordship in the context of the teaching of the Reformation, no we can avoid the term antinomianism, although its defenders of the the denial of lordship find it offensive. Their perspective, after all, it is rooted in the tradition of historical antinomianism . 20 We must also mention another thing regarding the trend within the
denial of lordship to downplay the importance of sanctification. Most of The defenders of the denial of lordship recognize the need for certainty. degree of sanctification. Dr. Ryrie grants that "every Christian will produce spiritual fruit (somewhere, at some time, in some way), for If that were not the case, the person would not be a believer. All individuals born of new will bear fruit, since not bearing fruit means lacking faith and thus salvation (USTG)
Even Zane Hodges has recently stated that "actually, some measure or degree of sanctification will result from justification [and] that the sanctification is an inevitable result of justification . 21 However, those disclaimers have to be understood in its context. Ryrie, for example, quickly adds that the "the fruit" of some believers will be so poor and fleeting that it will be invisible for all those around them (USTG). Elsewhere it seems to suggest that it does not Is there a way to guarantee practical sanctification and cite Romans 8:29, 30? We know that those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be were made according to the image of His Son so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined, he also he called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he "These also he glorified.") "But what about sanctification?" asks. Ryrie.
Does not appear in the list of Romans 8:29, 30, only predestination, the calling, the justification and glorification. Could it be that Paul did not want to base our guarantee of supreme glorification in our personal sanctification? Surely it does not rely in this, because the different children who are glorified will manifest differently degrees of holiness during their lives. But all, from the carnal to the most mature, they will be glorified (USTG).
Ryrie develops three aspects of sanctification (USTG): sanctification a real position that does not depend on the state of growth or maturity of the person, progressive sanctification or practical holiness and the supreme sanctification (the perfect holiness that will be manifested in heaven. It is of course, Ryrie considers the first and third aspect guaranteed. sanctification, but he obviously believes that practical sanctification can to get lost or overlooked, since it creates a space for the 'believers' who they fall into extreme carnality and permanent unbelief (USTG).
Hodges holds a similar perspective and, in any case, his tendency to to despise the practical aspect of sanctification is more pronounced than the by Ryrie. His most extensive book on the debate about lordship. Completely free, omits any discussion of sanctification as a doctrine , and in it 22 Hodges makes it clear from start to finish that nothing can be guaranteed. measure of practical holiness in the life of a child of God.
Although the doctrine of the denial of lordship speaks about the necessity of sanctification, it seems certain that most of its supporters actually Do they not believe that practical sanctification goes hand in hand with justification? That is, in fact, what the proponents of lordship denial want. highlight and for this they have dismembered the biblical doctrine of salvation, separating justification from sanctification What is left for them is a 23 mutilated antinomianism that cannot guarantee any degree of holiness in the Christian experience, so they have not been able to understand the doctrine biblical justification by faith as it is found intimately related to sanctification.
Justification in the New Testament
Justification is the soul and heart of New Testament soteriology. Will. Realizing this, a friend asked me why in my the book The Gospel According to Jesus Christ there are practically no discussions on Regarding: the reason is that Jesus himself had very little to say specifically about justification by faith; that doctrine was expounded completely first by the apostle Paul and is one of the themes main points of his epistle to the Romans.
The first half of Romans is naturally divided into three parts: Paul begins by showing that all men and women have sinned against the God's perfect justice and that is its theme for the first chapters of the book ("There is no one righteous, not even one," 3:10); from 3:21 to the end of chapter 5 explain in detail the doctrine of justification by faith ('Therefore, justified,') through faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ 5:1); and in chapters 6-8 it presents the doctrine of sanctification ("so that the rightful demand of the law would be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit," 8:4).
Thus, Paul speaks of sin, saving faith, and sanctification, or
as a friend of mine said, Romans 1:1-3:20 speaks of the justice of God challenged by a world in sin, Romans 3:21-5:21 shows justice God provides for sinners who believe and chapters 6-8 they focus on the justice of God applied to the lives of the saints.
Justification by faith is the means by which the justice of God is Provide favor to the sinners who believe. I wish there were space. sufficient in this book for a complete presentation of these chapters so crucial (Romans 3-5) that constitutes the heart of biblical truth about the justification, but that would require several chapters, so in your we will focus only on one part: the illustration more important of Paul on justification by faith (Abraham) that is Find in Romans 4:1-5. There Paul writes:
What shall we say then that Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh, has found? meat? Because if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but No in front of God. For what does Scripture say? And Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him. told by justice.
To the one who works, the salary is not considered a grace but an obligation. But to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is considered. faith as justice.
ROMANOS 4:1-5
From this text arise several fundamental truths.
True salvation cannot be earned by works
After all, there are only two types of religion in the world. All the false religions that have been conceived by humanity or by Satan are religions based on human merits, a category that would fall into pagan religions, humanism, animism, and even the false Christianity, which focuses on what people must do to to obtain justice or to please the deity.
Biblical Christianity is the only religion of divine fulfillment. while other religions say 'Do this', Christianity says that "It is finished" (cf. John 19:30); other religions require that the devotee present some kind of merit to redeem himself for his sin, to appease the deity or to achieve the goal of acceptance, but the Bible says that the merits from Christ are provided in favor of the sinner who believes.
In the times of Paul, the Pharisees had transformed Judaism into a religion based on human achievements. The apostle's own life before being salvo consisted of a long and ineffective effort to please God through human merits: he had soaked up the Pharisaic tradition and was a "Pharisee" "son of Pharisees" (Acts 23:6), "Hebrew of Hebrews; as for the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, a persecutor of the church; as for righteousness under the law, "irreproachable" (Phil. 3:5, 6).
Pablo understood the religious culture of his time better than anyone, that's why He knew that the Pharisees revered Abraham as the father of their religion. (John 8:39) and he chose him to demonstrate that justification before God is by faith in what he has already accomplished.
By presenting Abraham as the supreme example of justification by faith, Pablo was contrasting Christian doctrine with centuries of tradition. rabbinical; by appealing to passages from the Old Testament, he was showing that the Judaism had strayed from the most basic truths expressed by all. the believing Jews from Abraham himself. He was making an effort because the church will cast anchors and not follow the current of Israel.
Abraham's faith was the foundation of the Jewish nation and the basis of the covenant. of God with the people He chose, in such a way that for the tradition of the For the Pharisees, it was unthinkable to be in contradiction with Abraham. However, as Paul was about to demonstrate, Abraham did not practice the religion of merits of the Pharisees.
Boasting is excluded
If people could earn justification through works they would have something to boast about, hence the doctrine of justification by faith is a truth that humiliates. We do not deserve salvation nor can we be good enough to please God, for in His plan Redeemer, there is no room for human pride. Nor Abraham, the father of faith, had reasons to boast in himself: "For if Abraham He who is justified by works has something to boast about, but not before God. What does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for justice" (Rom. 4:2, 3).
[Abraham] believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness. told by justice"), a simple verse from the Old Testament that is
one of the clearest statements in the entire Bible about the justification. The verb 'to tell' shows the forensic nature of the justification: in Romans 4 'it was counted' is a translation of the term griegologizomai, which is used for accounting and legal purposes, and refers here to something deposited in an account.
This deposit was a unilateral transaction: God decided to deposit the justice in the spiritual account of Abraham, who had done nothing for earning it; not even his faith was meritorious. It is never said that faith is the foundation. for the justification, only the channel through which grace is received Justifier. Abraham believed God, and for this reason, He credited righteousness to him. account.
Once again, the forensic nature of the justification is clearly present in evidence: "To the one who works, the wage is not considered as a gift but as obligation. But to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the wicked, "he is considered his faith as righteousness" (vv. 4, 5). Those who try to earn their justification doing something they will find a huge debt in their book accountable, but those who receive the gift of God by grace through faith they will have an infinitely sufficient asset credited to their account.
Faith, therefore, implies the end of all attempts to earn God's favor. through personal merit, for he saves only those who do not they trust in themselves, to those who trust in "him who justifies the wicked." tanto, la persona no puede ser salvada hasta que confiese su impiedad, ya que continues to trust in his own goodness. That is what Jesus was referring to when he said: "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" Luke 5:32. Those who are righteous in their own eyes have no part in the redeeming work of God's grace and, consequently, those who are saved They know they have nothing to boast about.
Justification brings the blessing of forgiveness
In Romans 4:6-8, Paul mentions David to support the concept of the justice for accusation: "Similarly, David also proclaims the blessed is the man to whom God grants righteousness apart from works, saying: Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord never... will take into account your sin." Paul is quoting Psalm 32:1, 2, where the
The blessedness that David refers to is salvation.
Notice that David talks about a balance sheet that is both positive and negative: the individual is attributed justice and the forgiveness of their sins, the which would not be possible if our sin had not been paid for with blood of the sacrifice of Christ. His death paid the price, so on the bill the believer's spiritual debt can be written "PAID" (cf. Col. 2:14).
As our sin was attributed to Christ (1 Pet. 2:24), so was His righteousness. it is attributed to the believer, for this reason no other payment is required nor refund.
Abraham was not justified by his circumcision
Pablo anticipated the question that the Jews must have been asking themselves at this time. heights of his argument: "If Abraham was justified only by his faith, Why did God demand that both he and his descendants be circumcised?
Most Jews in the times of the New Testament were deeply convinced that circumcision was the only mark that the they pointed out as a people chosen by God and also believed that it had been the means by which they had become acceptable in their eyes. In fact, the circumcision was considered a sign of God's favor to such an extent that many rabbis taught that no Jew could be sent to hell unless God first reversed his circumcision.
Genesis 17:10-14 records God's instructions according to which the circumcision would be the sign of God's covenant with Abraham and his descendants. The rabbis taught from this passage that the circumcision in itself was the means to reconcile with God. Without embargo, as Pablo is careful to point out, Abraham was not declared just for his circumcision, for when God commanded him to be circumcised he he had already been declared just.
Then, is this happiness only for those of the circumcision, or is it also for the uncircumcised? Well, we say: Abraham's faith was counted to him for justice. How was it told to him? Was he circumcised or uncircumcised? It was not not in circumcision but in uncircumcision. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised so that he would be father of all uncircumcised believers —so that they too would be granted justice—; and father of circumcision, not only of those who are the circumcision but also follow the footsteps of the faith that our father had
Abraham before being circumcised.
Romans 4:9-12
The chronology of Genesis shows that Abraham was declared righteous. long before he obeyed God's command to be circumcised: Abraham was circumcised at ninety-nine years old, and Ishmael at thirteen. , but when Abraham was justified (15:6), Ishmael neither he had not yet been conceived (16:2-4); Abraham was eighty-six years old when Ismael was born (16:16). So Abraham was justified in any case fourteen years before his circumcision and when Abraham was declared righteous, In reality, he was no different from an uncircumcised gentile.
Circumcision and other external rites (including baptism, penance, the ordination, marriage, celibacy, the last rites, fasting, the prayer, etc.) are not means for justification. Abraham was in covenant. with God and under His grace long before being circumcised, while Ishmael, even though he was circumcised, was never part of the covenant. The circumcision, a sample of man's need for spiritual purification was only a sign of the covenant relationship between God and His people.
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, It is not in the visible, nor is the circumcision that is visible in the flesh but, rather, a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, in spirit and not in the letter. The praise of such a one does not come from men but of God". Only justification by faith turns a person into a son of Abraham (4:12).
Abraham was not justified by the law
Because the promise to Abraham and his descendants, that he would be heir of the world, was not given through the law but through the justice of the because if the heirs are based on the law, faith has been made useless and the promise invalidated. Because the law produces wrath; but where there is no
"For there is no transgression where there is no law" (4:13-15).
Once again, the chronology of the Scriptures undoubtedly supports the Pablo's argument. It is so evident that the law was not revealed to Moses. more than half a millennium after the life of Abraham, as obvious that Abraham did not become righteous through the law.
Justification never occurred through a ritual or a law. The law
of God "is holy; and the commandment is holy, just, and good" (Rom. 7:12; cf. Gál. 3:21), pero la ley nunca ha sido el medio para la obtención de la salvation. 'Because all who rely on the works of the law are under Cursed is everyone who does not remain in all the things written in the book of the Law to fulfill them' (Gal. 3:10): the law demands perfection, but the only way to achieve perfect justice is by means of justification, that is, being justified by faith.
The purpose of the law is to reveal the perfect patterns of God's justice. and, at the same time, establish a pattern according to which it is impossible that long live sinful human beings. That should show us our the need for a Savior and to lead us to God in faith, since the law is our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith (Gal. 3:24).
God has never recognized any justice other than that which is obtained through the for. The law cannot save because all it does is produce anger: the more the more a person seeks to achieve justice through the law, the more demonstrates your sinfulness and more judgment and wrath are debited from your account personal (cf. Rom. 4:4).
Then comes the climax.
Abraham was justified by the grace of God
For this reason, it comes from faith in order that it may be according to grace, so that the the promise is firm for all his descendants. Not for the one who is only of the law but also for the one who is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of all of us —as it is written: I have made you father of many nations - before God, whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and call things that do not exist as if they existed
The essence of this entire passage is expressed in verse 16 (emphasis added): "It comes from faith so that it may be according to grace". The dynamic of the justification is the grace of God. Abraham's faith was not just in itself, because faith is only accounted for righteousness. Justification is entirely the work of the grace of God.
Once again, we see here the purely forensic nature of the justification: God "calls things that do not exist as if they did", the which constitutes a fascinating statement about him.