Does Genesis Demonstrate that God Values Works over Faith?
Adam, that her seed would crush the serpent's head? This seed is Christ, who has indeed crushed the devil's power, ensuring that sin, death, nor hell can harm his followers. This interpretation is commonly upheld by the church fathers.
More egregiously, Pighius dares to assert that justification does not come through the promise—a stance starkly opposed to Paul's teachings. Paul explicitly states to the Galatians, "The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: 'All nations will be blessed through you.'" Just as the promise was given to Abraham, so it is given to us. However, the term 'promise' can be understood in two ways: it can refer to the thing promised, in which case there is no doubt we are justified by the promise, meaning Christ and the forgiveness of sins promised to believers; or it can refer to the actual words of God, through which He promises us remission of sins through Christ.
Even in this latter sense, we can still say we are justified by the promise because, although the fundamental cause of our justification is God's mercy and will, this is conveyed and confirmed to us through His words and sacraments. These serve as steadfast testimonies of God's will toward us. Therefore, unless faith is lacking, by which we grasp what is offered, we are indeed justified by the promises.
Does Genesis Demonstrate that God Values Works over Faith?
74. Pighius continues his argument by citing Genesis 22 to claim that God values works over faith. He refers to Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac as evidence, noting that God blessed Abraham
for this act, promising to multiply his descendants and bless all nations through him. Pighius emphasizes that these blessings were promised in response to Abraham's works, with a divine oath attached, and without mention of faith.
However, this interpretation is misleading. First, the text does not discuss justification, which is our main focus. When examining scriptural arguments, especially those pertaining to justification, we must rely on clear and direct references, such as Paul's statement in Romans that "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." This clarifies that it is faith, not works, that underpins justification.
Regarding the Genesis account, I acknowledge that Abraham's actions brought him a deeper assurance rather than new promises.
His willingness to sacrifice Isaac didn't introduce new blessings but reinforced his understanding and trust in God's existing promises.
Abraham's faith was indeed affirmed through his actions, which deepened his conviction in God's faithfulness and the righteousness imputed to him.
Pighius's claim lacks substance because it does not introduce any new promises or covenants. The covenant referenced during Abraham's trial was already established during earlier interactions with God, including the covenant of circumcision and the covenant confirmed through animal sacrifice. The method of passing between divided animals, as mentioned, was a common ancient ritual to signify covenant agreements, noted even in cultures outside the biblical narrative, such as in Athens as described by Demosthenes.
Moreover, Abraham was already justified by faith before this event, as explicitly stated in Scripture. Thus, any subsequent promise or blessing does not negate the primacy of faith or suggest that works
hold more weight than faith in God's covenant with humanity. We recognize that good works following justification are pleasing to God and are rewarded, but these works do not contribute to the justification already received through faith.
Finally, to understand the phrase "Because you have done this," we must consider its intent. Augustine offers insight into similar expressions in Scripture, explaining that when God says, "Now I know," it does not imply God gained new knowledge. Instead, it indicates that God confirmed what He already knew, making
Abraham's faith evident not only to God but to Abraham himself and to all observers. This is similar to the declaration that a sinful woman's many sins were forgiven because she loved much, which we have extensively discussed previously. Here, the emphasis is on manifesting the depth of the individual's faith and devotion, which God acknowledges publicly, but it does not alter the underlying principle that faith, not works, is the foundation of justification.
75. Pighius continues his argument by citing Ezekiel 18, which discusses the redemption of a wicked man through repentance and obedience to God's commandments. He asserts that this scripture indicates justification comes through works rather than faith alone, celebrating this as if it decisively supports his viewpoint. However, this interpretation misses the core of the theological discussion about justification.
We readily acknowledge that if a person could perfectly repent and follow all of God's commandments, they would indeed be justified by their works. The real challenge lies in finding someone who has achieved this without prior justification. Here, Pighius contradicts himself by previously suggesting that God does not require flawless
adherence to commandments but rather shows mercy for many failings.
Turning back to the scripture, since humans are incapable of achieving perfect compliance with God's laws unaided, it is essential to approach Christ humbly. Through faith, individuals receive justification freely and are then empowered by grace and the Holy
Spirit to repent genuinely and begin obeying God's law as much as humanly possible.
This situation reminds me of the old philosopher Antisthenes and his student, who boasted about the future riches from his merchandise ship. Just as Antisthenes used the promise of future payment to reveal the student's impracticality, so too can we see the impracticality in Pighius's argument. Expecting someone to achieve perfect obedience without regeneration is like waiting indefinitely for a ship that will never arrive. Hence, Pighius's reliance on the law's words is unfounded, whether these words pertain to promises or commandments.
Furthermore, Pighius argues that Jesus did not associate entering the kingdom of heaven with faith but with doing the will of the Father. However, Jesus himself clarified that believing in Him is doing God's work: "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." Therefore, faith is intrinsically linked to following God's will, and these concepts are not contradictory but complementary.
Despite recognizing that the Scriptures frequently state "Man is justified by faith," Pighius insists this refers to a 'lively and strong faith' accompanied by other virtues. This is precisely our point—we never argue for a faith devoid of transformative power or subsequent good works. If Pighius truly accepts this definition of faith from the
heart, then there is no real dispute between us, and we should harmonize our views.
Yet, Pighius cannot accept this conciliation. He attempts to redefine justification freely by claiming it means God credits the works of faith, hope, and charity as righteousness. This interpretation is problematic, as it directly contradicts Paul's teachings that where works are present, there can be no talk of grace or free imputation— these concepts are mutually exclusive. By trying to merge them,
Pighius clearly misreads or manipulates Scripture to fit his biases, standing in opposition to the apostolic doctrine laid out by Paul.
76. Pighius and our own Smith, who sees himself as a great intellectual of England, join forces much like Theseus with Hercules.
However, in truth, Smith brings nothing new to the table, merely reiterating arguments drawn from the less commendable sources, like Pighius. Smith claims that faith does not pertain to the remission of sins and thus argues against the concept that justification comes through faith. He emphasizes that the faith distinguishing Christians from non-Christians is centered on Jesus Christ, an argument he tries to bolster with scripture and a reference to Jerome. Yet, he overlooks the fundamental meaning of the name 'Jesus' itself, which in Hebrew, 'Yeshua' or 'Iascha', translates as 'To save' or 'Savior.' The angel's declaration at the naming of Jesus makes this explicit: "You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
How, then, can faith in Jesus Christ exclude belief in the remission of sins through Christ?
Smith also misinterprets a passage from Peter's epistle, claiming that "Charity covers a multitude of sins" implies that forgiveness of sins is attributed to charity, not faith. This understanding fails to recognize the context from which Peter draws, which is Proverbs 10. In