A friend of mine who has converted from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism decided that in his fourth year of full time theological study he would write a thesis that was a critique of Bob Sungenis' book Not by Faith Alone. At first sight the book looked impressive and imposing. However, as he started looking at the arguments he found that it contained so many errors of fact (e.g. basic repeated parsing errors), exegesis, and logic, ad hominem arguments, and historical omissions and misrepresentations that he wondered whether it actually warranted answering.

Of course he did. When one cannot even hope to overcome such a masterpiece like Not By Faith Alone, there must be some pretense for dismissing it. Robert Sungenis' brilliant 700 page book is ostensibly wiped out in less than 50 words of boorish flippancy.

I start with this story because one such article that bears the same marks as Bob Sungenis' book is Jacob Michael's "Rescuing Romans from the Reformers." There are lashings of OT quotations, statements about what any first century Jew would have believed, and words strewn about like: "inter textual echoes". But on a closer evaluation Mr. Michael's arguments are very disappointing.

Are they now? That is a rather curious statement since if that were true, a "Lecturer in Systematic and Historical Theology at Trinity Theological College" would not likely have the time to waste with amateurs like Mr. Michael. One has to wonder why Mr. Foord wants to engage Mr. Michael, and not pick on somebody his own academic size. It seems to me that Mr. Foord's response is a pronounced compliment to Jake's exegetical ability. Of all the theological clap trap going around on the internet between scholars and amateurs, Mr. Foord chooses to spend his time writing a rebuttal to Jake. Remarkable.

There are two issues I wish to raise from Mr. Michael's article. The first is his unpleasant misrepresentation of the Protestant position. This is truly remarkable. He claims to be rescuing Romans from the reformers, but in fact we find none of the reformers quoted or referred to. Indeed what we find is the construction of a very shaky reformation straw man.

One of the continual frustrations I personally have had when listening to the converts from "anti-Catholicism" like Scott Hahn and Gerry Matatics is the persistent misrepresentation of the reformers and reformation theology. One only has to listen to the first tape of Scott Hahn's series on sola scriptura. In it he purports to explicate the best possible defense of the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. But it is quite clear he had no idea what it actually was.

Of course not. No one who really knew what sola scriptura actually was would really abandon it. Just like a person who once purported to be "saved" really wasn't so after he apostatized. Everybody knows that!

1.  There is No One Righteous

The first Romans passage Mr. Michael analyses is Rom. 3:10-18 and its relevance to the topic of total depravity. His opening comments are:

Notice the ad hominem language: "twisted by Reformers". But one looks in vain to find any quotations from the Reformers themselves, so as to see whether they have been faithfully represented. Mr. Michael then proceeds to show that when the list of OT quotations from the Psalms and Isaiah in Rom. 3:10-18, are placed in context, they do not prove that "Man is totally depraved, incapable and uninterested in seeking after God." Let us look at Mr. Michael's conclusions:

Again no quotations from the reformers themselves, just wild accusations that they have "wrenched Old Testament texts out of context." But what Mr. Michael may not realize is that: [1] the reformers were indeed aware of the context of the OT quotations; [2] Mr. Michael appears to have "wrenched" Rom. 3:10-18 from its context. Let us examine both points in reverse order

Firstly, Rom. 3:10-18 fits into a larger argument that spans from Rom. 1:18 - 3:20. Mr. Michael quotes freely from chapter 2, but this is only part of Paul's argument, which began in 1:18. Paul's argument does not start with the issue of Jewish boundary markers and national righteous (so the "New Perspective") but the fact of God's wrath upon sinful humans (1:18 "For the wrath of God is being revealed against all ungodliness …").

In Rom. 3:10-18 Paul is concluding the argument about sin he began in 1:18. What is most devastating to Mr. Michael's reading of this passage is that he ignores the very next verses that follow! Look at what Paul's conclusion is:

Notice Paul's clear conclusion: "so that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God" (emphasis added). In other words Paul uses 3:10-18 to show that all humanity is sinful. From 1:18-3:20 Paul's argument is that all people without exception (the "whole world"), both Jews and Gentiles, are under God's law and have broken it. The Gentiles have the "works of the law" written on their hearts (2:14-15) and are thus responsible to God (1:32). Yet the Jews were under the much more clear expression of God's law in the OT Torah. Hence they also are responsible for their sin before God (Rom. 2:1-24). Paul's argument is this: whether one is a Jew or a Gentile, all are under sin and culpable before God. Paul's point is seen a few verses later:

So far so good (for the most part). There is little disagreement here between Catholics and Protestants.

Let us now look at the next problem with Mr. Michael's conclusion. What of the observation that the Psalms and Isaiah passages quoted in 3:10-18 make mention of the "righteous" alongside side of statements of universal sin like:

Let me do something that Mr. Michael has not done: quote a Reformer. John Calvin in his early commentary on Romans did indeed notice the context of the OT quotations and drew conclusions that were sensitive to the NT interpretation of them:

Calvin argues that the statements found in the catena of OT texts are descriptions of what all people are like before God has intervened in their life.

I have a few problems with the above, but I am willing to grant most of it. Let's continue...

It is true that the OT texts, like Psalm 14 mention the "righteous." Calvin's point is that the "righteous" in these OT passages are those whom God has had mercy upon in the context of the universal sinfulness of all humans. These OT texts were a reminder to the faithful Jew of what they once were, except for God's mercy upon them.

OK. This is where we stop holding hands. First, Mr. Foord, is implicitly affirming that man has no participation in his salvation: that God has mercy on the sinner, changes the sinner's behaviour without his consent and voila he is then considered "righteous". This is why Mr. Foord (and Calvin) say the "righteous" in the Psalms are those "whom God had mercy upon", meaning, God decided to make them righteous independently of their consent or will.

But let us see if that squares with the Psalm in question.

Notice, for instance, how the corrupt are "evildoers" PRECISELY BECAUSE they "DO NOT CALL ON THE LORD". What the Psalmist is recognizing is the freedom that each man has, and if he does not exercise that freedom in God's service, he will remain an evildoer! In other words, while it is true that God might initiate righteousness in man, man participates by asking God for his intervention by, as the Psalmist says, "calling on the Lord". That is why the marriage relationship between God (the Husband) and the Church, His Bride, is replete in the Old Testament and highlighted in the New (Cf. Revelation 19:7, 21:2, 21:9). The relationship is a heavenly marriage, and the Catholic notion of justification is much more in line with this imagery than the cold-robotic schema that Calvin had proposed five centuries ago.

Second, let us by seeing how Scripture defines "righteous". Here are a few selections from the Gospel of Matthew.

As one can clearly see, "righteous(ness)" is always connected to, or a result of, good works. In fact, let's recall Romans 3 again to set the context of how the Psalmist uses "righteousness":

Now then, what do we see here? First we see St. Paul's clear parallel between morality and righteousness. He says "Are we any better". In other words, are the Jews more moral than the Gentiles? St. Paul says no, and then he goes quite naturally into speaking about righteousness, which serves as the connection to his opening preface charging all under sin - in other words, righteousness is under the auspices of morality. Furthermore, we clearly see the phrase "no one [being] righteous" being directly paralleled with "no one [doing] good". Hence, being "righteous" is, by definition, doing good.

So "righteousness" in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament is more than God simply having mercy on sinners. (In truth, I don't even know where that particular context is expressly manifested in the passage, and it is more probable that the notion is introduced gratuitously in order to form a basis for Calvin's interpretation of Psalm 14. It is a ram-road imposition on the text.)

To read the OT passages in any other way leads to an obscuring of the actual words in them. For example, Psalm 14:1 "there no-one who seeks God". What else could those words mean but that there is no one that seeks God? The "righteous" Jew was once dead in their sin but God in mercy made them alive spiritually.

Let's cite the passage again:

The actual words of the Psalm, Mr. Foord, are more than verse 3. You need to keep reading the actual words of the next few verses to understand the actual words in context. The actual words of the subsequent verses speak of "my people" who are "righteous" and take "refuge in the Lord". Does this sound to you like people who are "not seeking after God"? No, frankly it does not. The Psalmist is using a literary device when he uses "all" and "no" to capture the vast majority of Israel.

The Psalmist, therefore, is presenting two sides of Israel: the "evil doers" (unrighteous who do not call on the Lord) vs. God's people (the righteous who take refuge in the Lord). It is not, as Mr. Foord alleges, saying that all men, without exception, are unrighteous and would be so if God did not make them righteous despite their own will, but only that the vast majority of Israel is evil, and only the "remnant" remain in God's love. One need not interpret "all have turned aside" as being every single person - any more than believing that St. Paul sought to exclude persons from the curse of Adam by using 'many' instead of 'all' in Romans 5:15:

Furthermore, the whole schema which Mr. Foord is defunct. He tells us that the "righteous" are indeed so, but it is only because God has had mercy on them, and has made them so. Very well then. Leaving aside the notion of free will for the moment, we can both agree that these people are righteous because of God's mercy. But wait a minute. If one group is now "righteous" while the other group remains "unrighteous" (by God's complete sovereignty under the Reformed conception), then how does Mr. Foord reconcile these two camps with the Psalmist's first declaration: "no one is righteous"? Well, if Mr. Foord maintains that "no one is righteous" and he dismisses the Catholic view for declaring that someone can be, then I daresay that he must dismiss his own explanation of how someone can be righteous because of God's mercy. He cannot have his cake and eat it too! Moreover, there is no hint in the whole text of Psalm 14 where the Psalmist intends to say, as Mr. Foord does (i.e. "a reminder to the faithful Jew of what they once were, except for God's mercy upon them") that the righteous ones were once "unrighteous". There is no evidence of a graduation from unrighteousness to righteousness at all. All you have in the passage are two groups presented: the unrighteous "evildoers" and God's people "the company of the righteous". Any suggestion of a veiled election by God is totally foreign to the text and smacks of an obvious eisegesis.

Finally, if 'no one seeks after God', then please explain why:

1. There is a clear demarcation between the 'evildoers' and the 'righteous'?

2. Why are "my people" called "righteous" as opposed to the "evildoers" who are clearly "unrighteous"?

3. How can "unrighteous" people take "refuge in the Lord", especially considering Our Lord's warning to his disciples:

Calvin wrote commentaries on almost all of the books in the Bible; he soaked himself in Scripture. Moreover he was, of course, one of the best Hebraists in his day. In Geneva he lectured primarily on the OT. He was a fallible human but to accuse him (a reformer) of "wrenching" the OT out of its context is gratuitous to say the least.

Given the perspicuous nature of Psalm 14, I do not think it is gratuitous to say that Calvin "wrenched" the text. In fact, he should go to jail for being so violent to God's inspired word.

Anyway, if Mr. Michael wants clear proof that one cannot turn to God in their sinful state, it is clearly taught elsewhere in Romans. For example:

The verse in question does not say what Mr. Foord thinks it says. It does not say that someone in a "sinful state" cannot turn to God. It says that a person's "mind that is set on the flesh...cannot please God." In other words, a person who does not seek after God and consumes himself with pleasures of the flesh (understood in the wide sense) is not God's friend. However, when a person changes his mind and sets it on the spirit of Christ, this act will indeed please God. The story of the prodigal son is a wonderful example of this (Cf. Luke 15:11-32).

Let us move on to the next issue Mr. Michael raises.

2.  By Faith Alone

Mr. Michael turns next to the topic of justification by faith alone and the locus classicus Rom. 3:28-4:8 (I don't know why he doesn't include 3:21-27 which are critical to Paul's argument). He presents the "Reformers" position:

Again Mr. Michael does not quote the reformers, and again he conveys a caricature of their position. So, "repute" and "impute" are not legal terms. The Hebrew word for "repute" / "impute" (chashab) is actually taken from an accounting context. It is "justification" that is the legal term.

That Paul's use of "justification" was forensic is now beyond doubt linguistically. Romans is enough to prove that. In 8:33-34 the verb "to justify" (dikaioo) is the antonym of the verb "to condemn" (katakrino). Furthermore in Romans 5:16 and 18 the nouns for "justification" (dikaioma and dikaiosis) are antonyms of the noun 'condemnation' (katakrima). So whatever "justification" / "justify" means, it must be the opposite of "condemnation" / "condemn". The "justification" language of Paul most likely comes from the OT Jewish legal setting (Deut. 25:1; 2 Sam. 15:4; 1 Kings 8:31-32; 2 Chron. 6:22-23; Psalm 132:3; Prov. 17:15). Both "justification" and "condemnation" (and their verb cognates) are forensic terms in that they are the declaration a judge makes upon a person. Hence "to condemn" was to pronounce or declare one guilty, and "to justify" (tzadaq) was to pronounce or declare one not guilty.

Here's a point to consider. If justification is based on a righteousness that is only forensic and alien, having no basis in reality, then does the converse apply to condemnation? I mean, it's Mr. Foord who is saying:

Hence, not wanting to contradict Mr. Foord's fine pretext, I shall only demand that he be consistent in applying his understading of "justification" to "condemnation". If "justification" is forensically based (i.e righteousness being legal and not real), then that must mean, according to Mr. Foord, that the condemnation of God is also forensically and declaratively based on something which is also not real. But we know that God's condemnation is indeed based on something real (i.e. serious sin, unbelief, etc). [If you aren't saved, you go to hell, and that's a very real experience.] So what does this revelation show us? It shows us that the Reformers view of justification is as fictitious and erroneous as their necessary and compulsory view of condemnation. Either both are based on something real or both are not real. In which realm do you think the great I AM operates? Does He condemn you on something which is legal only? No, you say, His condemnations have their basis in reality? Well, the same applies to "justification", then. Its basis is on a real righteousness and not a mere declarative one.

The great law court scene that Paul had in mind was, of course, the last judgment (Rom. 2:13). Indeed Paul's doctrine of justification is that the end time declaration of God in Christ on judgment day is now thrown into the present for the believer.

While it is true that Scripture might employ legal imagery from time to time, it is invariably done so in reference to final judgment. So while we are willing to concede that a certain legal dimension does exist in regards to justification, we are not willing to concede that that is all that it encompasses. On the contrary, there are many passages dealing with justification which are not in a court room setting but rather in a familial one (Cf. Rom 8:15-33, Gal 3:24-4:5, Eph 5:1). It does no good for Mr. Foord to trumpet the legal dimension of justification while muzzling the familial horn which needs to be heard as well. In fact, the "justification paradigms" used by Scripture really don't see the courtroom at all. On the contrary, there are other personal relationship paradigms used to describe it:

In other words the believer knows in advance what God's verdict will be.

Really? That's not what St. Paul thinks:

As a side issue, which we do not have time to go into, there are three meanings to the verb "to justify" (dikaioo) in the NT. What is disturbing for the Roman Catholic is that none of the three meanings concur with the classic Roman Catholic rendering "to make righteous by a conferral of righteousness."

Sure it does, Mr. Foord. Here are but two examples of many:

Here is a question for Mr. Foord: If we are to understand "justify" in a declarative and forensic sense so that we are "declared or pronounced righteous" without actually being so, then does that mean that God "being justified" is also only "declared or pronounced righteous" without being so? If He is truly righteous, then why does Scripture use dikaioo to describe God's state if it is only a legal, forensic concept? Furthermore, how can God (who cannot lie or deceive us) declare something which is not? Can God say "the sky is green" when, in actuality, it is not? Can God say "you are righteous" when, in actuality, you are not?

But let us return to Mr. Michael's argument. He says:

Now then, what about the Reformer's use of this passage [Rom. 4:3 in particular] to prove that Man is justified apart from works, in a forensic, declarative manner? Once again, he is forced to admit a bit of misuse of these Old Testament texts, for we read:

The issue of chronology which played so well into St. Paul's hands is the same issue which confounds and frustrates the Reformer. If, as the Reformer claims, St. Paul is citing from Genesis 15:6 to show when Abraham was first "saved" by God, then he must answer the fact that Genesis 15 takes place many, many years after Genesis 12, in which account Abram obeys God and sets out on a journey to an unknown land. The inspired commentary in Hebrews informs us that this was, in fact, an act of faith and obedience on the part of Abram. Given that faith and obedience are the two key ingredients in the work of salvation, how can the Reformer posit that Abraham was not justified until Genesis 15:6, when clearly, he had faith in God and obeyed in Genesis 12?

The answer to this last sentence is, "Jacob the reformers do say that Abram was justified before Gen. 15:6!" Again, Mr. Michael provides no quotations from any reformer, and again he misrepresents their position. Luther, Calvin, Owen, Turretin, Edwards, and many others argued that Abraham was justified before Gen. 15:6!

Calvin made much of the fact that Abram was justified before Gen. 15:6 against Rome to show that works are excluded...

Really? That's a curious statement. There are many, many Evangelicals tooting the horn that Genesis 15:6 is the fait de complit of Abraham's spiritual life. We hear it ad nauseam. The opinion is no less shared by prominent Reformed theologians and apologists. Here's one of the biggest ones. Note his reference to Abraham first obtaining faith in Genesis 15:6:

Take it away, James....

...even after one has begun the Christian life (see Institutes 3.11.14 and 3.14.11)! (One could only wish that many of the Romish epologists had read Calvin on justification in Institutes 3.11-18 because their well-worn arguments have been refuted long ago).

Well it is true that Calvin did state that works are excluded even after Justification:

...but Jake never said otherwise. What he said was that many evangelical and (well informed) reformed minded Protestants (not necessarily the first reformers) use Genesis 15:6 as the "justification moment" for Abraham, and he is quite right in that belief. Whether Calvin himself believed that, I can't say. The fact that Mr. Foord and Mr. Sproul cannot agree on the matter seems to indicate that the question is far from certain.

Abram was justified, at least by Gen. 12:1 (because he had faith then according to Heb. 11:8), and yet in Gen. 15:6 we find that his faith was what "counted" for righteousness. What does this mean? Quite simply Gen. 15:6 is not a statement about Abram's initial justification. It is a statement about what kept Abram in a justified state (or righteousness). Paul deploys Gen. 15:6 to show that faith is the key element that God "counts" (or takes into account) in establishing one's righteousness (or righteous state). Faith itself is not the "righteousness"; the words cannot be construed that way (note the prepositional phrase eis dikaiosunen "for righteousness" or "aimed at righteousness"). Faith alone is the instrument that brings one into the justified state, and faith alone is the instrument that maintains one in the justified state (Phil. 3:8-9; Rom. 11:20; Col. 1:23).

#1 - Does the fact that the Reformed camp cannot agree on the occasion of Abraham's justification mean that the whole "one-time justification" theory is out the window? I mean, you would think that if Abraham's justification was just one-time, then they should be able to speak with one voice and tell us just exactly when that was. Up until now, I thought it was Genesis 15:6. Mr. Foord has enlightened us all that it was not. Fascinating.

#2 - Now that Mr. Foord has indicated initial justification occurred in Genesis 12, then we Catholics are very happy to accept his explanation of what was going on in Genesis 15:6. As he very ably explains:

This is a very Catholic view of the verse. We are most indebted to Mr. Foord for it.

Indeed Paul proves justification by faith alone through using another OT verse that does not speak of initial justification but the ongoing maintenance of one's justified state: Hab. 2:4, "the righteous will live by faith." Heb. 10:37-39 shows us that Hab. 2:4 is to be interpreted, not "the righteous by faith, will live", but that "the righteous, will live by faith" (then it launches into the magnificent 'by faith' chapter: Heb. 11).

Hey Martin! They mean the same thing! All you are doing is switching "will live" and "by faith". Grammatically, one is passive and the other is active, but they have the same linguistic import. Read both statements carefully and honestly and you will see (just like everyone else sees) that they mean the same thing, and that you are desperately trying to split hairs in order to salvage a bad haircut. Quick, put a hat on before someone sees you!

In other words faith instrumentally (note the "by") maintains one's "righteous" or justified state before God. Therefore, Paul uses Hab. 2:4 in Rom. 1:17 to show that a believer's faith from first to last maintains one's righteousness before God:

And Paul also uses Hab. 2:4 in Gal. 3:11 to prove justification by faith alone:

St. Paul uses Habukkuk like he used Abraham: to show us how justification is wrought through faith TO faith; from one test to another. Both of these men were repeatedly tested by God their whole lives, and they LIVED (i.e. through actions) their faith from one moment of existence to another. There are trials that come up that must be faced and conquered. If Habakkuk or Abraham failed in the works leading from one faith test to another faith test, one could not say that they lived from faith to faith. They would have started out with "faith", but a trial might have come upon one of them to make them lose the second moment of "faith". If Abraham had refused to sacrifice Isaac, could St. Paul say that he lived from "faith to faith"? Quite evidently not since Abraham would not have trusted in God concerning his only son's fate. You see, it's quite simple, actually. You cannot really "believe in something" or have "faith in something" unless you are willing to put your body and soul on the line for it, and unless you are willing to sacrifice something for that belief. If you are not willing to do it, then you cannot be said to really believe in it. You see, works are required to bring faith to life. This is the reason St. James compares the faith without works to a body without a soul: "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." (James 2:26). If you still maintain that you do have "faith" but insist on divorcing works from it (insofar as your justification is concerned) and therefore stopping its realization and actualization, then you have a dead faith, and a dead faith does not save.

It's quite simple really. Mr. Michael says,

In actual fact it is the reverse. Mr. Michael's observation that Abram was justified before Gen. 15:6 devastates the Roman Catholic position. Abram had been justified at least since Gen. 12:1 (the Bible doesn't tell us exactly when)...

:)

...and had therefore brought forth many good works since then. But these still counted for nothing when it came to his justified or righteous state before God, because years later in Gen. 15:6 God still "counted" him for righteousness by faith and not "works". Notice it is not "works of the law" here because the Jewish Torah had not yet been given to Israel.

Precisely. This is why St. Paul uses Genesis 15:6 to show the Jews that Abraham was justified before any law - ceremonial or moral - had been introduced. Abraham's justification came before keeping any law. It came by works of faith. That is why the confrontation he presents is really between law vs. faith and not works of faith vs. "saving" faith. When St. Paul condemns "works" in Romans 4, it is under the context of the Law:

Notice how St. Paul naturally goes from speaking about "works" and "circumcision" to the "law" in verse 14? It's because he is trying to draw a sharp line between what comes from the law and what comes from faith.

Notice again, St. Paul's clear association with the law and works:

Clearly Paul distinguishes the kind of righteousness which both groups sought: the Gentiles pursued "gracious" righteousness through faith while Israel pursued a "legal righteousness" through works. The former does not seek to obligate God; the latter most certainly does. But how can you pursue righteousness by faith? "Pursue" is a verb. "Righteousness" involves "goodness and truth". To pursue goodness and truth, you inevitably must act. And action means works of faith. This is why St. Paul says in Galatians:

It's not just "faith" that counts; it's "faith expressing itself through love." Again, faith must work through love. It is a marriage of sorts. This is the reason why James says:

Notice that faith by itself cannot be alive. It needs the other the lung to breathe.

According to Paul Abram's "works" played no part in his righteous state before God.

"You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is j-u-s-t-i-f-i-e-d by what he ***does*** and not by faith alone. (James 2:20-24)

Precisely. All works (moral and ceremonial) performed under law, so as to obligate God, cannot justify. This is why St. Paul inserts words like "wages" and "due", but clearly not all works are described by him as such:

Hence it is important to make the necessary distinction between works of law and works of faith.

Secondly, the context of the law spoken of in Romans 4 is clearly represented by "circumcision". St. Paul is using circumcision as representative of the whole law given to Israel. Of Abraham, St. Paul says that " he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised." (Romans 4:11-12).

Notice that St. Paul is not trying to separate works from faith but works of law from works of faith. He states that Abraham is the father of those who walk in the footsteps of the faith. In other words, you are righteous if you "walk the talk" (so to speak) and perform the works of Abraham in faith. "If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. (John 8:39)

If works were included in Abram's (or anyone's) justification then Christ's death would not be sufficient (Gal. 2:21; Gal. 5:4). Abram's good works were the effect of his justified status before God not the cause.

Remember what I said earlier about works of law? Let me restate it again: "All works (moral and ceremonial) performed under law, so as to obligate God, cannot justify." Now, let's read Mr. Foord's first citation above from Galatians:

See what I mean? St. Paul says that Christ died for nothing if righteousness could be gained through the LAW. Does he even mention "works"? No. Does he mean "works of faith"? No. If anything, this verse confirms the Catholic view and completely obliterates Mr. Foord's. The verse is quite simply pitting God's grace (and faith as a corrolary to it) against the law. "Works" are present under both systems of justification. St. Paul's intention could not be any clearer. Only Reformed coloured glasses insist on seeing something contrary to reality. But are we surprised? Any theology which extols a declarative righteousness over a real one is sure to have problems with the truth.

3.  Eternally Secure

Maybe Mr. Michael doesn't realize that the reformers taught that God "who began a good work in you will bring it to completion" (Phil. 1:6) but also that the way God does this is by not letting the believer fall into apostasy. Serious sin in the life of the "believer" should cause them to question whether they have truly had the experience of salvation. In other words, serious sin will separate us from the love of God, but the true believer will be spared from this. That is why believers are called upon to examine their lives in the NT to see if their faith is genuine:

Meet Jack. Jack is a professing reformed evangelical. If you ask Jack, he'll tell you he got saved back in College, and, in truth, he may very well be "saved" - at least there is nothing on his conscience that does not meet the test that St. Paul has proposed. In fact, let's say that Jack is as sure today as Mr. Foord is about his own salvation. But let us say that, for whatever reason, Jack falls into unrepentant serious sin tomorrow. Mr. Foord, in order to rationalize the "once saved always saved" doctrine, tells us that because Jack fell, it "should cause [Jack] to question whether [he has] truly had the experience of salvation." But wait a minute. What causes Mr. Foord to even question whether Jack is saved or not? It is the falling into serious sin, just like he said, is it not? In other words, it's works! Works are the instrument that Mr. Foord is using to judge whether someone is saved or not! Secondly, Jack has already passed the test today, so that means he's saved today. If he fails the test tomorrow, then he won't be saved tomorrow, but that is tomorrow - it's not today. Today, he got a passing mark from his conscience. But if Mr. Foord says that Jack's conscience is wrong today because of what happened tomorrow, then what kind of real assurance does Mr. Foord have today in his own salvation? Answer: none. He might have assurance tomorrow of his salvation today, but we are living in today and we need an answer today not tomorrow.

4.  The Arbitrary Deity

Mr. Michael finally turns to Rom. 9:17-20 and says this:

The above passage is a favorite prooftext for Calvinist Reformers to support their view that God is arbitrary in His sovereign choice of who will and who will not be saved, and of who will and who will not be hardened.

Here Mr. Michael argues that "Calvinist Reformers" believe that God is "arbitrary." Yet again (sigh), there are no references from the reformers themselves, and yet again (sigh) this is a radical misunderstanding of their position. The Reformers would never have said that God is "arbitrary" in his sovereignty; it is a gross distortion. They never argued that God's nature was random. God's sovereignty may appear random to us as finite humans, but God does everything according to his infinite wisdom. If he did not, he would cease to be God. God's wisdom means his ways are not irrational, capricious, or arbitrary. God's reason in electing some for salvation is not revealed to us in Scripture, except that it is not found in the believer. Let us now address two issues that arise from Mr. Michael's comments.

What Jake meant was that the Reformers conception of God's exercise of sovereignty is quite arbitrary (not that the Reformers believed it was). Obviously, the Reformers themselves would not make such a concession. In regards to Jake's intended meaning, he's right of course: the goid of Calvinism is arbitrary because it is dependant on a conception of Jesus which is foreign to the Gospels. The instances where Our Lord's judgements are revealed are first, invariably based on works and second, just and right judgements which we share with Our Lord. More on this later.

i.  A Prior Issue: God's Transcendence

We begin with a personal problem Mr. Michael once had with Rom. 9:17-20:

This line of reasoning frustrated me to no end in years past, for while the plain meaning of the text seemed clear, this depiction of God simply didn't seem to fit in with what I knew to be true from Scripture: that God is just, that God is "rich in mercy" (Eph. 2:4), that God is "slow to anger" (Ex. 34:6), and that God "desires all men to be saved." (1 Tim. 2:4) I sought high and low for an answer to the question of how a just and merciful God could damn a soul to Hell for not repenting, when all the while the only way the soul could repent was if God empowered him to do so, but time and time again, I found myself running into the brick wall of St. Paul's seemingly cop-out response: "O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" (Emphasis added).

But it appears that the "plain meaning" of the text is not the real issue that worries Mr. Michael, there is something more basic. It is not hermeneutical (one of biblical interpretation) but theological. Mr. Michael says: "this depiction of God simply didn't seem to fit in with what I knew to be true from Scripture." The key phrase is "seem to fit in." But how does Mr. Michael know what should "seem to fit in" with Scripture concerning God's nature? Let me elucidate.

What Mr. Michael may not be aware of is the reformers' (and early fathers') understanding of the transcendence of God. To them the infinite God was well beyond human understanding. As Augustine mused, one cannot pour the ocean into a cup, and so we cannot pour all of God's knowledge into our puny finite sized minds. Hence there will be teaching about God that appears contradictory (and maybe even arbitrary) to us but in reality it is not so to God. If God is beyond our understanding then who are we as finite beings to predict what the infinite God should be like? If we could understand God, we'd be God. Who are we to demand that what one part of Scripture says, should "fit in" according to our finite perspective, with another part of Scripture>?

But that is what the Reformers must ultimately do to Jesus - take His righteous judgements of human behaviour - good or bad - and banish them into the "incomprehensible" in order to prop up their fatalistic religion. When anyone else - who does not have the baggage of systematic theology to carry when reading Scripture - reads about a very Good, gentle, loving, merciful and above all JUST God, they simply do not accept a presupposition of warped sovereignty which detracts from revealed truths of Jesus' character. Mr. Foord wants to suggest that God's sense of justice (and mercy) is not the same or even similar to our own, but that is not true at all:

Jesus appeals to the Simon's natural sense of justice, which He invokes in this passage. There is nothing "incomprehensible" about it. God is not beyond our understanding. We, at least Catholics at any rate, have a very good understanding of who Jesus was (even if we don't know everything there is to know about Him) and the virtues He exuded. Jesus understood us, and we understand Him:

The Biblical balance between divine sovereignty and human responsibility is seen very clearly in Phil. 2:12-13:

Here the believer is urged to actively "work out" (not work for!) their salvation. Why? It is because in the believer's active responsible work, God is sovereignly working in them ("for is it God who is at work in you"). How can 100% my own work be 100% God's own work simultaneously? It is not 20% God and 80% man (or some other combination) but 100% of both. This is beyond understanding but must be delicately held in balance.

Therefore, one must keep both divine sovereignty and human responsibility alongside of each other in a way that the Bible does.

You mean like this...

Doesn't that sound a lot like balancing these two statements...

Unbelievers are completely responsible for their plight before God. God could not judge them if they weren't! But, believers are saved wholly by God's intervening grace.

You mean like this...

These two conclusions do not have a symmetric relationship, but both are true. [Because this is such a vital subject, let me recommend a helpful book that sheds further light on the subject by Don Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981). It examines the issues in a very penetrating manner.] There are many other doctrines that defy human understanding in the Bible (like original sin's relationship to human responsibility, how Christ can be both 100% God and 100% human, the Trinity etc.). Our aim should be to speak where God's word speaks, and be silent where God's word is silent. We must not demand what we think the Bible should say.

Marvelous. When will you be abandoning your sixteenth century heresy?

Let us return to the question Paul is attempting to answer: why did the majority of God's chosen people the Jews, reject Jesus?

"Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works." (Romans 9:32)

The meaning couldn't be clearer. God will go with Israel, the "stiff-necked people" not because she deserves it, but because God is merciful and slow to anger. He chooses to have mercy on whomever he wills. This point is crucial to answering the question Paul has been addressing: has God's word failed in that the vast minority [sic] of Jews have not embraced Christ? Paul's answer is that God's chosen people were not the physical descendants of Abraham but those whom God has sovereignly chosen. Within the political nation of Israel there was a faithful remnant that God had chosen (cf. Rom. 11:1-4). Those who placed their faith in Christ when he came were the chosen remnant within Israel herself. Hence Paul is able to make sense of the large-scale rejection of Jesus by national Israel. Most of the Jews did not believe because most of them were not God's chosen people.

First of all, since Mr. Foord avails himself of Romans 11, so will I:

So much for the theory of irrevocable election.

What then are Catholics to do with Romans 9? Well, first admit that it is one of those few places in Scripture which seem to favour the Calvinist side, but which, in reality, does not - especially when considered within the entire Pauline corpus. Here is a good summary of Romans 9 from the Catholic viewpoint on predestination:

What we must first understand is that God already knows whether we are saved or not. At this moment, in God's omniscient foreknowledge, He already has rendered judgement on our souls based on our current and future acceptance or rejection of Him. The only thing left for us to do is find out what that judgement is. Since therefore God already knows what we will do and whether we do, in fact, accept Him, He has ordered creation under that foreknowledge with the understanding that even with our acceptance of His love, we cannot obligate God to save us. Anything that God gives us is pure gift. This then is the proper context in which we can understand Romans 9. St. Paul's central point in Romans 9 is to establish the total sovereignty of God. God is free and completely unencumbered in granting His mercy. Nothing can obligate Him to do so - whether that be man's faith or his works. In short, He has complete sovereignty in all of His decisions. Although He is not obligated to even offer His mercy to anyone, He does so from his own gracious benevolence.

Now for some strange and selective reason, our Reformed brethren believe that St. Paul is teaching some kind of irrevocable and unconditional election in this chapter. And while it is true that God is completely sovereign in his decisions and does what He likes, it is also true that he is moved to "change" His decision based on what we do. Anyone who has read the Old Testament knows this. In fact, it is the history of Israel itself, for goodness sake! While it is outside of the scope of my response to give a detailed exegesis of Romans 9, I want to draw my reader's attention to the text which invariably gets a lot of mileage from the Reformed camp in Romans 9. I am speaking, of course, about St. Paul's imagery of the potter and the clay:

So that's it. One of the most popular passages in Scripture that is used to prop up the error of absolute predestination. One has to wonder if the proponents of this view ever considered the possibility that God could smash that pottery - whether made for "noble" or "common" purposes - and begin again? I should say that He could. In fact, to say to God that once that pottery has been set, it cannot be reformed in the image of its opposite is really to provoke St. Paul's rebuttal above: "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" Indeed, ironically enough, it begins to undermine the pure sovereignty which the Reformed camp purports to defend. And not only that, it presupposes that the lump of clay cannot turn back to God or turn away from Him - even if it were originally chosen for a "noble" or "common" purpose. In the Old Testament, the imagery of a potter and clay certainly supports this contention:

This is why St. Paul goes on to say at the end of the chapter:

In other words, we see Jeremiah's words fulfilled in the above verses: the Gentiles pursued righteousness by faith while the Jews pursued it by law, and as a result, they stumbled and fell. And we see St. Paul returning to the fate of the two peoples in Romans 11. Verse 7 says this:

Notice St. Paul's mention of the "elect" above, but later on this chapter, this is what he has to say to the "elect":

Hardly a glowing endorsement of a "conditionless election", wouldn't you agree?

And what about being "hardened"? Well, St. Paul tells us that the Jews were "hardened" in verse 7 above, and we find out precisely why they were hardened in verse 20:

And furthermore, we learn that this hardening of Israel can be loosed by God:

So the bottom line here, folks, is that while God may indeed harden and have mercy on whom He pleases to demonstrate His sovereignty over us, He is also attentive to those who follow his commandments and abide in His love as the above verses clearly demonstrate. God "hardens" not necessarily to condemn, but to bring the person back to God and show them mercy:

Catholicism's God is a merciful one who wishes all to come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved. Our God is a being whose purpose in creating us was to love us and share His glory with us - all of us. Our God does not create in order to destroy.

Thus we have seen that Romans 9 does address the issue of God's unconditional election. But it must be said that the reality of human responsibility is also present and crucial to the argument of Rom. 9-11, particularly 9:30-32 and 11:11-24. Let me say again, human responsibility does not logically coalesce in our minds with the issue of God's sovereign election. However we formulate God's election, we must not destroy the reality that people are responsible creatures who make significant decisions for which they will be judged. The two must be held together in tension. Emphasis on only one will distort the Biblical balance.

Precisely. That's why it's only the Catholic Church which correctly teaches both truths in Scripture: that God is truly sovereignty and that Man truly has a free will. Mr. Foord's "human responsibility" is a myth under the Reformed conception. There is no such thing as "human responsibility" when God has already predestined you to hell. You can try and be as responsible as you like. You can try and emulate Christ as best you can. Heck, you might even qualify as a saint under the Catholic rubric. None of that is going to help you. You are going to hell, and there is literally nothing you can do about it. It's all been predestined and programmed for you. All you have to do is hit the fast forward button on your VCR and watch the ending. There is no editing this tape.