The following is the first in a series of blog posts on this topic that are meant to be read together. Links to the other articles may be found at the bottom of this page. The series as a whole is also meant to accompany a collection of related articles currently being posted on the website Reformation21. Links to those articles can likewise be found at the bottom of this page.
Over the past few weeks, a series of my articles have begun appearing on the website Reformation21 comparing and contrasting the Reformed Protestant and Roman Catholic views of salvation. (I mean “Reformed” here in the broad sense.) For that comparison, I have been focusing chiefly on the distinct concepts of infused grace and imputed righteousness, which cuts to the heart of the differences between the two groups. Links to those articles can be found at the bottom of this page.
I have written many words about infusion and imputation, but I have yet to say definitively which understanding is the correct one. I chose to proceed in this manner so that each view would gain a fair hearing, and perhaps to communicate to the reader that the answer is not as simple as he or she might like to believe. Whether we were raised Protestant or Catholic, we tend to hold our beliefs in great confidence, seldom lending our ears to contrary arguments. It is important that we take these moments to reconsider, that we might better understand both ourselves and others.
But having engaged in this exhaustive and exhausting analysis, it is high time that I come clean and own up to a view, and I will be doing that here on my own blog. Since I am not a practicing Roman Catholic, you are probably well ahead of me on this one, but given that I have outlined so many well-considered arguments made by Catholic theologians, I owe it to everyone to explain why I do not agree with them.
Because we are not asking what the majority of the Church has taught over the years but whether the majority of the Church has been correct, we have to go back to scripture and not rely upon the writings of the Father or the decrees of ecumenical councils. I realize this poses a problem for Roman Catholics, as it bypasses notions of apostolic succession and continuing revelation, but this is the 21st century and to a certain extent the Protestants have won the argument: things must be argued from scripture first and foremost whenever they are involved.
Now, in my articles on Reformation21 I showed that there are biblical passages that seem to support one side or the other, some of which definitely appear, at least on the face of it, to be contradictory. (See, for example, Paul’s declaration that we are justified by faith alone and not works, [Romans 3:28] while James states that we are not justified by faith alone but also by works. [James 2:24]) As is so often the case in theological exegesis, we are forced to allow some passages to control or guide our interpretation of the others. We must also step back to examine the general thrust of scripture and its overall storyline to better understand what God intends to accomplish.
Let me take you back a few thousand years ago to a world both very different and fundamentally the same. A man named Abraham had brought his family away from their native land to a new country that God had indicated. One day, God came to Abraham and said, “O Lord God, what will You give me, since I am childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” (Genesis 15:2) God assured Him, “This man will not be your heir; but one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir…Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them…So shall your descendants be.” (v. 4-5) It was an extraordinary promise, and it is followed in scripture by this statement about Abraham’s reaction: “Then he believed in the Lord, and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.” (v. 6)
Next, the Lord instructed Abraham to gather together some animals, cut most of them in half, and lay them out. This Abraham did, and he eventually fell asleep. While he was deep in slumber, “there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between the pieces.” (v. 17)
To a modern audience, this sequence of events seems incredibly odd, but anyone in Abraham’s day would have understood its significance. Ancient Near Eastern people frequently entered into covenants with one another: binding promises in which various responsibilities were assigned to both parties, much like the feudal arrangements of medieval Europe. The penalty for breaking such a covenant could be death, and to signify this, the two individuals entering the covenant often walked through the divided carcasses of animals as a way of declaring, “So let it be done to me if I break this covenant.”
What was particularly strange about the covenant God made with Abraham is that Abraham did not walk through the pieces. Rather, “a smoking oven and a flaming torch” passed between them. This was clearly an act of God, and the general interpretation of the passage is that God Himself was present in the smoke and flame, declaring that it would be so done to Him if the covenant was broken. Why did God move through the pieces and not both He and Abraham? Here again there is a general interpretation: that God was taking upon Himself the full responsibility for keeping the covenant stipulations, granting to Abraham the promises without condition of obedience. This is not to say that Abraham was not required to obey, but that the ultimate penalty for disobedience would fall upon God and not Abraham.
Certainly, this interpretation does not occur in a vacuum but takes into account the New Testament account of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice for humanity, He being God incarnate. I submit that there is nothing wrong with this as the Apostle Paul states that God “preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham” (Galatians 3:8) when He declared, “And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.” (Genesis 12:3) This declaration was not technically part of the Abrahamic Covenant but occurred some time earlier. However, it is clear that God’s dealings with Abraham provided a kind of preview of the gospel. See, for example, the Epistle to the Romans.
“For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: ‘Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.’”
Romans 4:3-8
Yes, the gospel was proclaimed beforehand to Abraham, not only in that all the nations would be blessed, but in the crediting of righteousness by faith. Paul sets forward a clear principle: Abraham was credited with righteousness not because of his works, but because He believed in the justifier. It was this justifier, this Lord, who did not take Abraham’s sins into account, but rather counted him righteous. We see the echo of this in the fact that God alone walked through the bloody animal pieces, ensuring that if Abraham did break the covenant, He would be the one who ended up bloodied and dead.
This is a truly extraordinary example of grace. Not only did God enter into a covenant with Abraham—which he was under no obligation to do—but He credited Abraham with righteousness even though he had not performed the necessary works. Instead of taking Abraham’s sins into account, He treated him as righteous. Was God simply playing a cosmic game of pretend? No, He was agreeing to die for Abraham and make him righteous.
To be continued…
All scripture passages are taken from the 1995 New American Standard Bible, copyright The Lockman Foundation.
Other articles in this blog series in order of publication:
“Why I Am a Reformed Protestant: The Requirement of Works”
“Why I Am a Reformed Protestant: Prophecy of Substitution”
“Why I Am a Reformed Protestant: The Circumcision of the Heart”
“Why I Am a Reformed Protestant: Two Progenies in Abraham”
Related articles hosted on Reformation21 in order of publication:
“Infusion and Imputation: An Introduction”
“Justification: The Roman Catholic View”
“Justification: The Reformed Protestant View”
