Romans 4, Silver Bullets, Romans 16:17, William Albrecht, and Peter Lumpkins

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one. And now with today's topic.

Here is James wife. Thank you. Morning. Welcome to the dividing line. Won't be taking phone calls until later in the program if at all depending on Whether I start preaching in the process of covering what we need to cover.

Romans 4 and the Imputation of Righteousness

Today if you have your Bible nearby you might want to take it and turn to the fourth chapter of the gospel to the Romans. Paul's epistle to the Romans chapter 4. Discussion of what it means to be made right before God beginning in verse 3 for what do the scriptures say?

Abraham believed in God and it was Credited to him. It was imputed to him like Idza. My as Righteousness a citation of Genesis chapter 15 verse 6. One of the key issues in the dispute with the Roman Catholic Church is the nature of justification in Roman Catholic historical theology.

Anyway, who knows in modern theology since no one can define what Rome teaches anymore despite their continued claims of infallibility. At least historically Roman Catholicism has confused justification and sanctification confounding the two together with the result being the overthrow of the freedom of God and salvation the perfection of the work of Christ and The true grounds of one standing and having peace with God in this present life.

One of the arguments has been that well Abraham was justified many times. He was justified in Genesis 12 when he believed in God. He was justified in Genesis 15. He was justified again in Genesis 22 when he offers Isaac upon the altar.

All of these are arguments against one thing not against Protestantism and not against solo feeding. These are arguments against the Apostle Paul. When you overthrow the sufficiency of Scripture, you will find yourself inevitably arguing against the writers of Scripture themselves and That is what Rome does with regularity.

Paul cites Genesis chapter 15 verse 6 as the point of Abraham's justification. He is going to emphasize that in The following texts when he finishes describing this. He's going to ask in verse 9 of chapter 4.

Is this blessing then on the circumcised drawn the uncircumcised also for we say faith is cred. Abraham is righteousness. How then was it credited while he was circumcised run circumcised. Paul puts this in the context of the historical events of Abraham's life and He demonstrates from this that he was justified Not while circumcised but while uncircumcised and he makes an entire point of this.

He emphasizes this so that Abraham becomes the one who is the model of faith. Isaac could not have been the model of faith. But Abraham is The model of faith because the faith that he has before circumcision is a saving faith.

It is a justifying faith and he is justified at that point where the promises of God have been given to him the covenant is made and Abraham believes and it is reckoned to him as Righteousness that is the apostolic interpretation of Genesis 15 6 but again since Rome is not teaching what the Bible teaches, but Rome teaches its own theology and attempts to force the Bible to substantiate this external belief.

Then the very words of Scripture have to be twisted. The Apostle then explains for us in verses 4 through 5 Why it is he's emphasizing the belief of Abraham prior to the actions of Abraham and obedience in Verse for his is now to the one working to the working one the wage the misthoughts is Not counted reckoned or imputed there.

It again is legit my leg. It's a tie in this form according to grace katakaran according to grace or as a gift. But as what is due and so the contrast that is is drawn in verse 4 is To the one who works the the term here is the standard word for working for being employed in labor.

The one who works the misthoughts the wage. That which is paid for work is not reckoned imputed very frequently. Legitimise used as an accounting term. Especially in extra biblical usage katakaran ala kata a file EMA.

So you see the the contrast that is that is being made here not According to as a gift or as grace, but according to as what is owed when you engage in work for a wage. Once you've completed the work then the wage is due to you.

Common standard language that is used throughout the the extra biblical Greek literature. In just regular everyday life. We've found hundreds of scraps of papyri that talk about financial transactions and These terms are commonly used.

Paul is drawing from language that we all would understand. But then and Again, I enjoy showing this Using a digital projector so that people can see this. You don't have to read Greek to see That what the Apostle does here is he takes the very same beginning phrase from verse 4 now to the one working today air gods a meno and He takes that and he says today may air gods a meno to the one not working.

So it's a complete 180 degree contrast to the attitude expressed in verse 4. The attitude expressed in verse 4 is that a person is doing something and There is a result to what they do. They they act and they receive something because of their act.

But to the one not working but Pistuan T believing and so to the one not working but believing believing in whom. Specifically believing in the one Justifying tan a sub a the ungodly. So the one who does not work the one who does not engage in activities so as to think that his activities her activities are going to bring a result a Misthos a wage.

The one who doesn't think that what they do puts God in a position of debt. The one who recognizes that no matter what I do My acts cannot put God a position of debt. But instead Believes in the one who justifies the ungodliness listen to what that phrase means.

God justifies the ungodly. No, that's I've had people say that's a direct contradiction the Old Testament. God does not justify the ungodly in The sense of judge that's correct in the sense of as he judges he judges righteously.

But the work of Jesus Christ Transcends the categories of justice and introduces us to the categories of mercy and. So God is the one who justifies the ungodly doesn't justify the just as if there was such a person.

Remember Jesus his own words. Who of the two men standing in prayer goes down to his house justified it is the publican who? recognizes his own sin. The ungodly one who cries out for mercy and. So here in verse 5 then we are told the one who does not work.

We're out of the one who? believes in the one who Justifies the ungodly a phrase so shocking the Joseph Smith jr. The founder of Mormonism Could not believe that this was the case he changed it. He put in the word not who does not justify the ungodly see he he could not understand the gospel he had no concept of grace and.

The religion he founded continues to this day to lack that gospel and that concept of grace. So to the one Who does not? Engage in activities so as to think to gain something from God. But rather than that the opposite of that Believes in the one who justifies the ungodly that includes obviously the recognition.

I'm the ungodly one. There is nothing here about a non repentant faith. Everyone who preaches that well repentance is an optional thing is a false teacher a heretic. That's not the gospel. His faith the faith of him hey pistis out to that faith.

I think that's why you have the article used here the emphasis his faith. It's that kind of faith. No other kind of faith That is reckoned as righteousness. It is again the same term leg it's a my it is considered it is imputed for righteousness.

Now Those Who attempt to say? Oh see it's that faith that is actually imputed to them as righteousness. Missed. I don't know how they miss the entire point the Apostle just made. There is nothing we do including faith That puts God in a position of debtor to us.

There is nothing in my faith That has some kind of merit before God. It is the fact that this faith eschews the idea of receiving something because of some power some worthiness and Rather than that. It's the empty hand of faith.

That's the kind of faith that brings about The divine verdict of righteous and That's exactly what the Apostle then goes on to explain in the next few verses. In verses six seven and eight The Apostle says just as also David spoke of the blessedness of The man to whom God reckons righteousness chorus ergo ergo and without apart from separate from works.

So he says this is nothing new. God has imputed righteousness separately from acts of human accomplishment all along going all the way back to the 32nd Psalm and there we have those beautiful words blessed are those whose lawless deeds Have been forgiven whose sins Have been covered over.

Blessed is the man To whom the Lord will not impute sin or whose sins the Lord will not take into account. There is a textual variant there. And as you know, I have Made it a practice for years when speaking to Roman Catholics when they call the program I asked them who is the blessed man of Romans for a who is a blessed man to whom the Lord does not impute sin and As you know, they have no answer because Rome has no gospel.

Every Roman Catholic knows if they know their theology at all and if they have any semblance of orthodoxy. Unless they're a wild-eyed Unitarian Universalist Catholic and they're out there, too. They all know that if they commit a venial sin to whom is it imputed to them.

They bear the punishment. If they commit a mortal sin to whom is it imputed to them? There is no non-imputation of sin in historic Orthodox Roman Catholic theology. Its sacramentalism is firmly rooted in man.

It is the means by which man controls the very grace of God. And that's why it will always be a stench in the nostrils of the holy yet gracious God. No matter how many people sign documents that seem to say ceasefire as long as you can preach these words.

You can never have friendship with Rome. They're mutually exclusive now. Why did I take the time to start by looking at a text of scripture like that? Well because earlier this week I was Directed to a comment over on James Swan's blog.

And I again most of you know, I don't have time to keep up with comments very often it's just it's just not really a possible thing to do and Unless people direct me to them. I don't see them. I barely keep up with RSS feeds and Stuff like that in preparations for debates and all that type of stuff, but I was directed to a Fellow a Roman Catholic by the name of Nick and I CK Nick and in a comment thread Right before a comment by sky man.

In fact Nick said it seems nobody Who said they would check out my new article which I consider a silver bullet against sola fide has actually done so then he gives the reference and Then he made this comment.

I Believe this article will play a leading role in the conversion of James White. Wow. There's all sorts of bright-eyed bushy-tailed Roman Catholics out there, so I followed the link To Nick's Catholic blog April 8 2010 the death knell of Protestantism.

The the Triumphalism of many young Roman Catholic apologists has seemed to only grow and you know, I think it's grown of late. Because their leaders won't debate anymore. I think there was really a time when they were they recognized they were in full-scale retreat.

But now these young guys, you know, hey the 90s were a while ago. You know a decades gone by pretty much and and it's like well you know, we've got the Tim Staples and the Jimmy Aikens and the Patrick Madrid's and They don't realize those folks won't come out and debate and in fact the last time we got Tim Staples do anything was right here On the dividing line just a few months ago.

I've sent him three emails since then trying to find out Are you all gonna make it available? You know won't even respond to me now. When he respond to me now, so this triumphalism is very interesting, but the death knell of Protestantism now if I were to Talk about the conversion of The reconversion of Scott Hahn and I were to post something that said I think this is gonna Demonstrate that Scott Hahn's gonna have to convert back to the truth.

If he had ever actually held the truth, don't you think I mean Don't you think there would be some necessity? To maybe on my part have seriously interacted with the things that Scott Hahn has written that are relevant.

I Think so, I think so, but as I read Nick's article, it's not a long article. In fact, if you want to find it, you know, how I found it this morning is really easy. I googled quote silver bullet End quote plus quote conversion of James White end quote.

Immediately took me to the only one hit came up and that was James Swan's blog, which then had the link directly to Nick's Catholic blog, which is Catholic Nick blog spot calm if you're interested. See, I don't unlike certain people like Envoy magazine I'm not afraid for people to go look at this stuff because I figure you know There you go.

Anyways The death knell of Protestantism as I read this entire thing I don't see any evidence whatsoever that Nick has ever picked up this little book right here called the God Who Justifies by me and It's not a small book about 400 pages long.

Directly addresses the issues at hand. But I don't see the slightest bit of evidence that Nick has ever attempted to interact with it or read it or anything else. Which I find odd. I Don't find it odd in the sense that most Catholics actually take the time to do that.

I just find it odd that people wouldn't recognize that might be something you want to do if you want to be taken seriously and You want to actually speak the truth? I Don't get it. Maybe it's just the next generation or something.

I don't know I've often complained people come into the chat channel all the time. Hey, could somebody tell me this, you know, and it's just it would just take a little bit of research on their part to find Out, but it's just so much easier just to have somebody else do it now.

I obviously speaking now as a person much closer to 50 than any other age and Remember when I was young I actually had to go to libraries and use card catalogs. Which had in them cards made of paper prior to the computer.

Yes, but anyway, I digress. Most readers with even a passing interest in apologetics are familiar with st Paul's words from Romans 4 3 through 5 then he quotes the text. This passage is critical to the doctrine of Sola Fide because it is where Protestants claim st Paul expressly lays down the doctrine the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer at The one and only moment of justification and that this righteousness is received by faith.

Well, it does speak of that. But it goes on to speak of that in verses 7 through 8 and expand on it in the rest of chapter and it's not the Only place but it is important. It is central the standard historic Protestant interpretation of faith.

Faith is count as righteous clear state in the Westminster Confession, and I'm very glad that Nick quoted from the Westminster Confession Which includes the phraseology nor by imputing faith itself the act of believing or any other evangelical obedience to them as their righteousness.

But by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them. They receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith which faith they have not themselves. It is a gift of God. Which was not emphasized in in the color that he added to the text, but I think that's vitally important, too.

It's pretty hard to defend Sola Fide when you don't have Faith as the gift of God, but I continue Nick writes what this passage is saying is that the phrase faith count as righteousness is not to be understood as faith itself is Counted as righteousness, but rather faith receives Christ's righteousness.

What this article demonstrated is effectively a silver bullet right to the heart of this heresy. Then we have the following statement. I love this now to my knowledge. Nobody has made the argument. I'm about to make.

How Can a Roman Catholic get away with it, I just I just sort of have to wonder how can a Roman Catholic get away with this. Doesn't a Roman Catholic go? Hey, you know that that's this main danger red lights.

No one's made this argument, but I've come up with something new. It's. The consistency is great. Anyway, but before I do so I will lay out in no particular order some classical and very solid Catholic arguments against the Protestant interpretation.

Number one. Abraham was not converting in Genesis 15 6 and in fact walk with God year God years prior to this moment in his life. Genesis 12 1 through 4 4 compare Hebrews 11 8 thus he could not have been undergoing what Protestants consider justification.

Now they might object that Paul wasn't concerned about timing even though he clearly was 4 9 and 18 following. But that doesn't help their buying for Genesis 15 6 a historical event and something relating to salvation clearly took place.

Well, of course, but once again, who is this argument against it's against Paul. It's not against Protestants. Paul is the one who says that he was justified here. What do you mean? This isn't justification.

What other word could you use here? It's the guy is soon ain. It's the God who justifies it's it's this is a justification. Don't notice the word. They're just just a play that amazing. Absolutely amazing that you can make that argument, but there are people who do very frequently it's right there in the text.

To say that well, but but see a Abraham did things by faith before that and that must means he was saved ignores the fact that faith Has to have an object in which it is being placed and the promises of God are given to Abraham.

He believes the Covenant is made in Genesis 15 not Genesis 12. Abraham obeys God there, but there's a lot of people who obeyed general things in this life that does not mean they've entered into a relationship with God and accepted God's promises.

Next we have the old Phineas argument Psalm 106 30 and following states Phineas good work was counted as righteousness not his faith. Though he certainly was already a believer. This phrase is identical in Hebrew and Greek to what is said in Genesis 15 6 the Protestant cannot have this.

Oh. We can't have that right for good works. Don't receive Christ's righteousness. Thus they seek to interpret this verse differently. The problem here is that one should assume one should generally assume identical phrases are interpreted the same unless a reasonable case can be shown otherwise and Catholics do have such interpretation harmonizing the two but the Protestant misses this point because they're busy trying to salvage sola fide.

Now, I'm sorry, but Nick sounds rather young at this point. Just by the way rights and by you know, throwing stuff out here. That's not overly relevant but the Issue again if he thinks this is you know, Nick, I'm gonna I'm gonna leave a message.

I'm gonna try to remember to make a comment here on your blog. So maybe you'll listen to this section of the program. But if if Nick if you want this to convert me Then Nick you might want to take the time to then respond to the two and a half pages or so on Psalm 106 I included in the God who justifies maybe I Mean I would never think about Contacting a Carl Keating or these people and say you should convert because of this and they say did you read my book about that?

Well, no. It's just never crossed my mind. But people do that all the time now I did address this subject and Just very briefly because we're I'm taking a little bit longer than I thought on this. I still want to get some other things during the program today and don't want to go too long if we do go over time anyways.

But most people are not familiar with the story in numbers 25 of what actually took place here where Phineas The the plague is coming upon the people for the sin of the people. The people are praying They are asking God for mercy and yet in the midst of this particular situation one of the congregation Brings a foreign woman into the camp and He brings a Midianite woman to his family the side of Moses and the side of the whole congregation of people of Israel while they're weeping in the entrance the tent meeting and When Phineas the son of Eliezer the son of Aaron the priest saw it He rose and left the congregation and took a spear in his hand and went after the man of Israel into the chamber and pierced Both of them the man of Israel and the woman through her belly.

Thus the plague on the people of Israel was stopped. Nevertheless those who died by the plague were 24 ,000 and the Lord said to Moses Phineas the son of Eliezer son of Aaron the priest has turned back my wrath on people of Israel and That he was jealous with my jealousy among them so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy.

Therefore say behold, I give him my covenant of peace and It shall be to him and his descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual Priesthood because he was jealous for his God and made a tome of the people of Israel.

So here is the context. To Psalm 106 someone a six does use the exact same Greek in the Greek Septuagint as Genesis 15 6. But just as Paul would expect his readers to know the context of Genesis 15 6 in the Covenant likewise, he'd expect his readers to know the context of Psalm 106.

The writer of Psalm the writer of Psalm 106 would expect them to know the context of numbers 25 and they are not in any way shape or form the same context and The people who would hear Psalm 106 and it was reckoned to him for righteousness to all generations forever would connect that with numbers 25.

Therefore say Behold, I give him my covenant of peace and it shall be to him and to his descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood because he was jealous for his God and made a tome of the people of Israel and so basically the idea again is Who would make this argument.

Roman Catholics and Jewish opponents of the Apostle Paul. Who are they arguing against. They're arguing against Paul? Not arguing against Protestants. We're just following Paul. They're arguing against the Apostle.

Now if you're arguing against the Apostle, what does that tell you about your own religion? The Apostle is the one who is emphasizing that Abraham did not do acts. That resulted in his righteousness. Paul doesn't raise Phineas and If you're raising Phineas, then you're arguing against Paul.

You're arguing against the Book of Romans don't dodge it admit it and You do so. Because of your tradition you do so because of your external religion. Next we read the text says plainly says faith is what is reckoned as righteousness and Romans 4 18 through 22 is devoted to unpacking Genesis 15 6 stating He had not wavered through unbelief regarding the promise of God but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God being fully persuaded.

That God had power to do what he had promised. This is why it was cred to him as righteousness. This likewise fits how the Bible defines faith in Hebrews 11 and thus not some notion of faith that faith is of no Inherent value but merely acts as an instrument which transfers an alien righteousness.

Now if he is actually arguing that faith has a Inherent value that results in God doing something. He just fell into Romans 4 4. O file a ma what is do? That's the whole point of the text is to say he does not work but believes in the one who justifies the ungodly not the godly and.

The rest of Romans 4 does not substantiate that the whole point of the rest Romans 4 is that faith. Since it is an empty hand is consistent with grace. The promise precedes the law which allows for acts of obedience.

That's what Romans chapter 4 is all about then. We are told when scriptures especially testament uses the Greek Hebrew term counted. It quite frequently means consider something as it really is while rarely meaning consider something to be other than what it really is now.

This is the worst part of this argumentation in my opinion. Because we are in no way shape or form attempting to cram a certain meaning into legitimy. Legitimy means to impute. Legitimy is being used in different ways in this context for the obvious reason that while the accounting element is always there Imputation reckoning etc, etc.

When legitimy is used with misthos and air God's. Oh, those are clearly secular uses. But once you in bring pistou into it belief. You clearly have to start transcending mere accounting terminology and.

Certainly, I don't think Nick would want to try to argue that the terminology is being used in the identical same way one in accounting about a person working and receiving a misthos a wage and. Any whatever his Roman Catholic view of imputation might be from that point?

He goes on to say in Romans 4 this would indicate an internal infused righteousness rather than an external alien. Racist doesn't even try to substantiate that and that's just that's just Blowing smoke at that point.

That's the Protestant must approach Romans for the bias without establishing a sufficient case or decision. They're begging the question again Rhetoric that has no foundation in in the text itself now since time is passing by very quickly.

Now comes the moment where a new and yet no less decisive point is introduced. How counted is used in Romans 4 forward the one who works his wages are not counted Legitimy as a gift, but is what is do what is what as but as his do.

Aside from what precisely Paul means by works. There should be little dispute on the meaning of this verse. Well, there's little dispute on what Paul means by works here either. Given that it results in a misthos.

A wage. Wages given for work are counted as debt. They are not counted as a gift. That's exactly right when they are Legitimy they are imputed to someone's account. You don't say here is a gift because it is due.

So it's not according to caris grace. But according to a file a mod debt. In other words a man who works receives a payment in the form of debt. The boss is not giving him a paycheck gratuitous gratuitously something I have said many many times then in bold text here We see counted means to consider the working wages themselves as they truly are.

Debt because they're owed for work and that's not a gift because they truly are not and this is where Nick has completely left the realm of meaningful ex-jesus. Because his whole idea is well it gives my.

It means to consider something what it really really is rather than something else and That's not even slightly remotely connected to Paul's point as that's why I gave you the exegesis the text at the start rather than starting with Nick is.

We just went through the text and allowed it to define its own terms and He wants to say well. You're saying that imputed means to treat somebody's in a way that they're not really and and if you want to talk about whether we're treated for what we are or how we're Treated for what we are in Christ.

You just go to a text specifically addressing that that you know the great exchange the second Corinthians chapter 5 or Do what you should have done if you had done your homework Nick and go to The rest of Romans 4 especially verse 8 and tell us how it fits anywhere into your religious system.

He says if the Protestant interpretation of counted were correct and remember in his mind what that means is counted means. Something not the way it really is which is not we're talking about at all. This passage would be either nonsensical or downright wrong.

With this in mind we now note this verse is located in a critical context sandwiched between credited as righteousness of verse 3 and verse 5. Barring any desperate attempt to say Paul shifted the meaning of counted from verse 3 to 4 then back again in verse 5.

Suggesting Paul engaged in equivocation the Protestant position is indefensible. Well, what's indefensible is Nick's ignorance of the Protestant position and of exegesis. What is it most astonishing about all these points is that and listen to this?

This was also attracting my attention. What is most astonishing about all these points is that Catholics are simply letting scripture speak. Which fully support the Catholic position while the Protestant position ironically from a solo scripture point of view has to read in the text all sorts Of preconceived notions and dances around the glaring difficulties.

I Would love I would love to have Nick call in. If Nick would call in I put him on the air just tell us who the blessed man from its for a tis and Explain to the rest of us how Paul can talk about the blessedness of the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works verse 6 which follows that that's.

You went through 5 and verse 6 is the next verse. How he can define that in the way he does in verses 7 through 8. He doesn't do it in some sacramental thing. He doesn't do it in some way of propitiatory sacrifices the mass Penances and crawling up stairs on your knees.

Now there's none of that there because none of that had ever even entered into the Apostles mind. So there's a response to Nick's Catholic blog. Nick if you want to see me convert Nick you have to give me a gospel.

That answers my need and If you are Roman Catholic You don't have a Gospel that answers my need. That's the whole problem. Now continuing on the theme of Roman Catholicism. Turretin fan had a debate over the weekend with good old William Albrecht and evidently William Albrecht came up with a topic on the suggestion of Steve Ray and I find that amazing.

Steve Ray will suggest debate topics. Steve Ray just won't debate debate topics. So evidently Steve Ray wants to talk about these things have other people talk about these things, but he won't do it himself, which I find interesting.

The question was does belief in Sola Scriptura? results in a indivision and disunity in the body of Christ. Now I told Turretin fan yesterday. I think one thing that would have helped at points in this debate.

And if you listen to it and I'll ask him to put up the link to it. If he hasn't put on our blog yet. If you listen to the debate, what have what would have helped I think would have been to differentiate between unity and uniformity.

I have unity on the central doctrines of the faith and the gospel. With men with whom I do not have uniformity on other issues. I have demonstrated this by standing the pulpit of the Franklin Square Orthodox Presbyterian Church in New York on Long Island and Having Pastor Bill Shishko on this program.

And I've been on the program on iron sharpens iron with him as well defending the gospel and he and I would stand shoulder-to-shoulder in The defense the gospel defense the deity of Christ the Trinity the resurrection the things that define the Christian faith.

But then he and I debated the issue of infant baptism. That's having unity without uniformity if you want uniformity. Look at Scientology if you want uniformity look at Jehovah's Witnesses. Where no difference of opinion on anything is to be brooked.

You have an overarching authority. It says you believe this right down the line to the very dot at the end of the sentence that is why when you go to a Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses and They're doing their watchtower study the questions that they are answering on any given Sunday in any given congregation are identical all Across the world wherever you are whatever language you're speaking.