The Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ: Karlo Broussard of Catholic Answers Refuted

Greetings and welcome to the dividing line right as we started the program Babylon be tweeted and They've got this young man staying in front of a sort of a standard church looking building and it says

Cutting edge church attempts to attract visitors with free AOL trial

CD giveaway He's smiling and he's holding the old

AOL CD The only reason I know that AOL still exists is because my dad's still on it that's still his his email address, which is

Yeah, yeah, it's it's sad but Anyway, welcome. Welcome to the program today.

I mentioned on Twitter this morning that I was going to At the top of the hour deal with an article that was just published today.

So I will do that And then move on to a couple of other things and hopefully get to phone calls later on in the hour as well and that is a

Catholic answers article that was linked to That Actually, it's interesting

This says August 6. So maybe we're a maybe we're a day behind in the getting this

But I only saw the link this morning and it's another Carlo Broussard article we have taken apart a number of Carlos articles over the over the over the years and Maybe someday they'll allow him to debate.

I don't know We'll see. I you know, I sort of got the feeling after we had our debate in 2017

I guess January of 2017. Yeah That maybe we'd be seeing more debates going on but I if that's been happening

I've missed it I haven't Yeah, I don't I haven't seen seen anything seen anything going on.

But Yeah, but anyway This is an article published

August 6th called righteous comma or reckoned and the reckons in Single quotes question mark and a cute little baby picture.

I'm not really sure what that's all about but This certainly takes us back to foundational basic issues in regards to Roman Catholicism and the fact that We have been convinced for a very very long time and have attempted to convince other people as well that the primary issue

Once again when you look at the Reformation you had the material principle and had the formal principle the formal principle was solo scriptura, this is the

Fundamental departing place as far as ultimate authority goes and if you want to see what happens when you abandon solo scriptura

Because Rome all you know every day on Catholic radio You have Roman Catholics saying we'll see if you believe in solo script scriptura

It leads to all these denominations, which is not what leads to all these denominations It is the abandonment and non -practicing of solo scriptura that leads to all those denominations

But if you if you want a really really good reason to believe in solo scriptura

Pope Francis That's It's it's pretty easy

You know it you almost feel badly. I remember when

Michael Brown and I were debating Anthony buzzard and Joseph good during the break

I went out and my daughter was in the audience and So I said so how you think it's going and she says ah dad.

I feel sorry for the heretics and I'm like don't feel sorry for the heretics.

That's not that's not how you're supposed to feel well We almost we can almost feel sorry for Catholic apologists today because The spin and the contradictions and the headstands and the contortions that they are having to do to explain

Francis on on so many levels not just the the change on the death penalty thing and going against Centuries of what well not only centuries of recent centuries of Roman Catholic jurisprudence, but The fact that Rome's hands are soaked in blood and having used

Capital punishment for centuries yeah, I mean There is no debate or argument for example that a

Number of popes were just basic military leaders. That's all they were

I mean one of the things that Scandalized Luther when he went to Rome in 1510 was the sight of the

Pope Riding his horse through the streets of Rome in full armor

These these were violent men and You know you can I I know the excuse while it's actually the church didn't do it.

They don't the secular powers do that baloney We we all know without question

What the Roman Catholic Church did and utilization of the death penalty against heretics and other people for a very very very long time, so Even aside from all of that, then you've got what?

what the Pope did with the young boy in Assuring him that his father would be in heaven even though he was an atheist

Because he'd had his kids baptized yeah, that's enough to that's enough to get a person saved sure yeah

He's minimally inclusive as probably a universalist, I mean there's just there's just so many things you can point to and it's obvious, and it's plain and and you have to There's a part of you that wants to feel badly

Because you think back on on the confidence with which an earlier generation of Roman Catholic apologists made reference to the unity that they have because of the

Pope and and You know we you know we don't have all the divisions that you

Protestants have because all you've got is the Bible we have Christ Church and blah blah blah and now

Every Roman Catholic you talk to has their own understanding of Why we are wrong to think that Pope Francis is a refutation of their position

They're all just running around like and And so so part of you feels badly for him the other part goes no.

I'm not feeling badly at all I'm glad this is really obvious and just hope and pray that the Spirit of God will cause people to realize

Yeah, this is a this is this is a dead -end road. They're the Alleged doctrinal certainty and unity and all the rest that stuff.

It doesn't exist. It's not there And in fact, oh,

I don't think I saved that Or did I let me let me look here real quick Yeah Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,

I'm glad I remembered this let me just Rub rub salt in the wound here

That's what I'm doing right now. I'll confess May 29th 2015

Catholic answers Tim Staples good old Tim Tim Staples Here's how it starts years ago my wife and I were to fundraiser for a candidate who was then running for president

United States And I struck up a conversation with a Catholic attorney who does great work for various pro -life causes.

I'll call him John The conversation had hardly turned from small talk about family and children to pro -life matters when

John made the claim Anyone who is pro death penalty cannot make the claim to being pro -life

Because the two positions are oxidant Moronic oh boy, I thought here we go.

I point out to John what too many Catholics simply do not know the death penalty has always been and always will be

Upheld as a legitimate and potentially just punishment in Catholic tradition as well as in Scripture this teaching italics cannot italics change

Tim Staples Catholic answers May 29th 2015 well

I would imagine I didn't catch it. I'd imagine old Tim has already has already addressed this and Maybe not this particular article but it is amazing the number of Well, they're excuses they're being offered and so many of them are completely

Contradictory to one another but no, I've got there. No. No, this is the right way. There's it. No, this is the way No, this is the way to they're really unified

No, they're not But I run into that and just this teaching cannot change at least for another three and a half years

That's what happens when your ultimate authority is this nebulous undefined

Form it into whatever you want to look like thing called tradition Which you you can't tell us what it is no matter how

I've had Roman Catholic you want tradition look at the Catechism Well now it's not the Catechism That's must be something else.

Who knows I'm just thinking of how many conversations how many debates over the years?

If anyone knew what was going on right now and then watch those old debates go The entire

Roman Catholic position has been refuted by what the Pope has done. It's done. It's over with So they're coming up with with other other responses.

But yeah, that was that was that one. So anyway I Going back to Carlo Bussard's article from yesterday

You know, I just simply have to point out. Well, you know, this is this is the teaching now And in fact at one point he quotes from the

Catholic Catechism and I'm just sort of like that's what it says now boom Who knows who knows what the future may hold?

But and this again, this is why We've been yeah. Yeah, we've been we've been saying this all along and no, no, no, no that can't change.

Yes, it can Yes, it can Once once you make the Pope your final authority

Yes, it can change and you can you can stick your head in the in the sand all you want All you could do is get a mouthful of sand because it's not gonna change the reality of what's what's going on Around us

So anyway back to righteous or reckoned the Council of Trent taught that through BAP through baptism believers quote are made innocent immaculate pure harmless and beloved of God the

Catechism of the Catholic Church concurs currently Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification renewal of the interior man 1989

Yeah, you need to start putting those numbers in because you know, that's gonna be changing Down down the road now, but please notice something

Let's let's focus upon that particular that particular issue Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man, hopefully

If if you are a church history studying

Reformed person and we have a larger than normal percentage of our audience that would fit in that category

You immediately hear one of the key issues in the Reformation in that phrase

You read it again this is from the Catechism the Catholic Church justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man, so In Romanism Justification and sanctification are conflated

In the Bible, they are intimately connected and yet clearly distinguished so that failure to distinguish between justification and sanctification part of the one work of God Same foundation same spirit same purpose and Yet if you do not differentiate them, you will end up With all of the errors that Rome promulgates today in regards to the concept of the gospel justification

Whether it's by grace alone faith alone all that stuff right there in that one sentence by putting them together

There's the problem But Protestants argue that the Bible contradicts this idea of interior renewal.

No, we don't we deny that justification is the interior renewal

Fully confess that it is God's purpose to conform us the image of Jesus Christ fully confess that it is our desire as new

Believers in Christ that the Holy Spirit of God within us Places within us a desire for that interior renewal to live in godliness and to live in such a way that honors and glorifies

Christ and to do good works in the name of Christ because This is what we have been predestined unto according to Ephesians chapter 2 verse 10

But that is not the whole issue and the real issue that you have to deal with Of course is first of all making sure that the sounds turned off even though your phone's still charging

Not sure why the battery went down so fast. Anyway, sorry about that Specifically we need to see

That even by the way, this is put You know, it might be helpful for the guys the

Catholic answer is to do a little more interaction with people outside their their their circle

Because just to put it that way but Protestants argued the Bible contradicts this idea of interior renewal

No, we don't that that is a horrific misrepresentation of our position A view commonly referred to as metaphysical righteousness or ontological rights

Righteousness labels that signify how God's justifying grace transforms the soul and gives an objective holiness

That was not there before now again God does Conform us the image of Christ.

God is making us holy. However, and here's another one of the major differences between biblical teaching and Roman Catholic teaching

And that is the grounds of our acceptance before God is not our righteousness

But the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to us This is a fundamental difference and The the you could you could truly argue

I think properly that the entire Sacramental system can only exist

Because this error this soteriological error exists that is when you do what

Rome does and Basically say you go to heaven Because you are pleasing to God Because you yourself

God has infused grace into you. He's made you pleasing before you

That's why you before him. That's why you go to heaven That's why there's a place called purgatory for example because You may still be pleasing to God, but you have temporal punishments of sin upon your soul and so therefore there needs to be a place a a mechanism of cleansing before entering into the presence of God well again

That means that the basis of your entrance into God's presence is your own personal holiness

Your own righteousness and It is not the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

And So the very basis of your relationship to God is

Fundamentally different between classical Roman Catholic teaching and again when dealing with this type of stuff we're dealing with We're dealing with Roman Catholics who still believe that what the church teaches is true and unchanging

There are many Roman Catholics that Don't think any of this stuff is overly relevant anymore

And it's not difficult for us to go man in light of what the Pope said that little boy

What how relevant is most of this stuff? I mean If you can have an atheist who himself was never baptized was never put in a state of grace who from any historical perspective in Roman Catholic theology from Innocent the third to John Paul the second

Would have been seen as someone who was fundamentally In opposition to God and his purposes and therefore under God's wrath

Now all of a sudden if that person Can have eternal life solely based upon having superstitiously

Had his children baptized Everything's up in the air

The it's hard to even see how To keep all this together and call it one religious movement.

It's not This idea of unity not not there anyway

So he goes on to say For example Paul teaches in Romans 4 3 that when

Abram believed God it was reckoned to him as righteousness Paul then says in verse 5 and to one who does not work, but trust him who justifies the ungodly his faith is reckoned as Righteousness for Protestants these verses show that rather than God infusing righteousness into a person's soul

Making it righteous God merely always always catch this as part of the misrepresentation of Rome They very few

Roman Catholic apologists have any serious understanding especially of reform reform theology

But it's it's almost like they take special classes to to twist things as they represent things

It's it's been the way Catholic answers has done things from the days of Carl Keating and we've played this out literally for decades

I mean you can go online. We're Working on getting all the old old old stuff

Available In a better way through the search engine you go back to stuff.

We were writing a long time ago and We're documenting these kinds of errors on very same errors

Catholic answers just keeps making them over and over again They don't refute the refutation.

They just ignore the refutation So God merely reckons a person righteousness as a judge might legally declare the accused not guilty.

No, of course not That's not even close. I mean, I'm sorry Carlo. You're a really nice guy, but you are a horrific representative of other perspectives, it's just it's almost like you're on the

Dean show And and you're you're you're bringing on the people that just don't give the best presentations at all of the other side

It would really do you good to start doing some debates. It really would Find out what's really out there

God doesn't merely reckon a person righteousness. He imputes the righteousness of Jesus Christ to them

It is Christ's righteousness by which they stand before God He goes on it doesn't make the person truly innocent on the inside It merely puts him in right relationship with the law in the case of the sinner

Protestants argue God simply no longer holds the sinner condemned by the law There is a change in sinners relationship with God, but a chain but not a change in the sinner himself how you can even pretend

To try to represent the Protestant position here without even making reference to the righteousness of Christ I can't begin to understand

This is this is horrible just very surface level and and Does not show a meaningful understanding of the topic at all

And so having given this surface level shallow Representation he says what are we to make this

Protestant challenge? Here's a few ways that we can meet it. Well, let's see how Carlo meets a poorly represented challenge to begin with First just because the

Bible uses the language of God reckoning a person is righteous. It doesn't follow There is no ontological transformation a change in what the sinner is

There is no reason why God's declaration of our righteousness and our transformation by grace must be mutually exclusive.

The two can be harmonized well again if He had accurately

Represented the Protestant position and that is well the biblical position and that is that the

Righteousness that we're speaking of here. That is the believers possession is the righteousness of Christ That changes everything

We're talking about substitution. We're talking about our sins being imputed to the sin bearer

His perfect righteousness being imputed to us so now all this Sacramental Increase of the grace of righteousness and all the rest of stuff.

You're increasing Christ's righteousness. Is that you're making it better? What what are you talking about?

See, it wouldn't make any sense if they were actually responding to what it is that we're actually saying and what

Paul was actually arguing For example,

God says in Isaiah 55 11 that his words shall not return to him empty But it shall accomplish that which

I purpose and prosper in the thing for which I said it God's Word Brings about the effect that he declares his word to bring about this is manifest in God's declaration

Let us let there be light what his declaration signifies light is made actual Similar in the

Catholic view God reckons or declares us righteous with that declaration affects what the declaration signifies

Namely our objective metaphysical righteousness It makes us actually righteous just like his declaration for there to be light actually made light light actually exist

This is why we believe with st. Paul that anyone who's in Christ is a new creation. Ah, and here is

Where the problem comes in as soon as you go to 2nd

Corinthians chapter 5 the wheels fall off and that's why again Debating Carlo would be wonderful in the cross -examination period because we'd get to focus

Upon this but 2nd Corinthians chapter 5 is not where you want to go

Why is that well because he's going to try to get around the meaning of legitimae to reckon or to impute in the second

Challenge and well actually the very next very next paragraph actually And 2nd

Corinthians 5 is just simply one of the best places to go to demonstrate what the biblical teaching here is

Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation the oldest passed away behold the new has come and All these things are from God the one who's reconciled us to himself through Christ Jesus and given to us the ministry of Reconciliation specifically that God was by means of Christ, by the way, that's the

Best way of understanding that it's not a it's not a locative of space By means of Christ reconciling the world to himself not what?

Log it's ominous Not imputing or counting their trespasses against them

So this is a text that utilizes the term Legitimae and it does so in regards to reconciliation and sins

And That's the context that Paul is speaking of and as ministers reconciliation

They they beg you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God and then we have the great exchange passage now

Just just quickly. I I realize that some of you out there are real big N .T. Wright fans

N .T. Wright's a brilliant guy, but the problem is there are certain verses that N .T.

Wright has to read in an extremely unnatural fashion to shoehorn his doctrine of justification into Paul and This is one of them

He has to limit this to the Apostles and to the apostolic ministry This is much wider than N .T.

Wright's understanding of it The one not knowing sin in behalf of us he made sin in Order that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

Here is the great exchange Here is how sin is dealt with Here is the imputation the term used this is in the context reconciliation.

This is salvific text, etc, etc Here you have the description of Christ is the one not knowing sin and he is made sin

In our behalf there you have substitutionary atonement There you have the whole purpose of a people being in Christ He made him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf in order that We might be made the righteousness of God in him not that he by some divine fiat will just simply say be and we are and We are changed to something that is righteous and is therefore pleasing to God will go to heaven because we're pleasing to God No, there is an exchange here.

What what does it mean? That Christ was made sin.

Was there an ontological change? in the Son of God that actually turned him into sin or did the father deal with the son as a perfect substitute and Therefore reckon him

Like it's a my him as our substitute in our place

You see if you want to follow Broussard's argument here or the general Roman Catholic argument here, then

Christ must have been turned in ontologically Turned into something that was evil

There's some serious theological problems there because the other side is we might have made the righteous of God in him

And if you're trying to say what that means is we are changed That this is sanctification.

This is the Our being internally changed grace is infused into us.

Our soul is made pleasing to God Well, then evil must have been infused into Jesus and he must have been turned into something that was evil

But no one suggests that no one should suggest that and so when we look at the two sides here

What we understand then is that we are made the righteousness of God in him

Because our sins have been imputed to Christ. That's what Romans 4 is all about. So There you have the language from the text

All right going back to the article. Well, the Catholic view is correct is another question But at least the idea that God reckons us righteous is not mutually exclusive from God making us righteous

If he was presenting the Protestant position Which has as its central affirmation the imputation of the righteousness of Christ then

This entire article wouldn't have been written it is horribly deficient on that level and As such just misses the boat over and over again as such

Romans 4 3 through 5 poses no threat To the Catholic view of justification

You know when someone says and so that one over there doesn't really

That that doesn't that's not any problem for us. You might want to go look at it because it probably is and And it is let's let's see why for what does the scripture say?

Abraham believed God it was credited to him as righteousness Genesis 15 6 and then you have in verses 4 through 5 and By the way,

I know we've gone over this a thousand times before I've got a entire book written Wow almost a decade and a half ago now came out in 2004 the guy who justifies

That goes through this and we've done it in debates and I realize that but the audience is growing all the time

Thanks be to Lord and these are basic fundamental things And you know what the great confidence that I have is

That when I speak to Roman Catholics, I know that their gospel does not bring peace Now if For anybody a secularist a

Buddhist a Muslim, it doesn't matter If the Spirit of God is not bringing conviction of sin I'm talking to the wind but when that conviction comes

Then the same gospel message that we've been proclaiming all along is what the

Holy Spirit of God will use to bring peace to people and So we can just keep going back to these texts and we can keep explaining this and yeah

There's gonna be people to go. No, no, no, and they're they're satisfied in their self -righteousness and there's there's nothing you can do about that but for the others

There's nothing that the other side can do to keep them from seeing the beautiful truths of What the gospel is all about and that's why we're focusing upon these things

So what does it mean that scripture when the scripture says it was credited him as righteousness?

Well verse 4 now the one who works his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due so You don't necessarily see what's there

But when you put verses 4 & 5 in parallel to one another just write them out right underneath one another

They start off and identity with the identical words Except for one

To the working one verse 4 Ha misthos which means the wage is not lagidzitai reckoned same word we were talking about before is

Not reckoned katakaran according to grace as a gift but according to debt so if you work

With expectation of receiving something from God then what you get is not a

Gift it is not reckoned as grace it is instead

Something is owed to you. It is a debt. He's using standard terminology here.

I Mean these that you know misthos normal word for wages a file him a regular word for for what is owed to you

These are words that anyone Active in commerce or business or anything would have would have known about anybody who did trading right?

That's pretty much everybody back then. Yeah, I just even sell your little farm goods But verse 5 but to the not working one

So it's the exact same as beginning of verse 4 you put the word not in to the not working one, but believing

Upon the one justifying the ungodly his faith is lagidzitai

Reckoned imputed as righteousness and So there is a completely different Attitude that brings one righteousness and it's the non working one not the working one

Not the one doing things in expectation of receiving something But over against that the empty hand of faith that looks away from oneself looks to the sufficiency of God in Jesus Christ, it's that empty hand of faith that is the one that receives righteousness and then

Katha paired so just as and so this is this is his saying This isn't something new with just me

This is just as David speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom

God lagidzitai lagidzimai, it's reckoning imputing reckons or imputes righteousness

Chorus ergo without works apart from works

So this there's a blessing upon a man to whom God imputes righteousness outside of Works and that's not just Mosaic law

You know Rome tries to get around this problem today by saying well Well, all that means is apart from the

Mosaic law or anything like that That's not even what David's gonna say here in in the citation

But when he does cite this notice something I mean if you were a

Jewish apologist And it's interesting Rome frequently has to borrow Jewish apologetics at this point because they don't believe that they just simply are not teaching what

Paul Taught their tradition precludes them from being able to do so But if you were a

Jewish apologist you might go. Well, that's not Romans. That's not what Paul was talking about in Psalm 32 in our reckoning of of the

Psalter Because look look what it says blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven

Whose sins have been covered over? Blessed is the man To whom the

Lord will never it's umay. It's a strong Negation The Lord will never log is a tie future form of legitimate will not impute sin

Now was was Paul misinterpreting something here or can we see?

by his interpretation Something that's really important that Rome is missed notice

Paul's citing this as evidence of what he just said about David David spoke about what the blessing and that's the same term

Makaris Mon in verse 6 Makaroy verse 7 Makarios verse 8 so it's that's where the connection is the blessing upon the man to whom

God reckons righteousness apart from works

That's the positive aspect and then he gives as evidence of this

From the Psalter the negative aspect which is the forgiveness of sins the covering over of the forgiveness of lawless deeds and covering over of sins and then verse 8 then

You still have the same term like yes a tie and what it says is

Blesses a man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. So that's

One aspect that's the that's a In a sense a positive thing, but it's a non imputation fulfilling

Paul's interpretation that that is the positive affirmation of the positive imputation of Righteousness apart from separate from works of obedience chorus

Ergon because remember the whole issue of Ergon goes back to Abraham and he's gonna make the argument a little bit in just a few verses how was this righteousness imputed to Abraham before or after circumcision it's before and And so this has to be the

Genesis 15 incident because that takes place before the giving of the covenant of circumcision So is

Romans 4 4 through 5 and actually all the way through 8 Contradictory to the

Roman Catholic view of justification. Oh, it most definitely is it most definitely is Most definitely is going a lot longer in this than I expected to So I'm not did you did you?

Okay. Okay. I didn't know why you were wearing that. So oh Okay All right.

I want to I want to press on with this. I want to I want to provide a full response to this I hope you don't mind. This is sort of important gospel stuff

There are some other stuff. I want things I want to get to but we'll just see Only have a certain amount of time. I've got something.

I've got to record after the program today so I may have to put a few things off a A Second way to meet this challenge is to point out that the

Greek word for reckon like Idza My actually serves the Catholic view of justification

Okay, this is a real stretch now Paul was well aware of this term and used it quite frequently and when he did so I used it in the sense of making a mental evaluation or calculation about something having a certain quality and You can always tell

I'm sorry Carlos You can always tell when someone does not do much in the way of New Testament studies because Like Idza my does have a wide semantic domain.

It can be used in that particular sense But please don't try to tell me that that's what's being used in Romans 4 or 2nd

Corinthians chapter 5 Which we were just looking at the I This is such a

Transparent attempt to insert a completely different realm of usage into these texts where you have very

Specific language and you have specific groups being used together. Not only the

Dikaiot terms But you have sin and you have the noun form

Dikaiosune. You have righteousness. You have reconciliation All of these things and that's not the same thing as these more broad uses of legitimate, this is a very poor attempt to Empty a word of specific meaning by making reference to other places where it's used without that specific meaning

That'd be like pointing out that logos can mean a lot of different things and therefore John 1 1 can't really mean that the logos

Eternally existed in the very form of God So consider for example

Romans 4 8 Which is where we just were where Paul quotes Psalm 32 to blesses a man against whom the

Lord will not reckon Greek legitimize his sin David wrote these words in the context of having confessed his abominable sins of murder and adultery

For which he was forgiven. He writes in verse 5 the same Psalm. I acknowledged my sin to thee I did not hide my iniquity.

I said I will confess my transgressions of Lord Then thou didst forgive the guilt of my sin for David this is why

God didn't reckon his sin now Stop right there and Recognize once again, how often

Rome has to argue against Paul Rome has to argue against Paul Rome does not teach

Paul's doctrine of justification It can't as long as it remains faithful to Trent.

Like I said, I know a lot of leadership of the church This is irrelevant anymore. This this whole area of dialogue and debate is irrelevant anymore.

I Get it, but we still have to deal with folks like this which I'll deal with folks who take seriously

What for some reason they take seriously what? Rome has taught in the past even though the current leadership of Rome doesn't which in and of itself is

Confusing, but we just have to pray Um When Rome tries to get around Paul's teaching they always end up destroying

Paul's own arguments And I think I I think sometimes they're not even aware they're doing this

Because they don't think about what what Paul was arguing against. It's sort of like when

JWs Try to interpret Colossians chapter 1 the term prototokos there and Try to turn

Jesus into a creation. They don't realize that if that's what Paul had been saying then he was actually in agreement with the

Gnostics and not arguing against the Gnostics and so He'd be cutting

The ground out from underneath his own argument and they don't know that they're ignorant of that and so many

Roman Catholics I think not recognizing what the issues were with the Judaizers and things like that will end up coming up with ways of interpreting

Paul that Turn him into a self contradictory guy and that's

That's the problem what Paul is illustrating in Romans 4 8

Remember we looked at is interpreted for us by verse 6 and Verse well verse 6 tells us what the positive affirmation is and that is that God reckons righteousness apart from works

So all your sacramental Forgivenesses and all the rest that kind of stuff Paul says no

God the blessings upon a man to whom God reckons righteousness chorus ergo

Apart from works That's the point of Romans 4 7 through 8 now if you want if you want to go back to Psalm 32 and Say well later on it says this and therefore it must mean this up here

Who are you arguing against? You're arguing against Paul You're saying he misinterpreted

Psalm 32 had a guy on Twitter do that today You are arguing against the apostolic interpretation

In the name of alleged apostolic tradition, which tells you which one's really apostolic, huh?

It ain't the tradition So it is

Sad to hear people in their zeal Cutting the ground out from underneath Paul himself and It just strikes me that if if these individuals did broader

Exegetical work if they just if they responded to some other issues and things like that, they might start seeing, you know

Why the arguments I use over here don't seem to work over there. And and and you know, yeah, that's a that's a major problem

But God's forgiveness of David's sins was not merely a legal decorate Declaration without some existential effect on David the contrary

David describes God's forgiveness of his sins as being made clean and whiter than snow and herein lies the key to God no longer reckoning

David's sin the objective guilt those sins had been removed God's reckoning was an evaluation that correctly correspond to the objective reality of that which was being reckoned.

Well again if The origin and source of Carlos Broussard's exegesis was the text then a he'd have to keep remembering

We're talking about the righteousness of Christ availing and be you would have to have looked at Romans 4 6 and Reckoned that this is the

Imputation of Righteousness to a man apart from works

He's got he's basically having to turn it upside down because that's what happens when you conflate Sanctification and justification when you do not see what the differences between those are

Yeah, there's some real examples here of Carlos Broussard not knowing the language well and not knowing how to do linguistic studies

For example in Romans 8 18 Paul considers that our current sufferings are not worthy Comparing with our glory that's revealed in heaven.

There's a good example of legitimy being used in a very different semantic domain Very different utilization.

It's it has nothing to do with the Accounting use of legitimy because there is an accounting use of legitimy

But just because the terms used in accounting doesn't mean it's always being used in accounting and And look he's not the only one who does this

I can't tell you how many people how many times you run into strong exhaustive concordance word studies

Where as long as one meaning of the word is this you can cram it into ever every other verse

That's never been written that uses it. That's not how you do meaningful exegesis and Broussard's not doing meaningful exegesis here either

Paul's mental evaluation of her present sufferings compared to our glory in heaven matches the objective reality about the two

In Romans 9 8 Paul reckons Abraham's spiritual children as God's children Paul's evaluation about Abraham's spiritual children

Corresponds to what they really are God's children first Corinthians 4 1 is another example there Paul says a

Christian should regard Paul as a servant of Christ and as a steward of the mysteries of God But Paul really is a servant of Christ and a steward of mysteries

God thus his mental evaluation correspond with reality This is this is what you call massive filler to prove a point that actually isn't a point and is completely irrelevant

It happens a lot in in a lot of things Run out of time.

I'm sorry. Let me just jump to the bottom here So when we come to Romans 4 3 where God reckons Abraham is righteous It's reasonable to conclude in light the foregoing analysis that God Evaluates Abraham be righteous because in reality his faith truly has a righteous quality to it.

No, I thought hmm thus making Abraham ontologically righteous Huh?

All right to say God reckons Abraham is righteous even though he's not You either have to say God was wrong in his reckoning or that you're using the term reckon in a way that Paul does not

No Protestant wants to concede the first one of the element. I doubt that many want to concede the second So rather than undermining Catholic view of justification

God's reckoning of Abraham's righteousness in Romans 4 3 supports it. This is this is Really bad.

I mean again, I just point out Where is Rome ever infallible interpreted any of these verses so this is just Carlos Broussard's errant

Interpretation from their own perspective using their own epistemology at that point But secondly on any

Ground of study of semantic domains if Carlos was taking my Greek class. He gets to start over again.

He fails I mean, this is really bad This is not good good scholarship by any stretch of the imagination

To to try to Cram one meaning of legitimize into all these different contexts and say ah, well over here.

It means this is over money a common common error Caught within one day of being posted.

So maybe it'll get fixed. No, it won't be it's not gonna it's not gonna get fixed That's not gonna happen.

Anyways, I Honestly thought I was gonna get through that much much faster. I do not have any idea why in the world

I thought I would do that But like I said, I don't have a problem going long on programs

We've done that many many times for I have to record a class that we So the church history series and our microphone didn't work and we thought we had had it recorded

But we've never been able to get that so I need to rerecord Something so the church history series will be complete

So I've still got a fair amount of time this afternoon. I gotta get done So I'll just very briefly just mention one thing and we'll wrap up the top of the hour

I'm not sure how many people saw it. This has become so Every day

That That it's the sad, but did you see the

New York Times Frank Bruni thing from July 28th? I won't spend too much time on because there's one last thing

I want to do as well. But Frank Bruni is a homosexual and He hates

Donald Trump and he hates the vice president Mike Pence but his primary reason for hating

Mike Pence is because he hates Christianity and if you want to see just how perverse in thought a person can become

Just read this article There is a absolute detestation

Absolute detestation. I guess there's a book coming out called the shadow president the truth about Mike Pence the reality is that the vast majority of this hatred

Is well look at the Pence rule, how dare you do something like this terrible the irrationality of this and so you you put a

Christian man out there in the political realm and people are going to absolutely positively go insane and his the fact that he obviously is opposed to the murder of unborn children and That he is opposed to the profaning of marriage and that he is opposed to the profaning of human sexuality

These are all things that make him just one of the most evil men that could ever Walk the planet and Bruni does a very poor job in hiding his gross detestation gross

Detestation of everything that Pence stands for now again you go into the field of politics

Gets ugly in there gets ugly in there and I'm not saying Mike Pence has done everything perfectly but it's plain to me if you want us if you want an example of The hatred of the world the

This is this is one of the most amazing examples of it that I've seen talking about picking and choosing that there's nothing the man can do that could possibly be right and all you got to do is just context irrelevant irrelevant and I've been the victim of this type of thing not by a

Frank Bruni But by so many people so many times it eventually you start recognizing the patterns

It doesn't matter who's doing it when someone becomes absolutely unhinged in Their in their criticisms.

It's the whole issue of context just goes right out the door Well in the last couple minutes here

On Saturday I attended a Memorial every time

I go to North Phoenix Baptist Church these days and go to the Chapel there it's because someone else that I knew a long long time ago has passed away and in this case, we went to celebrate the life of Carol Grunewald and Carol I knew back at North Phoenix Baptist Church many many years ago

She took my Greek class the first time I offered it I think she came once and Said no not for me, but then the second time

I offered it she came and she stuck it out and I taught her

Greek and then she went over to Grand Canyon and Took Greek over there and she was the the one older lady amongst all the the young bucks and for many years my

Most my nicest Greek New Testament Blue still very smooth

Leather and that's the all in 27th edition and you know right right up front

June 1995 a gift from Carol Grunewald And it's ironic

That it is just going to be over the next couple of days. I hope that I will be replacing this as my best leather bound

Greek New Testament with the the glorious na28 That is coming from post tenebrous looks

Bible binding in fact, I got a I saw something come up I think I just got a note from them during the course of the show.

I haven't had a chance to look at it yet but it's ironic that 1995 so that was about almost quarter of a century this was

My go -to when I wanted to have and it's a beautiful large print and the new ones a large print as well

Still not as large as what I can get on my iPad. So I'll still be preaching primarily from from the iPad, but Carol just was

Known by so many her husband Miles has been involved in Coaching soccer

Just forever and has done tremendous amount of work amongst Immigrants and refugees and stuff like that.

And so there was quite a quite a crowd the place was filled up for her her memorial, but There there was a

Christian life well -lived and She will be greatly missed pray for pray for miles, of course

But I'll just just never forget. She was one of the few the few the proud that survived

Greek so long ago and then went over to Grand Canyon and took it for credit there and was obviously very proud of the work that she did and in that field, so we will miss

Carol and pray for miles and the children and others and So wanted to mention that and very thankful for for Carol Grunewald And all she meant to us so with that we are out of time

We need to wrap things up and so we'll get to the phone calls next time around and that'll be a