I don’t know who Dave Wade is, but he is very wise, in my humble 5-point Calvinist opinion. While I have certainly enjoyed the theological discussion on sister pages of this site, I also believe that we (all of us) sometimes get “so heavenly minded that we are no earthly good”. By that, I mean that the world is waiting for Christians to reach them with the love of Christ. All of of believe that we are to do this… whether the Catholic is doing it to receive meritorious grace or the Protestant is doing it in response to salvation grace. The good news is this, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall have eternal life.” We can all praise God for that! Let’s not keep it to ourselves!

Dan:

By canonical I mean that Paul’s epistles were the first published, i.e. the Gospels came later in time period than Paul’s epistles. Because of this I believe that for many Protestants Paul’s letters carry greater weight in interpretive priority than Jesus’ words in the Gospels. If one read Romans and Galatians in a vacuum the theory of justification as imputed only has prominence. However if one reads the New Testament as a whole the argument for imputed only justification is not as strong. For most Catholics the Sermon on the Mount carries greater weight (along with Matthew 25). Bonhoeffer refers to “cheap grace” in his book “The Cost of Discipleship.” IMO the risk of cheap grace is far greater in Calvinism than in Armenian or Catholic thought.

More briefly, and in the right order:

(1) I introduced the topic of personal opinions, the authority of the Church, and the Gospel. You responded that this is a slightly different kind of argument/topic than that pursued hitherto. Correct. Thanks for responding. It is no new thing for the Catholic Church to hold an ecumenical council to further define dogma in the wake of controversy. Your complaint (the Catholic Church anathematized my interpretation! Ergo, she is wrong) is not new either. But there is no equivalence (in authority) between doctrine defined by a Church council and doctrine held by a private opinion, even if that opinion is shared by other individuals. As for my own interpretations, I hope that they are at least not contrary to the doctrine of the Church. If any are shown to be so, I will immediately give them up. If it can be shown that the Catholic Church is not the Church that Christ founded, then I will submit my opinions to whatever ecclesial communion can be shown to be that Church. Of course, there are “churches” whose self-conception precludes submitting one’s personal opinions to the “church’s” judgment. Those would be Protestant churches, and that is yet another slightly different topic.

(2) Adding “due use of means of restoration” does not affect my argument. Add it. The need for restoration on occasion of sin is a part of the law written on the heart, and this includes whatever means whereby Gentiles, apart from the Mosaic law, were restored to God’s grace, e.g., perfect contrition/repentance.

(3) Your remarks on circumcision miss the significance of Paul’s reference to this rite, e.g., in 3.1 ff., which is that although this and similar laws served to distinguish the Jews over and above the Gentiles, the former are not thereby justified, since they have broken the law, including the moral law. So you see that I have not limited Paul’s discussion to the ceremonial/dietary works, but I have indicated how those kinds of works “work” in his overall argument.

(4) Doing the law as in circumcision of the heart: Abraham’s faith was the action of a circumcised heart, which obeys the law. See the OT references in my last (Jer 31, Ez 36). This obedience of faith (cf. Rom 1.5, 16.26) is what is reckoned to him as righteousness. Thus, perseverance in doing good is not to be opposed to the obedience of faith, and the latter does in fact include love for God and neighbor. These are not “distinct states/activities of the mind/soul.” Agape inheres in obedient faith, and agape fulfills the whole law. God’s promises to Abram included blessings upon posterity, in fact, blessings upon all nations. Abram’s “trust in God’s promises” included an incipient form of “obedience to the moral law” respecting love (i.e., Abram, in believing, intended to be a blessing to all people, as God promised).

(5) Christ’s works wrought in us: This follows from John 14.12 and our mystical union with Christ in baptism (Romans 6), such that we are baptized with the baptism (of self-sacrificial death) with which he was baptized. It is Christ who lives in us, and the life we live is lived by means of the faithfulness (obedience) of the Son of God. I don’t think that this is incoherent, though it is mystical.

(6) The correlation between 2.14-16 and 27-29) is that those Gentiles with a circumcised heart are supernaturally enabled to keep the law written on the heart. See again Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36. This is why, contrary to your assertions, there will actually be people justified by works, as Paul indicates in Romans 2. But to be justified by works is not a distinctly Jewish possibility, nor does this happen as (some of) his Jewish contemporaries apparently imagined, as St. Paul argues in Romans 3–4.

Your reason for believing that the Council of Trent is incompatible with Scripture is that, in your opinion, Romans 2:6-13 “sets forth a condition for justification,” and Rom 3:20 teaches that no one will meet that condition. But, in your opinion, the Council of Trent teaches that some persons will meet that condition. Therefore, in your opinion, the Council of Trent contradicts Romans 3:20.

But that is mistaken in two ways: first, in assuming that Rom 2:6-13 is setting forth a hypothetical condition for justification, and second, in assuming that Rom 3:20 is talking about that [hypothetical] condition. Romans 2:6-13 is talking about the basis on which God judges at the Final Judgment, when God separates all human beings into those receiving eternal life, and those receiving wrath and fury. The basis for that judgment will be the deeds everyone has done. According to St. Paul, God’s judgment regarding whether a person receives eternal life or receive wrath and fury is not arbitrary. Rather, God will render to every man according to his works. (Rom 2:6) Only those who are doers of the law will be justified. (Rom 2:13) Gentiles who don’t have the Law of Moses, but who follow the law written in their conscience, shame those Jews who have the Mosaic Law but don’t keep it. This is not a hypothetical condition for justification. This is the actual basis on which God will judge all men on that Day.

So, to claim that Rom 3:20 is saying that no one will meet that condition, would entail that no one goes to heaven. But that’s not what St. Paul is saying in Rom 3:20. In Rom 3:20 he is making clear what the law cannot do, apart from grace. And St. Paul is saying that law, apart from grace, cannot justify anyone, because without grace we do not have faith, hope, and agape. He goes on later (Rom 10:3) to explain that certain Jews were ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God (i.e. faith, hope and agape through grace), and sought to establish their own righteousness, through the Law, apart from Christ. But those persons who are doers of the law (Rom 2:13), and who receive the reward of eternal life for their endurance in well-doing, (Rom 2:7), do so only by grace, faith, and agape. That’s what St. Paul is going on to say in Rom 3:21ff. And that is fully compatible with Trent.

One of your other claims is that [initial] justification is the verdict of Judgment Day, announced ahead of time. That claim presupposes that justification cannot be lost. But a person is only justified so long as he is in a state of grace, having agape. No one who does not love [agape] God, is in a state of friendship with God. But to be justified is to be right with God. And therefore no one who does not love God, is justified. But a person who loves God, and is thus justified, but who then ceases to love God, ceases to be justified. And since love by its very nature is free, not forced, we can freely choose not to love God, and thus lose justification. There are many passages of Scripture to which I could refer to support this. St. Augustine writes:

“If, however, being already regenerate and justified, he relapses of his own will into an evil life, assuredly he cannot say, ‘I have not received [grace],’ because of his own free choice he has lost the grace of God, that he had received.” (On Rebuke and Grace, chpt. 6:9)

We can find the same teaching clearly in the New Testament. Jesus tells us:

“Anyone who does not remain in Me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned.” (John 15:6)

Why is Jesus wasting our time talking about impossible hypotheticals?

St. Paul says:

“On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that your brethren. Or do you not know that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

In this context, he is talking to believers about them wronging each other, even to the point of taking each other to court. His statement would make no sense if it had no applicability to the Corinthian believers’ wronging to each other. His exhortation to them to stop wronging each other, by reminding them of the destiny of those who commit [mortal] sin, presupposes that they too could, by their wrongdoing, lose their possession of the kingdom of God. That is, they shall not enter into heaven.

A few chapters later he says:

“But I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.” (1 Cor 9:27)

What would he be disqualified from receiving? The “imperishable” prize of eternal life, i.e. salvation. (verse 25) He then goes on in chapter 10 to talk about the Israelites who were ‘baptized’ in the cloud, but then disobeyed God in the desert, and perished under God’s displeasure. They were idolaters (remember, idolaters cannot inherit the kingdom of God). Idolatry is a mortal sin. They were immoral and God killed 23,000 of them in one day. Others for their disobedience were destroyed by serpents. Then he says:

“Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” (1 Cor 10:12)

The fall that he is talking about is falling from grace. The very warning would make no sense unless St. Paul believed it is truly possible to fall, just as did those Israelites. If we couldn’t lose our salvation, then instead of warning them about taking heed lest they fall, he would be enjoining them not to worry, since they could not possibly fall.

And in his letter to the Galatians he says:

“You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.” (Gal 5:4)

That verse makes no sense if it is impossible to be severed from Christ and to fall from grace. Again in Galatians St. Paul tells us:

“Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Gal 5:18-21)

Notice the warning. He is speaking to Christians. If Christians cannot lose their salvation, then there could be no warning about not inheriting the kingdom of God. It would make no sense. The warning is an actual warning, because it is truly possible (through committing the mortal sins he lists there) to lose one’s salvation, be cut off from Christ, and not inherit the kingdom of God. He gives these lists of mortal sins frequently: (Rom 1:28-32; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Eph 5:3-5; Col 3:5-8; 1 Tim 1:9-10; 2 Tim 3:2-5).

And in the book of Hebrews we find the same doctrine about the real possibility of losing one’s salvation.

“For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt (Heb 6:4-6).

These enlightened persons have tasted the heavenly gift and become partakers of the Holy Spirit (through baptism, which was early in the Fathers called the sacrament of illumination/enlightenment), and then they reject Christ. But it would be impossible for them to fall away if they were never regenerated (and hence justified) in the first place. And yet they do fall away — the warning is not merely hypothetical. Such persons cannot be restored to repentance by baptism, because in baptism we are crucified with Christ (Rom 6), and Christ died only once. The impossibility to which he refers is a qualified one; they can be restored, but only by the sacrament of penance, involving some suffering or sacrifice, not by baptism.

Later in Hebrews the author writes about the apostasy of Christians in chapter 10:

For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb 10:26-31).

The writer speaking as a Christian to Christians, says that if “we” sin deliberately [he's speaking of mortal sin] after receiving the knowledge of the truth, we face the fearful prospect of judgment and a fury of fire. How do we know he is talking about justified people? Because he explicitly says that a man who “was sanctified” by “the blood of the covenant,” who then profanes this blood and outrages the Spirit of grace, will deserve much worse punishment than those (Israelites) who violated the law of Moses and died without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. Then he says that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Under what condition is it fearful? Under this condition: when we who are sanctified by the blood of Christ, then sin deliberately [i.e. commit mortal sin]. Such a person forfeits all the benefits of the grace of the New Covenant, and, if he dies in that condition, is punished in the eternal fires of Hell. That’s something to fear. The Christian is not told not to fear this possibility because he can never lose his salvation. Rather, the warning (about falling into the “fury of fire” [i.e. Hell]) is precisely to Christians. The warning implies the real possibility of Christians losing their salvation.

And the Apostle John says:

“If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.” (1 Jn 5:16-17, RSV).

The idea of mortal sin means a sin that brings death (i.e. loss of eternal life). He is not talking about unbelievers who have never been unregenerated. He’s talking about believers who commit venial sins. But, he makes the distinction between mortal and venial sins, and implies that someone who has fallen into mortal sin is in very different condition than someone who has fallen into venial sin. The person who has fallen into venial sin can be restored by the prayer of a brother. But the person who has fallen into mortal sin has fallen from grace, and so cannot be restored except by the Church (i.e. by the bishop or priest), through the sacrament of penance. The prayer of a brother is not sufficient to restore the one who has fallen into mortal sin — he must go to confession.

All that to say, there is good reason to believe, from Scripture, that we can lose our justification. Now back to your claim that [initial] justification is the verdict of Judgment Day announced ahead of time. Scripture nowhere teaches that [initial] justification is the verdict of Judgment Day announced ahead of time. The righteousness we receive at our initial justification is the righteousness with which we will be found on that Day only if we persevere in faith and agape to death. Only those who persevere in faith and love to death, are justified on that Day. But no one can know now that he will persevere in faith and love to the moment of his death. So no one can know now whether the righteousness he has received at his [initial] justification will be found in him on that Day.

In addition, the notion that [initial] justification is the verdict of Judgment Day announced ahead of time, would make the Final Judgment superfluous. It would in that respect be like the heresy of those who deny the Final Judgment, or those who presumptuously assume that they are elect-to-glory. That heresy was condemned at Trent (cf. Trent 6.12).

You mentioned Romans 8:30 as your reason for thinking that justification cannot be lost. But Rom 8:30 does not say that everyone who is justified is glorified. Romans 8:30 reads:

And those whom He predestined these also He called; and those whom He called these also He justified; and those whom He justified, these also He glorified.” [οὓς δὲ προώρισεν, τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν: καὶ οὓς ἐκάλεσεν, τούτους καὶ ἐδικαίωσεν: οὓς δὲ ἐδικαίωσεν, τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν.]

This verse is commonly misinterpreted as saying that only those who are predestined are called, and everyone who is called is justified, and everyone who is justified is glorified. But we know, for example, that many are called but few are chosen. (Mt 22:14) St. Paul is not delimiting the members of each stage according to the first or last stage. He is describing how God gets persons from the stage of predestination to the stage of glory. But it does not mean that everyone who is at one time justified necessarily will be glorified. The standard conditions apply, which he has already given in Rom 8:17 “if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him.” To be glorified requires suffering with Him, through faithfulness unto death.

Another objection you raise is that justification by faith leaves no room for meriting eternal life. You write:

Accordingly, one is promised eternal life in justification by faith and any additional meriting of eternal life through increase in one’s inherent righteousness would be superfluous (with respect to acquiring eternal life rather than wrath). … In other words, the basis or ground on which God gives one eternal life rather than wrath at the eschaton is already completely intact, in its entirety, with no room for increase or improvement, in one’s being justified by faith. This does not mean that increase in inherent righteousness is not necessary for salvation (it is and Paul says it is), but it means that no such increase can contribute to the basis that merits eternal life; or in other words to the ultimate ground upon which eternal life is bestowed.

In fact, our justification by faith, does not remove the possibility of our also, while in a state of grace, meriting eternal life. Here’s why. At our baptism (i.e. initial justification), we don’t receive a “promise of eternal life”; we receive that which is promised, namely, a participation in God who is Eternal Life. That’s what grace is, participation in the divine nature. That grace was merited for us by Christ’s Passion. At our baptism, we receive grace (i.e. this participation in the life of God), and are 100% justified, as I explained in comment #37:

Justification is not temporally extended the way the filling of a glass is temporally extended. The translation from mortal sin to having sanctifying grace is both instantaneous and complete. In that instant, at baptism (or reconciliation) we don’t become, say 40% justified, or 80% justified. We are 100% justified, instantly, because having sanctifying grace is a binary condition: either a person has it, or he does not have it. So [initial] justification is not temporally extended. We grow in our participation in the life of God not by moving from say, 50% justified to 100% justified, but by growing in our capacity to participate in the life of God, like expanding an already full cup such that its subsequent 100% is greater in content than its prior 100%.

Once we are in a state of grace, we can grow in grace, and thereby come to a greater participation in the divine nature, and a greater love for God. And we are granted the gift of being allowed to participate in our own growth in grace, through our good deeds, through prayer, and through our reception of the sacraments. An act done out of love for God, merits an increase in that love. In #77 I wrote:

The fruit or benefit or reward of our sanctification, is eternal life. So insofar as we, by our obedience to righteousness, grow in sanctification, and thus grow in righteousness (and justification), by growing in our participation in the life of God (i.e. growing in grace), we merit the eternal life that has already been given to us as a gift in Christ Jesus.

Even one act of love for God, done in a state of grace, merits eternal life. That’s because an act of love for God, by one in a state of grace, merits reciprocation of that friendship from God, who by His Covenant of grace never fails to give a greater share of Himself to those who give themselves to Him. “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.” (James 4:8) You can’t outlove, or outgive, God. But when God gives Himself to us, He is giving eternal Life, because God is eternal Life (not to be confused with everlasting existence). And in that way, there is a congruous merit of eternal life, as God graciously grants to us the privilege of participating in being found worthy of eternal Life.

As I explained previously, the rewards we receive for our good deeds done in a state of grace and agape, are not creatures. But whatever is not a creature, is God. Therefore, our rewards for our good deeds, are greater participations in God Himself. But a greater participation in God Himself is a greater participation in eternal Life. Hence, in that respect, even though a baby who dies the moment after his baptism receives eternal Life, and does not merit that eternal Life, yet we who have the opportunity in this life to do good works out of agape are thereby granted the privilege of meriting eternal Life, even though by grace alone we are already heirs of eternal Life.

And that’s how we understand Romans 2:6-13. St. Paul’s not endorsing Pelagianism there. (That would be one misreading.) Nor is he talking about some impossible hypothetical. (That would be the contrary misreading.) When he is talking about those who by patience in well-doing are seeking glory, he is talking about persons in a state of grace, participating in their own justification by their good deeds (done in agape), by which God will give them the reward of eternal life. (Rom 2:7) That’s why he says later, “He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us” (Rom 8:4). By the grace merited for us through Christ’s Passion, the requirements of the law are fulfilled in us, not just outside of us. That’s why Christ the Judge can rightly say on that Day, based on our deeds, that we have fulfilled the requirements of the Law.

You wrote:

As I understand the Catholic view one can be “justified” by faith, die, face purgatory, and then receive “final justification.” The distinctness of the two “justifications” (in reality not merely name) is manifest by the difference in what they are based on. The “initial justification” cannot be the “final justification” announced ahead of time, since the “final justification” will take into account something that does not even exist at the time of the “initial justification”

That is correct. It will take into account what was present at our baptism, but it will also take into account what did not even exist at the time of our baptism, namely all that we think, say, and do, between the time of our baptism and the moment of our death.

You wrote:

So, the claim is that (1) Rom. 3.20 concerns a tribunal on the last day, and says that no flesh will be justified in God’s sight (judged righteous by God and thereby granted eternal life) on the basis of one’s own obedience to God’s law for human conduct

That’s partially correct, but it is missing a crucial qualification, because it leaves out the critical role of grace, and thus faith, hope and agape. In Rom 3:20 St. Paul is talking about works of the law done without grace, faith, hope, and agape. He is saying that such works of the law (done by those not in a state of grace), cannot justify any man. The law as such, is powerless to justify anyone. It only shows us our sin, it does not have the power to remove it. We cannot be made righteous (i.e. have our sin removed, and be restored to friendship with God) before God, without grace. In Rom 3:20, he is not talking about works of the law done in a state of grace. (The person in a state of grace is already justified, which shows that such persons are not being referred to here.)

By the sanctifying grace we receive at baptism, we are immediately made righteous inherently. That’s because we immediately have agape poured out into our heart by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5), and whoever has agape is justified, as I explained above. God sees the justified person as that person truly is, i.e. truly having agape in his heart, and so the declaration of righteousness (or ‘counting’ as righteous) is a veridical statement by God, based on the actual inherent state of that person. That grace was merited by Christ on the cross, but that grace and agape actually is present in the soul of the person, and that is why he is rightly (truly) said to be justified, not by a nominalistic legal fiction, where God says the person is righteousness, even though the person still hates God.

As for your appeal to Newman, you quote something he wrote in 1838, but he didn’t become Catholic until 1845. In the quotation you cite he says, “justification is counting righteous, not making [righteous].” That is true when the word ‘justification’ is used as something men do. But the word is not limited in that way, when it is used to refer to something God does. God, who is Truth, only counts righteous what in fact is righteous. And so God justifies the ungodly by making them righteous.

You seem to think that the preposition “in His sight” in Rom 3:20 either entails or is evidence for a nominalistic conception of justification. I think it is exactly the other way around. God is never deceived. He is Truth, and only and always sees truly. He never speaks contrary to fact. If someone is justified in His sight, that entails that that person is in fact righteous, even if from the point of view of men and angels that person seems not to be righteous. Let God be true and every man a liar. “In His sight” means essentially in Truth, for God who is Truth, sees all. That’s why the legal fiction, snow-covered dung-heap, simul justus et peccator, extra nos way of conceiving of justification is just another way of saying that God does not always speak the truth, that sometimes God’s speech and God’s sight do not correspond to the way reality is. And in my opinion, that’s another way of saying that God isn’t God. (See Parable for philosophers.)

Of course God’s sight does not make a person righteous. But no one is claiming that God’s sight makes a person righteous. You say:

On your gloss of the verse here you have shifted away from “in His sight” to “where God sees”; from the perspective or subject of the seeing to the object of the seeing. But the verse does not say that no flesh will be justified in the heart or where God sees but that no flesh will be justified in God’s seeing/sight.

Only a person who thinks that God is not Truth, and thus that God can be deceived, would claim that there could be a difference between being truly justified where God sees, and being justified only in God’s sight (but not in fact righteous in one’s heart).

But as I’ve pointed out, unlike finding/judging one to be righteous, making one (inherently) righteous is not something that happens in anyone’s sight.

Everything that happens, happens in God’s sight, from whom nothing is hidden. As the writer of Hebrews (possibly St. Paul) says:

And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. (Heb 4:13)

Therefore, if x happens, x happens in God’s sight. Hence, if someone is made righteous, he or she is made righteous in God’s sight. If you deny that, you are denying God’s omniscience, which is basically a denial that God exists. You then note:

I do see a conceivable way to maintain the “making righteous” interpretation despite the prepositional phrase “in His sight”, namely, taking the ‘in His sight’ to not modify the “being justified” but rather as describing a context in which the “being justified” takes place (or does not take place; I’m bracketing the negation operating in 3.20a). On this interpretation, the “being justified” does not happen in His sight per se, but rather, the “being justified” just happens, and, incidentally, the justification-event is also in God’s sight; that is, He sees it happen. Although conceivable, this is an implausible interpretation because it seems to make the prepositional phrase incidental or irrelevant.

I’m not sure what to say to someone who thinks that God’s point of view regarding x is incidental or irrelevant, except to go back and think about what you just said. The whole point of life is to hear those words at the Judgment, from Him who is Truth and from whom alone absolutely nothing is hid: “Well done, good and faithful servant.” The whole point of life is to be found righteous in His sight on that Day. Being found righteous in His sight on that Day is the whole point of Romans 2. “In His sight” is another way of saying “as things really are” or “as things will be shown to be, on that Day.” If we are justified in the eyes of men and angels, but not in the eyes of God, it is worthless. The only thing that matters is that we are justified in His sight, i.e. in Truth, because it is to Him that we must all give an account of all that what we have done in the body, whether good or evil. That is neither incidental nor irrelevant to what St. Paul is saying here; it is at the very heart of what he is saying. It is the very heart of the gospel of Christ.

You say:

So you seem to be saying that by “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight” simultaneously means both “by the works of the Law no flesh will be made righteous in His sight” and “by the works of the Law no flesh will be found righteous in His sight,” and the sentence construed in the first way provides the basis for the truth of the sentence construed in the second way. There is absolutely no reason to believe such a thing. It would be the height of confusing and cryptic communication for Paul to utter a sentence and, without telling us, intend to express two different propositions thereby; and further, to express two different propositions such that the reason for one of them is located in the other.

No one can be found righteous in His sight, who is not first made to be righteous in His sight. The reason why by the works of the Law (done not in a state of grace) no one will be found righteous in His sight on that Day, is given in the second part of the sentence, “since through the law comes the knowledge of sin.” Here we understand St. Paul to be saying that the Law by itself cannot make a person righteous in God’s sight on that Day or any day, even if it can make a person righteous in the eyes of men (i.e. seemingly righteous, but not truly righteous). The Law, in itself, says, St. Paul, can only give us the knowledge of sin. The Law is powerless to transform us from a state of enmity with God to a state of friendship with God. That’s not confusing or cryptic at all, if you have the Tradition as a guide. The Law is not grace. And man can be saved only by grace.

You write:

It is true that doing the law outside a state of grace will not put one in a state of grace, will not make one righteous; but that’s not Paul’s explanation for his claim in 3.20a. He doesn’t need an explanation like that; because he’s already established in the passage that in God’s sight no one is righteous, not even one.

In God’s sight some people are righteous; we see in the Old Testament men found by God to be righteous. (e.g. Gen 6:9) We see this in the New Testament as well (e.g. Matt 1:19). What St. Paul means in Rom 3:10 is that apart from grace, no one is righteous; he is not saying that even those in grace remain unrighteous. He is saying that everyone is born into sin, even those born under the Law. They are all under sin, and remain that way unless they receive grace.

On my view of Paul’s argument in Rom. 3 it is precisely because all flesh is sinful (really, not in name only or nominally) that they will not be found righteous by works of the law.

It is not just because of man’s sinfulness; it is also because of the nature of law. Law, by its very nature, doesn’t have the power in itself to make persons who are in a state of enmity with God, to be in a state of friendship with God. If law had that power, then by the works of the law, sinful men could be made righteous and pleasing in His sight. This is why St. Paul goes on later in the epistle to talk about the weakness of the law. (Rom 8:3) This is why Christ had to come. We could not be justified by Law, but by the Law only made more aware of our sin, and thus of our need for grace.

there is no reason to take Paul as simultaneously talking about a different subject; namely, persons’ being made righteous in the present.

The Final justification is tied up with our present justification, because we cannot be found righteous at the Judgment without being made righteous here. So the two are inextricably linked. There would be no reason to bring in Law, if St Paul were speaking only of the future, and not also of the present, because there is no opportunity for Law-keeping on that Day. On that Day, we will be judged according to what we do now in this present life. Times are in that way brought together at the Judgment.

So, evidence for a “find righteous” interpretation, such as I provided in the last post (e.g., the judicial context), is evidence against a “make righteous” interpretation

That’s a non sequitur, based on a false assumption that it must be either/or. One cannot be found righteous who has not been made righteous. And the question Rom 3:20 is answering is whether the Law (apart from grace) can make a person righteous, such that they receive eternal life on that Day, and the answer is no. By the Law, apart from grace, no one will be found righteous in His sight, because by the Law, apart from grace, no one will be made righteous.

You wrote:

For, in the judicial context the phrase [in His sight] would seem to clearly refer to God’s sight at the divine tribunal where he sits as judge. But if the “make righteous” interpretation of ‘justify’ leads one to interpret the sentence such that it is about the present, not the future and the judgment on the day of wrath, then “in His sight” on this interpretation cannot refer to God’s sight at the tribunal of the day of wrath.

This is another false either/or. God is eternal. That doesn’t mean everlasting. It means, as Boethius points out, the simultaneously-whole and perfect possession of interminable life (Consol. V) God’s sight on the Day of Judgment includes everything, including His sight of the present. Who we are, as we stand before God on the Day of Judgment, includes every moment of our existence. As St John writes, “for their deeds follow with them.” (Rev 14:13) God’s sight is not limited to either the present moment or the future, but includes all moments.

If one can establish from an uncontroversial case (or at least a less controversial case) that the word is used by Paul to mean “make righteous,” then one establishes some reason to take that interpretation as a viable interpretation in other cases where Paul uses ‘justify’ (such as in Rom. 3 or 4 or 5 or 8 etc.). But I don’t think this can be done. Paul doesn’t use ‘justify’ this way, which is not surprising, since the Bible as a whole doesn’t use it that way either. That’s not what the word means in Scripture (nor, for that matter, in contemporary English).

This paragraph simply begs the question. There are a number of places where St. Paul is using justify or justification to mean “make righteous” or having been made righteous. Just in Romans see 3:24, 26, 28, 30, 4:2, 5, 5:1, 9, 16, 17, 19, 8:30, 10:10. See also my post titled “The Tradition and The Lexicon,” where I talk about the presuppositions implicit in a lexical approach to Scripture.

The reason you give, that you claim is indicated in 3.20b, is that “the Law does not have the power to make flesh righteous.” I agree that the Law does not have the power to make flesh righteous, but this is not what 3.20b says, not the reason confirming what is said in 3.20a. The confirming reason is that through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

It is implicit in Rom 3:20b. The idea is that the Law, in itself, has only the ability to give us the knowledge of sin, not the will by which sin is overcome. That requires grace and agape.

Again, the inability for the Law to make anyone righteous is only a problem because, antecedently, people are unrighteous. If people were already righteous, the inability of the Law to make them righteous would be irrelevant.

I don’t disagree with this; it is fully compatible with what I said.

Hence, the confirmation of 3.20a by 3.20b works this way: the Law reveals (provides knowledge) that all flesh is sinful, not righteous; and therefore, since only the righteous will be found righteous, no flesh will be found righteous (justified) by works of the Law in His sight.

Notice that that would be a non sequitur if the Law had the power to make men righteous. Therefore this idea that the only thing being said about the Law is that it provides the knowledge of sin is not sufficient to make the argument work. It must also be true (even if implicit) that the Law is incapable of making men righteous.

There is nothing unsatisfactory with a merely human righteousness!

It may not be unsatisfactory to you, but it is insufficient to merit eternal life (which isn’t the same as everlasting existence). That’s one form of the Pelagian error, that if man never sinned, then without grace, he could merit eternal life.

This distinction between the “love” commanded by the law and the “love” (agape, which is a Greek word for love) poured into our hearts is illegitimate.

I’m not sure what law you think is violated by the distinction. But it is an actual distinction, even if you don’t think it is legitimate. The love for God required by the Law of Moses goes beyond the natural love for God required by the natural law. Supernatural love for God is required of all those to whom grace is offered. Salvation for the Jews (and those from the time of Adam) was always only by faith; it was always a righteousness from above. It was never by graceless works, or by merely natural love. It was always by grace. But the works of the Law St. Paul is referring to in Rom 3:20 are graceless works, works done not in faith, but to establish a righteousness of their own (Rom 10:3), not the righteousness from above that was always only on the condition of faith.

If one did the works of the Law in God’s sight that would lead to justification (2.6, 13).

If you are saying that if man did the works of the Law, without grace, He would be justified, that’s Pelagianism. It is impossible to know God as Father, hope for the Beatific Vision, or love God with agape, without grace. Heaven is a supernatural end, which cannot be attained by our natural powers alone. Justification is not merely being innocent of sin; it includes also friendship with God as Father. A person who only knew God as Creator, and not as Father, would not thereby have sinned, where grace had not been offered (and thus not been rejected). But that person wouldn’t have friendship with God as Father. So a person (hypothetically, not in the present dispensation of grace) could be free of sin, and yet not have friendship with God, knowing God only as Creator, not as Father.

Justification by faith does not begin a process culminating in justification by works of the Law; rather, Paul has claimed that there will be no justification by works of the law on the day of wrath, and justification by faith fills this gap, providing an alternative righteousness unto justification unto eternal life.

This is question-begging. Justification by faith does begin a process of growing in grace through many works of love, by which one participates more fully in the divine nature, and by which one merits to receive, on that Day, the eternal Life God gives to those who, by patience in well-doing, seek for glory and honor and immortality. Christ’s work does not obliterate our opportunity to merit anything but trinkets. Rather, Christ’s work raises us to be able to merit a greater participation in the divine nature, that is, eternal Life itself. What Christ does for us, in giving us eternal Life, does not replace but restores to us the gift of being able to participate in attaining eternal Life. Otherwise, there would be no point to this earthly life, once a person had come to faith. St. Paul’s statement in Rom 3:20, as I have pointed out before, is much more nuanced than you seem to realize. He is not talking about persons in a state of grace. He is talking about persons who do not have grace, faith, hope and agape. That’s why what he says in Rom 3:20 in no way applies to Trent 6.10 and 6.16, and therefore is not incompatible with Trent 6.10 and 6.16.

I am claiming that the kind of works of the Law Paul has in mind are the kind of works such that if they were done they would result in justification for the doer;

The interesting thing here is that your hermeneutical approach to Rom 3:20, by which you object to Trent 6.16, presupposes Pelagianism. The only kind of works that would result in justification (i.e. increase in justification, and final justification) for the doer, are those done by a person already justified. No works, done without grace, could possibly result in justification. You think the problem is that man can’t do it. While it is true that [fallen] man can’t do it, that’s not the fundamental problem. Even if man who had no grace, could keep all the commands, he wouldn’t have faith, hope, and agape (these are supernatural gifts), and therefore he would only have human righteousness, not God’s righteousness. And he would not be justified, even though he would be innocent.

Same with the angels. If God had not given the angels grace, then their righteousness would have been merely angelic righteousness, not God’s righteousness. But those angels who, in a state of grace, obeyed God in love, merited the Beatific Vision. They have the righteousness of God, not merely angelic righteousness.

Works in love are obviously the kind of works in view in Rom. 2.6-13 and Paul doesn’t change the subject in 3.9-20

Careful, that’s way too fast. In Rom 2:6-13 those who by perseverance in well-doing are seeking eternal life, are doing works in love. But those who are storing up wrath and are factious and do not obey the truth but obey wickedness (Rom 2:5,8), are not doing works in love. So the “subject” in Rom 2:6-13 is not as simple as “works in love.” Rather, in Rom 2, St. Paul is contrasting those who do works in love, and those who do certain external works but without love. And it is those people, who follow certain [external] aspects of the law but without grace, without faith, and without agape, that St. Paul continues to talk about in Romans 3.

Those who have and walk by Christ’s Spirit (Rom. 8.1f.) are not walking in it in order to merit eternal life and a “final justification”. Rather, those who walk by the Spirit already have been justified (5.1, 5; 8.1-2) and thereby granted eternal life and saved from God’s wrath on the day of wrath

Here again you are assuming an either/or, namely, that if we are justified by the grace merited by Christ, and thereby become heirs of eternal life, then there is no room or space for us also to merit what we already have. But that’s just not true, for the reasons I have already explained. When we are justified by the grace merited by Christ, and thereby truly become heirs of eternal life, this does not thereby make it impossible for us then to merit eternal life. We can then, as a gracious gift, merit the inheritance to which we have already been made heirs by grace. Being able to participate in our eternal reward is itself a great gift to us, that we are granted the privilege of giving to Christ, in love, both in obedience and in sacrifice, such that it is not only by someone else’s act that we are brought into heaven, but also by our own free acts of love as well, as a respect for our personhood and the freedom that love requires. No longer in heaven will we have the opportunity to suffer for Christ, in love. That opportunity we have now is a great gift to us.

through Christ’s blood (5.1-11) and obedience (5.15-21) and intercession (8.33-34) and love (8.35-39) that is for those and only for those who trust in him rather than their own righteousness (10.5-13 – this dichotomy’s being Paul’s dichotomy).

It is important not to mistake our growing in grace, by deeds done in agape by which we, in a state of grace, merit the reward of eternal life to which are heirs by grace, as what St. Paul is talking about when he contrasts those who trust in their own righteousness with those who trust in Christ’s righteousness. Those who trust in their own righteousness are those who are not in a state of grace. Their ‘righteousness’ is essentially their own, human works done by human initiation and natural ends. But the Christian’s righteousness is a gift of grace. No one can muster up grace, just as no one can muster up faith or agape; these are supernatural gifts. So the righteousness that we have in Christ, and which we, by our actions, increase, is a righteousness that comes to us from Christ, by the merits of His Passion. It is truly ours, but it is ours as a supernatural gift. Our deeds done in agape are a participation in a divine act ordered to a supernatural end. But that is not to be confused with the righteousness which comes not as a supernatural gift, but from the natural keeping of laws by man without grace.

I hope at this point we’re closer to agreement than we were at the start. I understand your interpretation of Scripture, and I can see how you get to it. But, I think you are leaving out the tradition. You are coming to the text without the tradition, and that’s why you take the text in the way that you do. (See my “The Tradition and the Lexicon”.) In addition, I don’t think you have shown that Trent is incompatible with Scripture. Your interpretation of Rom 3:20 is incompatible with Trent. And you will say that your interpretation of Rom 3:20 is more plausible than the Catholic way of understanding it. But ‘plausibility’ is a context relative term. You’re looking at the whole thing through nominalistic lenses, and that is why your interpretation seems more plausible to you. That’s why you’re willing to turn Rom 2 into a hypothetical, because of your either/or (non-participatory) way of thinking about justification. But, it was not my intention here to persuade you that the Church’s understanding of justification is more “plausible.” I only intended to show why Trent 6 is not incompatible with Scripture. And I hope by this point I have done that.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

The Roman-Catholic church itself has elevated the rejection of my interpretation to the status of a sine qua non of the gospel [et cetera]….

There is a qualitative difference between the Church’s interpretation of Scripture and an individual’s interpretation of Scripture. The latter is required to submit to the former, but not vice versa.

This changes the subject a bit. You said that Protestants took a certain interpretation of Scripture to be a sine qua non of the gospel. I pointed out that the Roman-Catholic church did the exact same thing, only picking different interpretations. When a council puts certain views and/or people under the anathema, that amounts to making certain views a sine qua non of the gospel. Your characterization would have been more apt if we had, on the one hand, Protestants seceding from the RC church on the basis of a certain interpretation of Scripture and, on the other hand, a RC church with open arms willing to accept within its flock both those who did and those who did not maintain the particular interpretation in view. This isn’t what happened; the schism was mutual, and Trent effectively gave Protestants a kick on the way out.

Your new claim here is misleading in that it suggests that the relevant contrast is between a church, on the one hand, and an individual, on the other; which is false, since my interpretation is not merely my own private interpretation but is one shared by many across space and time. And further the claim is nothing more than a question-begging announcement to the effect that the RC church’s interpretations and/or doctrine, unlike everyone else’s, are the ones having divine sanction and approval and that others must submit to.

And concerning your exegetical comments on Rom. 2 and 3, to what extent was it actually dogmatically defined as “the Church’s interpretation”, and to what extent was it your own private interpretation? Is there an official Church commentary on these passages that I can see? Supposing I thought I had heretofore misunderstood these passages, and wanted to become Catholic, where would I find the “Church’s interpretation” so as to conform my own views to it; with respect to, e.g., the structure of Paul’s argumentation throughout Romans, what Paul means in every particular place by “works” and “works of the Law”, or what “justify” / “justified” means in e.g. 2.13; 3.20, 28; 4.5; 5.1, 9; 8.33?

As I’ve argued above, being a “doer of the Law” in Rom. 2 does not mean to obey the law from the heart….

To the contrary:

You’ve misrepresented what I said by problematically partial quotation. I said:

A: Therefore, those Jews who are justified by works in the sight of God (Rom 2), in the sense of being doers of the law (obeying the law from the heart, including making due use of the means of purification for transgressors)…

D: As I’ve argued above, being a “doer of the Law” in Rom. 2 does not mean to obey the law from the heart and to make “due use of the means of purification for transgressors”; for doing the Law in the context of Rom. 2.1-16 is to do the law written on the heart and restoration-systems are not part of this.

(my bold) I said that being a “doer of the Law” does not meant to obey the law from the heart and to make due use of the means of purification for transgressors. This conjunction (obeying from the heart and making use of purification) is what you had said characterized the “doers of the Law” (as can be seen by looking at your comments I’ve reproduced to which I am responding); and I was denying your characterization. So, I was denying that “doers of the Law” meant individuals characterized by this conjunction (obedience from the heart & making use of means of purification); but you omitted the second conjunct in your quotation and responded to me as if I were denying that “doers of the Law” perform obedience from the heart; an absurd thing that I would never say. I was not denying the first conjunct, but the second (and thereby the conjunction), as is shown by my explanation for my claim which you did not quote (“…for doing the Law in the context of Rom. 2.1-16 is to do the law written on the heart and restoration-systems are not part of this.” (bold added)). Because you missed the focus of my criticism, you offer no rebuttal to it. The problem with this idea that the “Law” that the “doers of the Law” in Rom. 2.6-13 are “doing” is broad enough to include making use of the systems of purification/restoration is that (1) in context this “Law” is obviously written on the heart of the Gentile; but (2) the “laws” pertaining to the Israelite means of purification (involving the temple cultus and sacrificial system) are/were not part of this Law. There is no basis for your assumption that one can be a “doer of the Law” as it is understood in Rom. 2.13 by making use of means of atonement or restoration or forgiveness. It is rather because people are not doers of the Law that they need access to forgiveness (Rom. 4.5-8).

Paul’s argument is not limited to the unique aspects of the law, in the sense that someone who prides himself on the Mosaic Law is probably proud of having all of it, and is in the wrong for having broken any of it. But the argument in Romans 4 features an obvious and extremely significant focus upon that which is distinctively Jewish in the law, and therefore apt to be taken (as it apparently was) as grounds for justification over and above the Gentiles:

Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised? We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. (Romans 4.8-9 [sic])

Obviously, St. Paul is still very much concerned in ch 4 to argue for the inherently non-justifying nature of circumcision (i.e., the distinctively Jewish laws).

First, you quoted vv. 9-10, not vv. 8-9. I already anticipated and responded to the line of thought you exemplify here in my last post, and you didn’t respond to what I said. Here is part of what I said:

Dan: That is, despite the fact that the Mosaic Law does not exist yet [when Abraham was justified], Paul draws a contrast between believing and working in Rom. 4.2-8; and shows how Abraham was justified by the former and not the latter. Accordingly, the works of the law in 3.20-31 should not be limited/restricted in the way you do. Abraham was clearly not justified merely apart from the distinctly Jewish or ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law, but was justified apart from works altogether. The fact that justification is by faith apart from works of the Law altogether implies that justification is by faith apart from the distinctively Jewish aspects of the Law (for the latter are a subset of the former); such as circumcision (Rom. 4.9f.).

You fixate on circumcision here as non-justifying (along with distinctively Jewish laws in general), and ignore the fact (pointed out by me) that the chapter begins with a faith/works contrast that is not a contrast between “faith” and circumcision or any other distinctively Jewish works but rather a contrast between believing and working simpliciter. I also already integrated the non-justifying nature of circumcision (and other ceremonial laws) into my more general account: these things are works, and they are no more justifying than other works of the law are. Your comments here are not erroneous so much in what they say but in the glaring omissions, what you leave out. There is no indication that Paul is restricting his teaching against justification by “works” to circumcision or other works of the ceremonial aspect of the law.

When you say that Paul “is still very much concerned in ch 4 to argue for the inherently non-justifying nature of circumcision (i.e., the distinctively Jewish laws),” by the ‘still’ you imply that Paul was also very much concerned in chapter three to argue for the inherently non-justifying nature of circumcision (and other distinctively Jewish laws). But you’ve offered no response to my responses to your paragraph, in your initial post, in support of this view of ch. 3, and have ignored the arguments I offered from the context of Rom. 3.20 against this restriction of “works of the Law” (to the keeping of commandments normative only for Jews.)

He is not arguing against justification by doing the law as in circumcision of the heart.

“doing the law as in circumcision of the heart”? It’s not clear what this means. One does the law by obeying its commandments; I don’t know what it means to say that one does the law “as in” circumcision of the heart.

Abraham had a circumcised heart (4.3), and was justified on that basis.

This assertion is patently contradicted by the passage. 4.3, which you cite, says that Abraham’s believing God was credited to him as righteousness, not that he was credited with righteousness because of his heart. Abraham’s believing is not identical with his heart, whether circumcised or no; and hence the basis of his justification, in being his faith/belief, was not a circumcised heart. This is confirmed by 4.18-22 wherein Paul describes at greater length the faith by which Abraham was justified; and it is clear that the “faith” Paul has in mind is in fact faith, not something else like a pure heart or doing works through love. This is why Paul repeatedly uses the words faith / believe; e.g., in 4.11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 24.

Further, even if you were right here problems would remain for your claims about Rom. 2, since (1) the judgment in Rom. 2.1-16 is according to one’s deeds (v. 6) / doing (v. 13), not the state of one’s heart per se; and (2) Paul teaches that Abraham was justified during his earthly life (not on the day of wrath to which Rom. 2.13 pertains).

Romans 4.4-5 refers, in context, to those who would claim outward circumcision as a basis of justification.

No it doesn’t. You’re misconstruing the import of vv.9f. on circumcision. Paul asks whether “this blessing” is “on the circumcised [alone] or on the uncircumcised also” (v. 9). The “blessing” is what he has just described, one’s being justified by faith apart from works; or one’s being credited righteousness apart from works. He asks whether this blessing is only for the circumcised or for those who are uncircumcised too; and says that it is for both groups, not just the one. Paul is not here saying that one will not be justified by circumcision (though that is true), but that the righteousness of faith (of which Abraham’s circumcision was a seal (v. 11)) is for or on both circumcised and uncircumcised people. That is, both kinds of people have access to the blessing, can be justified or credited righteousness by faith and apart from works. The blessing itself, as clearly described in the verses before v. 9, is being justified by faith apart from working, not merely being justified apart from circumcision (or other ceremonial works). This blessing of justification by faith apart from working simpliciter is for/on those who are not circumcised in addition to those who are circumcised; implying that circumcision cannot be a necessary means through which one is justified (for otherwise the blessing would not be on the uncircumcised too). Nothing about 4.9f. justifies the qualifications you’ve imposed on Paul’s words in what preceded; Paul is offering a blessing of justification apart from works to the uncircumcised, not defining the blessing itself as a justification apart from circumcision.

By a sort of application, these verses can be taken to censure any sort of presumption of justification by means other than the obedience of faith, especially if that presumption involves justification by works apart from grace (i.e., as a matter of strict justice).

Then you should be censured, since you presume to be justified by means other than the obedience of faith; do you not? For example, you say later: “We are saved from wrath despite our sinful deeds, which are washed away in baptism, and in confession. As regards good deeds, persons in Christ are saved by patience in well-doing, seeking for glory, honor and immortality.” It sounds like you’re saying that one is justified by means other than the obedience of faith; e.g., perseverance in doing good.

Having faith is not the same thing as loving God with all one’s being and one’s neighbor as oneself.

Having living faith (faith formed by love) is the same thing as loving God with all one’s being and one’s neighbor as oneself.

The faith described in Rom. 4.18-22 is not the same thing as, not identical with, one’s loving God with all one’s being and one’s neighbor as oneself. One can love one’s neighbor as himself in visiting widows and orphans in their distress, and such visitations are not identical with faith in God’s promises concerning salvation. Further examples could be multiplied, where we can find an instance of one thing (either faith or love) that is not an instance of the other; entailing non-identity. They are obviously distinct things, and this is why we use different words to refer to them. “Living” faith, in the biblical sense of being the opposite of the “dead” faith described by James, is faith accompanied by works of love; but it is still faith not love.

Perhaps your claim is not that this kind of faith is love to God and neighbor but that this kind of faith is an instance of such love; that is, that in having this kind of faith one is thereby loving God and neighbor, even though one can also love God and neighbor in ways distinct from having such faith too. But this is false too, because even though it is coherent to suppose that an act of faith is simultaneously an act of love for God (it is relatively easy to see how a certain mental state could simultaneously comprehend both love for God and faith in God), faith is distinct from love to neighbor. My putting trust in God for salvation is distinct from my love, whether in thought or attitude or deed, towards my neighbor. They are distinct states/activities of the mind/soul.

This [“Having living faith (faith formed by love) is the same thing as loving God with all one’s being and one’s neighbor as oneself.”] is the faith that is reckoned to us for righteousness (Rom 4.5) and to which St. Paul refers as “the obedience of faith” (Rom 1.5, 16.26).

No it isn’t. To imply that the “faith” by which Abraham was justified constituted his loving God with all his being and his neighbor as himself would be an abuse of language (of ‘faith’ / ‘believe’) as well as an unnatural interpretation of ‘faith’/’believe’ as it is used in the context of Gen. 15 and Rom. 4 in particular. The essence of the relevant faith is not obedience to the moral law (an adumbration of the greatest two commandments) but trust in God’s promises.

Because a living faith incorporates us into Christ, there is no sense in playing off our works against his works.

It’s unclear how this is supposed to follow (or what exactly it means).

The latter [Christ’s works] are wrought in those who are in him, and are acceptable to God because of him. Therefore, our faith is reckoned as righteousness.

Christ’s works cannot be wrought in us. This is incoherent. There is a difference between sanctity and deeds; the latter flow from the former, but are distinct from the former. The righteousness of Christ by which we are justified is his obedience (Rom. 5.18-21); and it is impossible for his obedience to be infused into us. What can happen is that God infuses a certain state of sanctity into us that causes us to perform obedience to his law. But it is incoherent to suppose that Christ’s works or obedience can wrought in us or infused into us; just as it is nonsensical to suppose that Tom’s act of obedience in going to the store in response to his father’s command can be “wrought” in his brother Fred. Actions cannot be infused into anyone, only states or habits can (i.e., dispositions to act). However, it is coherent to suppose that obedience is imputed to someone. Tom and Fred’s father can, it is coherent to suppose, reckon Tom’s act of obedience to Fred, viewing Fred as if he had done it himself. Likewise, our sinful deeds cannot coherently be infused into Christ; however they can be reckoned to him.

Though Christ’s works are not wrought in us, God does work sanctity in us; but the precise connection you try to make between this and one’s faith being reckoned as righteousness (with the “therefore”) is opaque. If it is our works (performed from sanctity wrought by God) that are acceptable to God, then it sounds like you are saying our works are reckoned as righteousness (or accepted as righteous). But then you say “Therefore, our faith [my emphasis] is reckoned as righteousness.”

We are saved from wrath despite our sinful deeds, which are washed away in baptism, and in confession. As regards good deeds, persons in Christ are saved by patience in well-doing, seeking for glory, honor and immortality.

There is only one salvation (eschatological rest) in Rom. 2. If one is saved from wrath, then one has salvation; for the only options are eternal life and wrath. Hence it doesn’t make sense to speak of persons as being saved twice as you do here; once from wrath and then a second time through perseverance in doing good etc.

Romans 2 does not describe half of the actual judgment; it describes the whole judgment, in which some are condemned and some are given eternal life.

I’ve never said otherwise. What I have said is that, for those given eternal life, their justification in God’s sight will not come on the basis of their own works.

One of the keys to recognizing this is understanding the relation between Romans 2.14-16 and 2.27-29. The latter passage describes something actual (cf. Ezekiel 36.25-27, Rom 6–8), and for this reason so does the former.

So what is the relation between the two passages? You don’t say. The former is describing the moral law written on the heart in conscience which applies to all people; while the latter concerns circumcision of the heart, which applies only to justified people.

I haven’t denied that either passages “describes something actual.” Apparently you think that 2.14-16 implies that Gentiles will be justified in God’s sight on the day of wrath by their doing the things of the Law. But all it says is that Gentiles have consciences which testify when they “do instinctively the things of the Law” and accuses when they do not; it doesn’t imply that Gentiles actually keep the Law sufficiently so as to be justified on that basis in God’s sight on the day of wrath. Rom. 3.9-19 says that all the world stands before God condemned (every mouth stopped, all the world accountable); so despite the fact that the Gentiles have a conscience which alternately approves and condemns them, in God’s sight no Gentile is righteous enough to be justified. This is confirmed in Rom. 2.12 which says that all who have sinned without the Law will perish. As for Rom. 2.27-29, Paul does not say that the circumcision of the heart by the Spirit puts one in a position to be justified by works. Those who are circumcised by the Spirit already have been justified by faith (e.g., Rom. 5.1, 5; 8.1f.). I agree that those who are in Christ and have His Spirit can perform good works that are pleasing in his sight; but the issue here is whether anyone will be justified before God on the basis of one’s works. They won’t, because anyone who does good works by the Spirit has already been justified freely by the redemption in Christ Jesus and delivered from the wrath to come. One can’t be justified on the basis of works done after one has already been justified.

In brief, and in reverse order:

The Roman-Catholic church itself has elevated the rejection of my interpretation to the status of a sine qua non of the gospel [et cetera]….

There is a qualitative difference between the Church’s interpretation of Scripture and an individual’s interpretation of Scripture. The latter is required to submit to the former, but not vice versa.

Paul’s charge in 3.9-20 is against both Jew and Gentile (“Jews and Greeks” (v. 9), “every mouth” (v. 19), “all the world” (v. 19), “no flesh” (v. 20)).

Paul emphasizes the sinfulness of all men in ch 3 in order to underscore his point that the Jews are not excepted from the condition and consequences of sin by virtue of the unique (though dubious) advantages that accrue to them through the [Mosaic] law.

As I’ve argued above, being a “doer of the Law” in Rom. 2 does not mean to obey the law from the heart….

To the contrary:

For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God. (Romans 2.27-29)

Being a “doer of the law” does, in fact, mean obeying the law from the [circumcised] heart. Of course, the concept of the circumcised heart hearkens back to Jeremiah and Ezekiel:

But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (Jeremiah 31.33-34)

I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. (Ezekiel 36:25-27)

Regarding Romans 4, you wrote:

Paul continues to explicate his teaching that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law, and in Rom. 4 it is obvious that the “works” of the law in view, works by which one will not be justified in God’s sight, are by no means limited to distinctively Jewish elements of the Mosaic law.

Paul’s argument is not limited to the unique aspects of the law, in the sense that someone who prides himself on the Mosaic Law is probably proud of having all of it, and is in the wrong for having broken any of it. But the argument in Romans 4 features an obvious and extremely significant focus upon that which is distinctively Jewish in the law, and therefore apt to be taken (as it apparently was) as grounds for justification over and above the Gentiles:

Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised? We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. (Romans 4.8-9)

Obviously, St. Paul is still very much concerned in ch 4 to argue for the inherently non-justifying nature of circumcision (i.e., the distinctively Jewish laws). He is not arguing against justification by doing the law as in circumcision of the heart. Abraham had a circumcised heart (4.3), and was justified on that basis. Romans 4.4-5 refers, in context, to those who would claim outward circumcision as a basis of justification. By a sort of application, these verses can be taken to censure any sort of presumption of justification by means other than the obedience of faith, especially if that presumption involves justification by works apart from grace (i.e., as a matter of strict justice).

Concerning faith, you wrote:

Having faith is not the same thing as loving God with all one’s being and one’s neighbor as oneself.

Having living faith (faith formed by love) is the same thing as loving God with all one’s being and one’s neighbor as oneself. This is the faith that is reckoned to us for righteousness (Rom 4.5) and to which St. Paul refers as “the obedience of faith” (Rom 1.5, 16.26). Because a living faith incorporates us into Christ, there is no sense in playing off our works against his works. The latter are wrought in those who are in him, and are acceptable to God because of him. Therefore, our faith is reckoned as righteousness.

The above paragraph is relevant to your claim that:

But, those who are in Christ will be saved from wrath despite their deeds (Rom. 4.7-8) because of Christ’s deeds (5.6-11, 15-21; 8.31-34).

We are saved from wrath despite our sinful deeds, which are washed away in baptism, and in confession. As regards good deeds, persons in Christ are saved by patience in well-doing, seeking for glory, honor and immortality.

Romans 2 does not describe half of the actual judgment; it describes the whole judgment, in which some are condemned and some are given eternal life. One of the keys to recognizing this is understanding the relation between Romans 2.14-16 and 2.27-29. The latter passage describes something actual (cf. Ezekiel 36.25-27, Rom 6–8), and for this reason so does the former.

Thanks for the exegetical comments…. I do appreciate this exegetical discussion and conversation; which is very helpful in sharpening understanding of the Scripture.

Thank you, and likewise. I have followed your discussion with Bryan, but have not interjected hitherto, because I think that in exegesis, which tends to be a detailed, almost cramped kind of activity, two is already almost a crowd.

Romans 2:6-16 is not a dead letter, in the sense of being an actual condition that no one actually fulfills. Note the future tense employed in these verses:

The future tense is natural, since God recompenses people according to their deeds after they do the deeds rather than before they do them; and since the context of recompense is the Day of wrath and this day is in the future.

I obviously don’t take Rom. 2.6-16 (or vv. 1-16) to be a “dead letter,” and I don’t take it to involve “an actual condition that no one actually fulfills.” There is not just one condition in the passage, but two conditions. There is a condition for justification (vv. 7, 10, 13) and a condition for condemnation (vv. 8-9, 12); and on my view Paul does not merely set forth the conditions but also teaches that people will actually meet them. It’s just that on my view, bracketing the righteousness of God received through faith, Paul’s teaching is that everyone meets the condition for condemnation. So, my interpretation is non-hypothetical in the sense that Paul does teach the actual fulfillment of a condition set forth (not merely the actuality of the conditions themselves), and also because God will in fact judge people according to whether they have fulfilled the conditions: those who are not in Christ will be recompensed according to their deeds with wrath. But, those who are in Christ will be saved from wrath despite their deeds (Rom. 4.7-8) because of Christ’s deeds (5.6-11, 15-21; 8.31-34).

As verse sixteen indicates, this future judgment, wherein Jews and Gentiles either perish or are justified according to their deeds, is in accordance with the Gospel Paul is proclaiming. Romans 3:20 does not cancel out this Gospel, including the future judgment, which will actually take place, as described by St. Paul, “on the day when….”

I agree that Rom. 3.20 does not cancel out 2.16. As I’ve just explained, there will be such a judgment on my view. My position does not cancel out the judgment, but rather is firmly based on it. It is precisely because there will be such a judgment that the human needs the righteousness of God received through faith (3.21f.); for otherwise, the human will be condemned in the judgment rather than justified (3.9-20).

Much effort has been expended in this combox by way of explicating St. Paul’s words in Romans 3:20, or else exculpating his words in Romans 2:6-16 (e.g., well, this never really happens).

For reasons already stated, this is not an accurate representation of what I’ve been arguing in the combox (“exculpating his words in Romans 2:6-16 (e.g., well, this never really happens”). Further, I have argued for my interpretation of Rom. 2.6-13 not only from Rom. 3 but from Rom. 2 itself. Paul’s emphasis in 2.1-16 is on judgment and wrath; and in both cases wherein he sets forth a condition for justification (vv.6-7, 10; and v.13) the statement of the condition is preceded by a statement about wrath or sin or judgment (v. 5 before v. 6, and v. 12 before v.13). I think that my interpretation of Rom. 2.6-13 is “clinched” by Paul’s statements in Rom. 3.9-20, however my conclusions about 2.6-13 have not been made merely on the basis of 3.9-20 but also on the basis of 2.6-13 itself. Paul’s focus is on judgment and impending wrath, and he sets forth the standard of God’s judgment not in a neutral setting (here is the standard: some will meet it, some won’t) but rather in a setting of warning (you – some hearer/reader – have sinned against the law, and therefore you are in peril; for only the doer of the law will be justified).

One thing that occurs to me, as it has to others, is that if “doing the law” is always, for St. Paul, tantamount to there being no single occasion wherein an individual does not transgress some precept of the law, then it seems to be true that no one will actually be justified at the event described by St. Paul in Romans 2:6-16 (contrary to the plain sense of the text).

The idea that no one will be justified by works of the law is not contrary to the “plain sense of the text.” The context of the epistle from 1.18f. – 3.20 is governed in large part by the specter of God’s wrath against sin. And as I’ve pointed out this is also the case with 2.1-16 in particular. A reflective reading of 2.6 not in isolation but in its context in conjunction with v.5 (v.6 starts in the middle of a sentence) should make one very cautious about assuming that Paul is intending to teach that people actually meet the condition in God’s sight set out in vv. 7, 10; for the context in which Paul says “who will render to each person according to his deeds” in v. 6 is that of one’s “storing up wrath” (v.5). Likewise, a reflective reading of 2.13 not in isolation but in conjunction with v. 12 (v. 13 starts in the middle of a sentence) should have the same result. The contrast in v. 12 is not between keeping the law and breaking the law, but between two ways of breaking it and thereby falling under condemnation (apart from it, under it); so it is more natural to take the function of v. 13 as explaining why people will either “perish without the Law” or “be judged by the Law” (namely, only the doers – which those who have sinned against the Law are not – will be justified).

But this is not the only (or even primary) sense of “keeping/doing the law” that seems to be at work in Sacred Scripture (cf. 2 Kings 12:2-3). After all, the law itself provided means for the restoration of transgressors. Keeping the law is, therefore, is in one sense tantamount to covenant faithfulness, i.e., availing oneself, on the occasions of transgression, of the means of purification/restoration.

My view does not require that “doing the law” has to always mean doing it perfectly, without any transgression. We have two different sense of “law” here, for the means of restoration in the “law” (in one sense) are only necessary because people break the “law” (in another sense). Hence, anyone who keeps the “law” in the sense of availing oneself of means of restoration has, by the very nature of the case, broken the “law” in another sense (if they had not so broken the law, they would not need to make use of means of restoration). The question is what it means in Rom. 2 and/or Rom. 3 to be a doer of the law. It means to obey the commandments the disobedience to which bring about the necessity of making use of the means of restoration. For, the “law” in question is a law that pertained to both Jews and Gentiles (e.g., Rom. 2.12), and the latter did not have access to the Israelite temple cultus and sacrificial system. Further, it is a law written on the heart (2.14-15), and neither Israelite/”old covenant” nor “new covenant” means of restoration/forgiveness are written on the heart. We are dealing here with the moral law, written in the Torah and on the heart.

But the substance of the covenant by which the faithful live, including the real basis for forgiveness of sins, is not to be found in those works that are peculiar to the Jewish nation–for God is not the God of the Jews only (Rom 3:29). Romans 3:20 highlights the pedagogical function of the works of the law in a sense peculiar to the Jewish nation (cf., Rom 3:1).

The real basis for forgiveness of sins is not to be found in any of our works (Rom. 4.6-8) but rather in Christ’s work (Rom. 3.26; 8.33-34; Col. 2.13-14; Hebrews). Rom. 3.20 highlights a pedagogical function of the law, not of the works of the law; and it does more than that, also saying that “by the works of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight.” A pedagogical function of the law in 3.20b (“for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin”) is not the point of the verse (or the passage) but is rather confirming this distinct, more prominent point in 3.20a.

Therefore, those Jews who are justified by works in the sight of God (Rom 2), in the sense of being doers of the law (obeying the law from the heart, including making due use of the means of purification for transgressors) are not justified by the works of the law (Rom 3) in the sense of possessing and observing the distinctive aspects of the Mosaic Code(s) over and above the Gentiles (cf., Rom 3:1, 3:29). God justifies sinners on the basis of the obedience of faith, wherein the law is kept from a pure heart, and this is not a peculiarly Jewish matter.

As I’ve argued above, being a “doer of the Law” in Rom. 2 does not mean to obey the law from the heart and to make “due use of the means of purification for transgressors”; for doing the Law in the context of Rom. 2.1-16 is to do the law written on the heart and restoration-systems are not part of this. You say “those Jews,” but 2.6-13 concerns Gentiles and Jews (2.9, 12). Means of purification/restoration are necessary precisely because people are not doers of the law (in the relevant sense); restoration is required because people fail to do the law. This is indeed a very high standard, but this (as I have been arguing in the thread) is precisely part of Paul’s point, central to the argument he is developing from Rom. 1.18 – Rom. 3:20; so as to make his hearers/readers abandon any pretensions of being found righteous in God’s sight on the day of wrath on the basis of their own righteousness and to turn instead to God’s righteousness received by faith (3.21f.; cf. 10.5f.). Further, although it is a high standard, it is not an excessive one; but rather entirely natural and to be expected if one seriously considers God’s holiness and moral perfection.

Nor does doing the “works of the Law” in 3.20 mean “observing the distinctive [to Jews] aspects of the Mosaic Code(s).” Virtually everything in the context of the passage speaks against this interpretation. Paul’s charge in 3.9-20 is against both Jew and Gentile (“Jews and Greeks” (v. 9), “every mouth” (v. 19), “all the world” (v. 19), “no flesh” (v. 20)). Further, the nature of the charges themselves (in 3.10-18) have nothing to do with aspects of the Mosaic Law peculiarly commanded to the Israelites, but rather to the moral law more generally, both with respect to outward conformance (e.g., their feet are swift to shed blood) and inward or from-the-heart conformance (e.g., no one seeks God). Accordingly, when Paul says that no flesh will be justified by works of the Law, there is every reason to take the “works” he has in mind to be the kinds of works he has just mentioned, pertaining to the obedience to the moral law written on the Gentile’s heart and in the Torah; which both Jews and Gentiles are guilty for failing to do (3.9, 19).

Further, the inability for one to be justified by works of the distinctively Jewish part of the Mosaic Law would be irrelevant to the Gentiles’ standing before God with “every mouth stopped/closed.” And yet 3.20a either explains and/or confirms 3.19 (note the ‘because’ at the beginning of 3.20). Hence, given that 3.20a is relevant for all the world’s standing “accountable” to God with every mouth closed (3.19), an interpretation that restricts the “works of the Law” to works never commanded to Gentiles in the first place sabotages Paul’s reasoning. Conversely, 3.20a can confirm 3.19 (with its comprehensive scope – all the world, every mouth) because the claim of 3.20a is that no flesh (a comprehensive term) will be justified on the basis of obedience to a law to which all flesh was obligated and which all flesh has broken; namely, the moral law.

Moreover, the “law” through which comes “the knowledge of sin” (3.20b) is by no means restricted to any ceremonial or distinctively Jewish element of the Mosaic law. Rom. 7.7: “…On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet”.” The commandment against coveting is central to the moral law. Since the “works of the Law” Paul has in mind in 3.20a are works of a kind of law such that that law provides knowledge of sin (3.20b), and since the moral law provides such knowledge, there is every reason to take “works of the Law” in 3.20a to be works of a kind of law that includes (the commandments of) the moral law.

Further problems for your claim about works in Rom. 3 are found by looking ahead to Rom. 4. Paul continues to explicate his teaching that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law, and in Rom. 4 it is obvious that the “works” of the law in view, works by which one will not be justified in God’s sight, are by no means limited to distinctively Jewish elements of the Mosaic law. For he gives as his prime example of justification by faith apart from works of the law the example of Abraham, whose justification occurred hundreds of years before the Mosaic Law with its ceremonial elements even existed. It might be alleged that this supports your view of “works” in Rom. 3. just as well as mine if not more, because one might say that the non-existence of the Mosaic Law at the time of Abraham’s justification supports the contention that no flesh will be justified by the peculiarly Jewish elements of the Mosaic Law. But this would be incorrect, because despite the fact that the Mosaic Law does not yet exist, there is still a meaningful faith/works contrast to be drawn. That is, despite the fact that the Mosaic Law does not exist yet, Paul draws a contrast between believing and working in Rom. 4.2-8; and shows how Abraham was justified by the former and not the latter. Accordingly, the works of the law in 3.20-31 should not be limited/restricted in the way you do. Abraham was clearly not justified merely apart from the distinctly Jewish or ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law, but was justified apart from works altogether. The fact that justification is by faith apart from works of the Law altogether implies that justification is by faith apart from the distinctively Jewish aspects of the Law (for the latter are a subset of the former); such as circumcision (Rom. 4.9f.).

In support of your assertion about works of the Law in Rom. 3 you cite 3.1 and 3.29. The claim of 3.20a, however, is not tied to 3.1, but rather to 3.9. That is, the claim of 3.20 is part of Paul’s argument that “both Jews and Greeks are all under sin” (3.9), not part of his argument that the oracles of God give the Jews a benefit over the Gentiles (3.1-2). The point of 3.1 has ended by 3.9, for in 3.9 Paul turns away from the topic of the distinctive advantage of the Jews (in 3.1-2) and turns (again) to the salient respect in which Jews and Gentiles are the same. (I say “again” because in 3.9 Paul indicates – with the “already” – that he is returning to a point he has made before. This is more support for my interpretation of 2.1-16, for in 3.9 by the “already” Paul confirms that earlier in the letter he had argued that Jews were under sin; and 2.1-16 is an obvious place where he would have been making this point.)

As for 3.29, I reiterate a point I made in connection with Abraham’s justification in Rom. 4, namely, that from the inability to be justified by works of the Law in general it follows that one is unable to be justified by a particular subset of them such as the ceremonial law. The works that will not justify anyone in God’s sight include obedience to peculiarly Jewish commandments, and hence it is appropriate for Paul to emphasize the unity of Jews and Gentiles in denying justification by works (as he does in 3.28-29 and other places, such as in Galatians). However, for all the reasons I’ve given we should not restrict the works of the Law that Paul excludes from justification to merely the ceremonial dimension of the Law.

Finally, in this paragraph you say “God justifies sinners on the basis of the obedience of faith, wherein the law is kept from a pure heart, and this is not a peculiarly Jewish matter.” The law is not kept by one’s having faith. Having faith is not the same thing as loving God with all one’s being and one’s neighbor as oneself. This severely truncates God’s law. Faith is not the basis of God’s justifying sinners; it is the instrument through which one receives the righteousness of God (Rom. 3.22); this righteousness being the basis of God’s justifying sinners (Rom. 5.15-21). The righteousness that is the basis of a sinner’s justification is not his faith but is rather something received by faith.

And faith is not the only thing that is universal to Jew and Gentile, that is “not a peculiarly Jewish matter.” As is amply attested in Rom. 1 – 3, there is the moral law, written in the Torah to Jews and on the heart to Gentiles (and Jews); and all humanity’s guilt before it and consequent inability to be justified in God’s sight by works.

The great tragedy of the standard Protestant reading of this passage is not that it is exegetically weak (though in my opinion it is), it is that this dubious (at best) private opinion has been elevated to the status of a sine qua non of the Gospel (for example), and remains to this day a pretext for remaining seperate from the Church which Christ established 2,000 years ago as the guardian and teacher of the Gospel.

The Roman-Catholic church itself has elevated the rejection of my interpretation to the status of a sine qua non of the gospel, thereby excluding those like me from its church; so this one-sided characterization according to which my side in particular is elevating things to being essential to the gospel with divisive consequences is absurd fantasy. I don’t need any “pretext” to remain separate from a church that wouldn’t let me in and that, incidentally, has continued to throw up walls, not only by imposing dogma after dogma on the minds and hearts of the putative faithful but also by ascribing to itself infallibility in so doing (another dogma); thereby making it even more unlikely that – were it the case that it has erred – it will ever publicly recognize and correct such mistakes so as to facilitate unity in the body. Also, it’s hardly the case that the Protestant / Roman-Catholic divide is, from the Protestant perspective, simply a matter of exegesis of Rom. 2 and 3. Your last bit here is question-begging rhetoric, since in our context it is very much in dispute both whether the Roman-Catholic church is in fact what Christ established 2000 years ago and whether the Roman-Catholic church has in fact really guarded and taught Christ’s gospel instead of guarding and teaching its own accretions and modifications to it which would be unrecognizable to Christ and his apostles themselves.

That aside, I do appreciate this exegetical discussion and conversation; which is very helpful in sharpening understanding of the Scripture.

Romans 2:6-16 is not a dead letter, in the sense of being an actual condition that no one actually fulfills. Note the future tense employed in these verses:

6* For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11* For God shows no partiality. 12* All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13* For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16* on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

As verse sixteen indicates, this future judgment, wherein Jews and Gentiles either perish or are justified according to their deeds, is in accordance with the Gospel Paul is proclaiming. Romans 3:20 does not cancel out this Gospel, including the future judgment, which will actually take place, as described by St. Paul, “on the day when….”

Much effort has been expended in this combox by way of explicating St. Paul’s words in Romans 3:20, or else exculpating his words in Romans 2:6-16 (e.g., well, this never really happens). Much more effort has been expended to the same end in the controversies of the sixteenth century and in recent scholarly analysis of St. Paul’s teaching on justification. Talk about Paul being difficult to understand!

One thing that occurs to me, as it has to others, is that if “doing the law” is always, for St. Paul, tantamount to there being no single occasion wherein an individual does not transgress some precept of the law, then it seems to be true that no one will actually be justified at the event described by St. Paul in Romans 2:6-16 (contrary to the plain sense of the text). But this is not the only (or even primary) sense of “keeping/doing the law” that seems to be at work in Sacred Scripture (cf. 2 Kings 12:2-3). After all, the law itself provided means for the restoration of transgressors. Keeping the law is, therefore, is in one sense tantamount to covenant faithfulness, i.e., availing oneself, on the occasions of transgression, of the means of purification/restoration.

But the substance of the covenant by which the faithful live, including the real basis for forgiveness of sins, is not to be found in those works that are peculiar to the Jewish nation–for God is not the God of the Jews only (Rom 3:29). Romans 3:20 highlights the pedagogical function of the works of the law in a sense peculiar to the Jewish nation (cf., Rom 3:1). The advantage of the Jew is not that the moral law is revealed in the Mosaic Law; that would be no substantial advantage at all, since that Gentiles know the moral law by way of conscience. However, those aspects of the Mosaic Law that are peculiar to the Jews, although they do serve to distinguish the Jews from other peoples, and although they do instruct the Jews by revealing their sins in a peculiarly intense way, do not, in the mere “possession” or external observance thereof, justify the Jews in the sight of God. Justification is not the purpose of these works, and in any event lies beyond their power:

18 On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the law made nothing perfect); on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. (Hebrew 7:18-19)

1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices which are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered? If the worshipers had once been cleansed, they would no longer have any consciousness of sin. 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year. 4 For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. (Hebrews 10:1-4)

Therefore, those Jews who are justified by works in the sight of God (Rom 2), in the sense of being doers of the law (obeying the law from the heart, including making due use of the means of purification for transgressors) are not justified by the works of the law (Rom 3) in the sense of possessing and observing the distinctive aspects of the Mosaic Code(s) over and above the Gentiles (cf., Rom 3:1, 3:29). God justifies sinners on the basis of the obedience of faith, wherein the law is kept from a pure heart, and this is not a peculiarly Jewish matter.

Thus, the relevant distinction at work is not between an actual but unfulfilled condition in Romans 2 (which would utterly violate the sense of the text) versus an actual and fulfilled condition in Romans 3. The relevant distinction is between doing the law from the heart (Rom 2) and relying upon the works of the law peculiar to the Jewish people (Rom 3) as being, ipso facto, justifying.

The latter interpretation has the benefits of being a more natural reading of the text (e.g., Romans 2 describes something that will really happen, and the Jew/Gentile relation is understood as germane to the argument of Romans 3, as St. Paul clearly intended) and being in accordance with the tradition of the Catholic Church throughout the ages concerning the place of works in the gifts of justification and eternal life. The great tragedy of the standard Protestant reading of this passage is not that it is exegetically weak (though in my opinion it is), it is that this dubious (at best) private opinion has been elevated to the status of a sine qua non of the Gospel (for example), and remains to this day a pretext for remaining seperate from the Church which Christ established 2,000 years ago as the guardian and teacher of the Gospel.

Even if no final justification were in view in Rom 2:16 and 2:13, that wouldn’t show that Rom 3:20 is incompatible with Trent 6.16 or Trent 6 Can. 32. But if your claim is that Rom 2:6 and Rom 2:13 are incompatible with Trent 6.16 (and Can. 32), that would take us to a different discussion (besides determining whether 3:20 is incompatible with Trent 6.16 and Can. 32.

Since I reject the distinction between initial, increase-in, and final justification (as the magisterium would understand them), I reject the idea of “final justification”. But to the extent that what one means by “final justification” is one’s being judged righteous and on that basis granted eternal life I do not reject it, but maintain that this is exactly what happens when one is justified by faith. I didn’t say no final justification were in view in Rom. 2.6-13, but that no final justification by works is taught. That is, Paul does not teach here that anyone will in fact be given eternal life because of one’s being judged righteous on the basis of one’s performance of works of the law (nor on the basis of one’s inner sanctity for that matter, the having of which – I would argue – is not the same thing as being a doer of the law).

You raise two distinct issues: whether some view of Rom. 2.6-13 shows that Rom. 3.20 is incompatible with Trent, and whether Rom. 2.6-13 themselves are (on some view) incompatible with Trent. The salient view of Rom. 2.6-13 is that therein Paul sets forth a standard of judgment, or a condition for justification, without necessarily teaching that anyone will meet it. I did not mean to imply that the passage is, on this view, incompatible with Trent; but only that it is incompatible with “your view” in the sense of the view you have espoused thus far in the thread (for you have maintained that Paul is teaching that some people will meet the condition). Trent could be consistent with Scripture even on this view of Rom. 2.6-13, because it could be that even though this passage does not teach that anyone will in fact receive a final justification by works (but only sets forth a condition for such a justification) there is no passage of Scripture that denies that anyone will in fact meet the condition. If no passage denied such, then Trent’s view on the matter could be extra-biblical but not unbiblical; and if some passage taught such, then Trent’s view would be biblical and not extra-biblical. However, when we bring in Rom. 3 then my claim is that we get an inconsistency with Trent’s teaching; for on my view while Rom. 2.6-13 sets forth a condition for justification Rom. 3.20 teaches that no one will meet it.

(B) Just as 3.20 is referring to one’s justification unto eternal life rather than wrath (rather than merely to some “initial justification” in the present), the justification by the righteousness of God received through faith, introduced in 3.21f. as filling the gap left by the plight of everyone communicated in 3.19-20 (no one will be found righteous by one’s own righteousness), is a justification unto eternal life rather than wrath.

No disagreement here.

In being justified by faith one has peace and reconciliation with God and is saved from the wrath to come (Rom. 5.1-11), the wrath threatened in Rom. 1.18f. and Rom. 2.1f. and which all flesh, due to being sinful, will be subject to according to Rom. 3.19-20 – unless there is another righteousness one can receive:3.21f.

Again, no disagreement here.

Hence, in being “justified” (judged to be righteous) by faith (3.21f.), what is in view is the verdict of judgment day of being righteous and thereby entitled to eternal life rather than wrath announced ahead of time (cf. Rom. 8.33-34).

I agree with this, but we’re probably going to differ about whether a person can lose faith, and have their name removed from the Book of Life. The person who dies with living faith, will be justified before Him on that Day. But the person who has living faith, but then falls away, and dies without living faith, will not be justified before Him on that Day. So, my presently having living faith, is not an infallible window into what God will say concerning me on that Day.

The issue of whether one can be justified and then later have that justification revoked is important, and is relevant to the nature of justification. However, there is a distinct point that is more prominently in my view in that paragraph (which contains more than is reproduced here), one that is independent of the question of whether justification be revoked, and is the main area where I alleged an inconsistency with Trent:

Accordingly, one is promised eternal life in justification by faith and any additional meriting of eternal life through increase in one’s inherent righteousness would be superfluous (with respect to acquiring eternal life rather than wrath).

I understand that this is your position. But nothing here shows that Trent 6.16 or Trent 6 Can. 32 are incompatible with Rom 3:20, or with any other part of Scripture.

In other words, the basis or ground on which God gives one eternal life rather than wrath at the eschaton is already completely intact, in its entirety, with no room for increase or improvement, in one’s being justified by faith. This does not mean that increase in inherent righteousness is not necessary for salvation (it is and Paul says it is), but it means that no such increase can contribute to the basis that merits eternal life; or in other words to the ultimate ground upon which eternal life is bestowed.

You did not respond to the second portion, and with respect to your response to the first, it is not clear to me whether you are questioning the inconsistency of my claims with Trent 6.16 and/or canon 32; or whether you are admitting the inconsistency but questioning the truth of my claims and their being implied by Rom. 3.20 or any other passage.

The quotes that you say you agree with were the basis on which I came to the conclusion described in the last two quotes I’ve reproduced (“Accordingly”, “In other words”); and I think the claims I make here are independent of the issue of whether justification can be lost/revoked and are inconsistent with Trent 6.16 and canon 32. Hence, it seems you would need to either (i) re-evaluate your agreement with what you said you agreed with, (ii) reject the inference from what you said you agree with to the claims in these last two quotes, or (iii) reject the incompatibility between these last two quotes and Trent 6.16 and canon 32.

The independence of my last claims from the issue of whether one’s justification can be revoked can be shown by noting that it is conceivable that both are true. That is, it could be the case both that the basis upon which one is granted eternal life cannot be improved or contributed to by one’s good works and that it is possible for one to lose one’s justification by apostasy. One might hold that the sole ground of one’s receiving eternal life on the last day is Christ’s obedience imputed to the sinner, and yet that if the sinner meets a certain condition (such as abandoning his faith in Christ) then the imputation is “revoked” somehow; such that the person is no longer justified. Of course, I deny that justification can be revoked (e.g., Rom. 8.30); but that issue is distinct from the one I am pressing in the quotations. The relevant sections from Trent do not merely imply that one can lose justification; they imply that good works subsequent to “justification” (in the sense of initiation into grace) merit eternal life.

I do not think you can do (iii), for the relevant sections from Trent clearly teach that good works subsequent to one’s “justification” by baptism/faith merit eternal life; and this is clearly incompatible with my claim that “the basis or ground on which God gives one eternal life rather than wrath at the eschaton is already completely intact, in its entirety, with no room for increase or improvement, in one’s being justified by faith.” If the ground upon which one receives eternal life is completely intact, without capability of being improved or increased, in justification by faith, then no subsequent good works can merit eternal life. For, the claim that something merits eternal life implies that that something enters into the ground upon which eternal life is bestowed; and hence, if anything subsequent to justification by faith can merit eternal life then something subsequent to justification by faith can increase the ground upon which one is granted eternal life.

With respect to (ii), I’ve already rebutted one way someone might challenge the inference, namely, by claiming that one can “lose” justification. Trent does not merely maintain that one needs to remain in faith so as to be ultimately justified; it maintains that one merits eternal life through good works. As I’ve shown, these claims are independent; one can maintain the necessity of remaining in faith for justification without in any way maintaining that one’s good works contribute to the basis upon which one is ultimately justified.

(i) and (ii) are difficult to address independently, because of their interconnection: the validity of the inference depends on how one interprets the premises. So I won’t claim to be discussing in what follows either one of them in exclusion to the other; but I’ll just try and explain how what I meant by the claims you voiced agreement with implies the claims I’ve just argued are inconsistent with Trent.

You’ve maintained that anyone who has been justified by faith, provided he dies in that state, will be “finally justified.” I gather that this is largely why you agreed with some of my claims above. One is “saved from the wrath to come” in “initial justification,” in the sense that anyone who is in the state of grace is guaranteed to enter heaven. But I claimed more than this on the basis of passages I’ve either cited or alluded to. In justification by faith the verdict of the last day is announced ahead of time and one is then and there granted eternal life (as in, granted then and there, not granted an eternal life that itself is then and there). I don’t see how you can agree with this. On your view there will be a justification by works (or perhaps more precisely, inherent sanctity; though I’d argue this is not what is meant by sentences like “the doers of the law will be justified” and “one will be recompensed according to his deeds”) on the day of judgment. The basis for this verdict is not the same as the basis for one’s being justified in “initial justification.” As I understand the Catholic view one can be “justified” by faith, die, face purgatory, and then receive “final justification.” The distinctness of the two “justifications” (in reality not merely name) is manifest by the difference in what they are based on. The “initial justification” cannot be the “final justification” announced ahead of time, since the “final justification” will take into account something that does not even exist at the time of the “initial justification”. But what I claimed was not merely that justification by faith guarantees one’s being granted eternal life on the last day but that the justification one receives by faith is the verdict of the last day granting eternal life, announced ahead of time. More precisely, the event of justification that happens with respect to one in connection with one’s having faith in Christ is identical with a verdict/finding/declaration that, prior to a full and complete revelation of the nature of the gospel, one would appropriately have expected to be given only at the eschaton if at all.

So, the claim is that (1) Rom. 3.20 concerns a tribunal on the last day, and says that no flesh will be justified in God’s sight (judged righteous by God and thereby granted eternal life) on the basis of one’s own obedience to God’s law for human conduct; that (2) by faith in the gospel and in Christ one can be justified in God’s sight (judged righteous by God and thereby granted eternal life); that (3) by faith one is justified in God’s sight (judged righteous by God and thereby granted eternal life) now, before the last day; and therefore that (4) for one who has been justified by faith, there is no room for any further ground or basis to be subsequently supplied for one’s being granted eternal life on the last day (for it has already been granted). I take (4) to comprehend the claims discussed above that I argued were inconsistent with Trent 6.16 and canon 32, and I claim that it follows from (2) and (3). The relevance of Romans chapter 3 (particularly 3.19-31) is two-fold: first, one’s own obedience to God’s law will not provide a ground for justification on the last day (this is (1)); second, when one is justified by faith eternal life is granted and hence there is no room for any extra basis for receiving eternal life to be supplied by one’s obedience to God’s law ((2) – (4)). Hence, the relevant places in Trent are contradicted in two distinct ways: first, meriting eternal life through works is impossible because Scripture teaches that it won’t happen; second, meriting eternal life through works is impossible because Scripture teaches that in justification by faith eternal life is granted to one (making any subsequent meriting of such life superfluous).

I have argued for (1) in prior posts, and in order to maintain the consistency of Trent on this score (6.16 and canon 32) with Rom. 3.20 you have opposed (1) by maintaining that “works of the law” refers only to works done outside a state of grace. But you also need to oppose (4), which you can do either by arguing against (3) ((3) contains (2) within itself, adding that the justification received through faith can be had in the present) or by arguing that (4) does not follow from (3). (4)’s falsity would not be implied by (1)’s falsity, because it could be that, even if in Rom. 3.20 Paul only says that no flesh will be judged righteous by God on the basis of works done outside a state of grace, it is in fact the case that no flesh will be judged righteous by God unto eternal life on the basis of any other works on the part of the individual as well. The support I’ve previously given for (3) involves the fact that (i) the teaching on justification by faith in Rom. 3.21f. follows on the heels of the teaching in 3.19-20 that one will not be judged righteous unto eternal life on the day of wrath on the basis of works of a certain kind (which you have conceded in virtue of maintaining that 3.20 is about “final justification”), and that (ii) the benefits of justification by faith are described in terms of one’s being saved from the wrath to come. The connection between (ii) (derived from passages like Rom. 5.1-11, 5.15-21, 8.28-39) and (3) is rather direct. The connection between (i) and (3) is more indirect but still compelling: when the context concerns a justification on the last day unto eternal life (which will not happen through certain kinds of works), the introduction of justification by faith to fill the gap implies that the justification by faith is a justification unto eternal life as well (otherwise it wouldn’t fill the gap but would rather divert the discussion to a different topic).

—-
Regarding the alleged “make righteous” meaning of dikaiow (‘justify’) in Rom. 3.20, I think (2) – (4) can be true even if the word has that sense in 3.20; but nevertheless it is important to dispute that interpretation. For, it seems this interpretation is crucial to your distinction between “initial justification” and “final justification,” a distinction which I think is simply non-existent (one’s “initial justification” – were I to accept the phrase – is one’s “final justification” – were I to accept the phrase – given ahead of time). Although the verb ‘justify’ (dikaiow) is used in multiple ways in the Bible, when the it addresses soteriology, the issue of salvation and how one receives eternal life from God, as far as I am aware there is only one justification; it knows nothing of multiple “justifications.” Also, the “make righteous” interpretation of the word seems relevant to your restriction of “works of the Law” in 3.20 to works done outside a state of grace, for presumably you think that works done in a state of grace can make one (more) righteous, and hence a “makes righteous” interpretation of ‘justify’ in 3.20 may lead one to restrict the scope of “works of the law” therein. Conversely, abandoning a “make righteous” interpretation would remove a reason to restrict “works of the law” as you have. So the alleged “make righteous” interpretation of ‘justify’ is relevant to the distinction between initial and final J more generally and to the truth or falsity of (1) with respect to the nature of “works of Law” in Rom. 3.20 in particular.

John Henry Newman had the following things to say about the meaning of ‘justify’ (Newman is a Catholic and I’m obviously not endorsing everything he says or claiming that he is on my side more generally):

John Henry Newman, 1838, Lectures on Justification (available at http://books.google.co.uk/books?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=1&as_pt=ALLTYPES&lr=lang_en&as_vt=Justification&as_auth=Newman&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_isbn=&as_issn=)(excerpts from Lecture 3):

Now to proceed to the subject of the present Lecture, that God justifies before He sanctifies; or that, in exact propriety of language, justification is counting righteous, not making. I would explain myself thus: — to “justify” means “counting righteous,” but includes under its meaning “making righteous;”…[he subsequently attempts to explain this distinction between meaning and “under” meaning; not very well in my view]

I shall now offer remarks in behalf of three positions, which arise out of what has been said; first, that justification is, properly speaking, a declaration of righteousness; secondly, that it precedes renewal; thirdly, that it is the means, instrument, or cause of renewal. It is “the Voice of the Lord” calling us, calling us what we are not when it calls us, calling us what we then begin to be.

Justification is “the glorious Voice of the Lord” declaring us to be righteous. That it is a declaration, not a making, is sufficiently clear from this one argument, that it is the justification of a sinner, of one who has been a sinner; and the past cannot be reversed except by accounting it reversed. Nothing can bring back time bygone; nothing can undo what is done. God treats us as if that had not been which has been; that is, by a merciful economy or representation, He says of us, as to the past, what in fact is otherwise. It is true that justification extends to the present as well as to the past; yet, if so, still it must mean an imputation or declaration, or it would cease to have respect to the past. And if it be once granted to mean an imputation, it cannot mean any thing else; for it cannot have two meanings at once. To account and to make are perfectly distinct ideas. The subject-matter may be double, but the act of justification is one; what it is as to the past, such must it be as to the present; it is a declaration about the past, it is a declaration about the present.

Again: In the eighth chapter of the same Epistle, St. Paul says, “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.” Here justification is contrasted with accusation; accordingly it is a judicial word, and is, therefore, concerned with the past. It comes upon the past and takes up man in his natural state, as found a sinner. Whatever blessings besides are intended for him, still it is the commencement of blessing, and if so, is necessarily, in the first place, a declaring, whatever it may do afterwards. It is, as being a judicial act, an act concerning the present as influenced by the past; they who have sinned are criminals, and they are justified from what they have been. Unless it can be shown, then, that courts of law make men innocent, instead of declaring them so, justification is a declaration, not a making.

Again, in the fifth chapter: “The judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification….[sic]As by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” Now here it is objected by Romanists and others, that Adam’s condemnation included an inward destitution, and therefore justification includes an inward gift. That, however, is a further question; whatever condemnation or justification may or may not involve or imply, the point before us is not this, but what the word means…

There are many collateral arguments leading us to the same conclusion. For instance; St. James says, “that Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.” No one can doubt that these phrases are synonymous with being justified; justification, then, is a “calling,” that is, a declaring, accounting, treating as the friend of God. That he also was the friend of God, and well-pleasing to Him, is certain too; but his justification was his being declared so.

Again; the Jews considered they were justified by the rites of the Law, such as circumcision, observing the Sabbath, paying tithes, and the like; and St. Paul says, “By the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.” Now, the Jews did not consider such works made them holy, but made them holy towards God, or recommended them to Him; and St. Paul condemns them for substituting them for holiness.

Turning to my prior arguments against the “making righteous” interpretation in Rom. 3.20 and your responses,

However, it does not make sense to say “no flesh will be made righteous in his sight / before him / in his presence.” The man’s being in God’s sight, or before God, or in front of God, is irrelevant to his being made righteous; for one’s being made righteous is something happening inside or within one and not in anyone’s sight.

It is precisely because the righteousness that is in question is within (i.e. in the heart), that it makes perfect sense to refer to God’s sight, because “God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” (1 Sam 16:7) St. Paul has just (in Rom 2) contrasted the external law-keeping (i.e. circumcision) with the circumcision of the heart done by the Spirit. In Rom 3:20 St. Paul is saying that by the works of the Law, no one will be made righteous within (i.e. within the heart) where God sees when He looks at man.

3.20 does not merely refer to God’s sight. It says that the justifying happens in God’s sight (“…because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight…”). This is the import of ‘in His sight’ being a prepositional phrase appended to the verbal clause. But God’s sight does not make one righteous; rather it finds or judges one righteous. Is this not what ‘in His sight’ is doing in Ps. 143.2, indicating that God does not find/judge anyone righteous? And is this not the role of ‘before God’ in Rom. 2.13a, indicating that God does not find/judge the (mere) hearer of the Law righteous? On your gloss of the verse here you have shifted away from “in His sight” to “where God sees”; from the perspective or subject of the seeing to the object of the seeing. But the verse does not say that no flesh will be justified in the heart or where God sees but that no flesh will be justified in God’s seeing/sight. But as I’ve pointed out, unlike finding/judging one to be righteous, making one (inherently) righteous is not something that happens in anyone’s sight. That would imply that becoming righteous is a relational event, constituted by a relation between the human and something outside him (the seeing of another). Becoming righteous is intrinsic, not constitutively dependent on something outside the human; though once one is inherently righteous another may consequently see him as such (the seeing indeed being a relation).

I do see a conceivable way to maintain the “making righteous” interpretation despite the prepositional phrase “in His sight”, namely, taking the ‘in His sight’ to not modify the “being justified” but rather as describing a context in which the “being justified” takes place (or does not take place; I’m bracketing the negation operating in 3.20a). On this interpretation, the “being justified” does not happen in His sight per se, but rather, the “being justified” just happens, and, incidentally, the justification-event is also in God’s sight; that is, He sees it happen. Although conceivable, this is an implausible interpretation because it seems to make the prepositional phrase incidental or irrelevant. It’s hard to see why Paul would use it unless he meant it to modify the verb “will be justified” such that the “will be justified” happens in God’s sight. Conversely, supposing that ‘in His sight’ is important and not tangential, one is led to take it as modifying the verb “will be justified” such that the justifying happens in God’s sight.

The contrast between literal circumcision and circumcision of the heart does not provide any special support for the “make righteous” interpretation, because that contrast would be just as relevant to a “find righteous” interpretation that both of us already agree is intended by Paul. In fact, it would seem to support a “find righteous” interpretation more than a “make righteous” interpretation, because it is more plausible that Jews would take physical circumcision to be something that distinguishes them in God’s sight rather than being something that somehow imparts inherent sanctity or justice to them. I am not aware of the Jews at that time having a kind of sacramental idea of impartation of inherent justice through the medium of circumcision (which Paul would then have reason to refute in Romans) that Catholics have with respect to baptism.

As for the possible allusion to Ps 143:2, that’s fully compatible with what I’ve said about Rom 3:20. By the works of the Law (i.e. under the Law, and not under grace), no one will be found righteous on that Day (or any day). And that’s because by the works of the Law (i.e. under the Law, and not under grace), no one will be made righteous.

It sounds like you are saying that Rom. 3.20 has two different meanings simultaneously, and that the reason Paul gives given for the sentence on one interpretation (the find-righteous interpretation) just is the sentence taken on the other interpretation (the make-righteous interpretation). This seems to be confirmed when you go on to say:

The reason why by the works of the Law (i.e. under Law, and not under grace) no one will be found righteous before Him is that by the works of the Law (i.e. under Law, and not under grace) no one will be made righteous. That’s what St. Paul is saying in Rom 3:20. In 3:20 he is not leaving open the possibility that the works of the Law can make a person righteous. He is explicitly denying that possibility.

So you seem to be saying that by “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight” simultaneously means both “by the works of the Law no flesh will be made righteous in His sight” and “by the works of the Law no flesh will be found righteous in His sight,” and the sentence construed in the first way provides the basis for the truth of the sentence construed in the second way. There is absolutely no reason to believe such a thing. It would be the height of confusing and cryptic communication for Paul to utter a sentence and, without telling us, intend to express two different propositions thereby; and further, to express two different propositions such that the reason for one of them is located in the other. Unless one uses words that are popularly known to be amenable to double entendre, when one utters a sentence it is assumed that the words making up the sentence each have a single intended meaning. If I say “Yesterday I went to Patrick’s house,” then the natural interpretation is that ‘Patrick’ has just one meaning or denotation, and that ‘house’ likewise has a single meaning as it is being used in that sentence. Even if I knew two people called ‘Patrick’, there would be no reason for one to interpret me as saying both that I went to Patrick(1)’s house and that I went to Patrick(2)’s house, unless context made it obvious; such as if Patrick(1) and Patrick(2) are both with me and a fourth person asks me what I did yesterday and I utter the above sentence in a certain way and/or with certain body language indicating that I am cleverly employing double entendre. Likewise, even if the semantic range of ‘house’ includes literal houses as well as models of houses (such as made out of legos), when I utter the sentence there is no reason to take me as simultaneously referring to two houses and thereby making two distinct claims; such that I would be saying simultaneously both that I went to Patrick’s literal house and that I went to see his lego house (again, unless there is a context and manner of communication implying double entendre; e.g., I am in Patrick’s house, in his room where his model house is, and while winking at Patrick I tell someone on the phone that I’m at Patrick’s house). Similarly, when Paul says that “by the works of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight,” there is no reason to take Paul as simultaneously making two different claims each of which depends on a completely different interpretation of ‘justified’, as if the reader/hearer is supposed to interpret it one way (make righteous) and understand him as making one claim (no flesh will be made righteous in His sight) and simultaneously interpret it in a different way (find righteous) and understand him as also making a different claim (no flesh will be judged righteous in His sight). And there is even less reason to take Paul to be both performing such a double entendre and giving the reason for one of the propositions in the other of the propositions (i.e., explaining why no one will be found righteous by saying no one will be made righteous). When people give reasons for propositions they either utter the thesis and then utter the reason next (e.g., such-and-such is the case, because such-and-such is the case) or utter the reason and then the thesis it supports (e.g., such-and-such is the case; therefore such-and-such is the case).

The reason no one will be found righteous on the day of wrath on the basis of works of the Law is that all flesh is sinful, all flesh has broken the law (cf. 2.12). This is the point of 3.9-19 and of 3.20b; in other words, the point of everything in the passage distinct from the particular clause in view (3.20a). It is true that doing the law outside a state of grace will not put one in a state of grace, will not make one righteous; but that’s not Paul’s explanation for his claim in 3.20a. He doesn’t need an explanation like that; because he’s already established in the passage that in God’s sight no one is righteous, not even one. In other words, even if certain works of the law done outside grace could make people righteous, that wouldn’t matter; because they already stand condemned in virtue of their sinful state prior to doing such transformative works. The explanation for why no one will be found righteous on the basis of works of the law is not that there is no way, from works of the law, for one to get out of his sinful state in the future; but rather because it is in fact the case (in the present, already) that people are unrighteous and hence deserving of condemnation rather than justification. The reason all the world stands accountable to God with every mouth stopped (3.19) is not because the world lacks a means, in the works of the law done apart from grace, to get out of their sinful state (even though that’s true); but because right now, in the present, all the world is sinful and hence guilty before the divine bar and deserving of condemnation. In other words, the inability to be made righteous by works of the law done outside grace is only a problem because people already are unrighteous (if people were righteous, they wouldn’t need to be made righteous), and given this state of unrighteousness, we already have our reason for why no flesh will be justified by works of the law in 3.20 (the unrighteousness); there being no need to bring in as a reason the inability to be made righteous by works done outside grace. So there is no need to appeal to a “make righteous” interpretation of 3.20 to give Paul’s reason for the claim that no flesh will be found righteous by works of the law (for the passage already clearly presents another reason); and further there is no reason to think 3.20 gives such a reason anyway, needed or not (for there is no reason to take Paul as performing double entendre and thereby expressing two different propositions through the one utterance or linguistic inscription).

I agree with what you say about Rom 3:19 being judicial. But St. Paul is not a nominalist. So from Rom 3:19 you conclude: “Hence, when Paul uses ‘justify’ in 3.20 he is referring to the judicial finding or pronouncement, not to one’s being made righteous”. That is a non sequitur. It doesn’t have to be either/or.

I don’t know what the reason for or the point of “But St. Paul is not a nominalist” was. I don’t see how it is relevant to something I said about Rom. 3.19 or how it would challenge what I said. On my view of Paul’s argument in Rom. 3 it is precisely because all flesh is sinful (really, not in name only or nominally) that they will not be found righteous by works of the law. Regarding the judicial context of Rom. 3.19 and Paul’s referring to a judicial finding, it doesn’t logically have to be either/or (as in, it is logically possible that it is both/and here) but it is nevertheless quite obviously either/or. There is no hint that Paul is performing double entendre; and hence, having established (3.19) a judicial context wherein all flesh are before the divine tribunal revealed as guilty (mouths stopped and accountable) such that “no flesh will be justified” means “no flesh will be found/judged righteous”, there is no reason to take Paul as simultaneously talking about a different subject; namely, persons’ being made righteous in the present. So, evidence for a “find righteous” interpretation, such as I provided in the last post (e.g., the judicial context), is evidence against a “make righteous” interpretation unless one can argue that Paul is intending to give ‘justify’ a double-sense here.

And to bring back in the prepositional phrase ‘in His sight’ on this point, it would seem you would need to take Paul to be performing double entendre with this phrase as well. For, in the judicial context the phrase would seem to clearly refer to God’s sight at the divine tribunal where he sits as judge. But if the “make righteous” interpretation of ‘justify’ leads one to interpret the sentence such that it is about the present, not the future and the judgment on the day of wrath, then “in His sight” on this interpretation cannot refer to God’s sight at the tribunal of the day of wrath. Hence, ‘in His sight’ would have a double-meaning as well (or at least a double-denotation), in addition to ‘justify’. That is, it would need to have a double-denotation provided one wants the “make righteous” interpretation of the sentence to apply to the present and not the day of wrath. If one took the claim to be that no flesh will be made righteous in His sight, where that is understood as being on the day of wrath, then one would not need to ascribe a double-denotation to ‘in His sight’. However, this interpretation of the sentence (where the time of the making-righteous is on the day of wrath rather than earlier) would also be very implausible, for it is obvious that no flesh will be made righteous before the divine bar on the day of wrath; because in judicial contexts in general (and at the eschatological judgment in particular) what the judge does is pronounce one righteous, not transform one who was not righteous into a state of righteousness. Regardless, even if such an interpretation were not implausible, it would not seem to be open to you, because you have maintained that 3.20 is about “initial justification” and such an interpretation would not be about initial J (because initial J does not happen on the day of wrath).

Do you take ‘justify’ to have a double-meaning in any other instance in Rom. 2 or 3 (2.13, 3.4, 24, 26, 28, 30)? If so, where and why; and if not, why take it to have a double-meaning in 3.20?

One way one might try to bolster a “make righteous” interpretation of ‘justify’ in Romans (whether or not we are talking about Rom. 3.20 in particular) would be to point out instances of ‘justify’ in the Pauline corpus where the word clearly means “make righteous”. If one can establish from an uncontroversial case (or at least a less controversial case) that the word is used by Paul to mean “make righteous,” then one establishes some reason to take that interpretation as a viable interpretation in other cases where Paul uses ‘justify’ (such as in Rom. 3 or 4 or 5 or 8 etc.). But I don’t think this can be done. Paul doesn’t use ‘justify’ this way, which is not surprising, since the Bible as a whole doesn’t use it that way either. That’s not what the word means in Scripture (nor, for that matter, in contemporary English).

D: But in the context of a “found righteous” interpretation of ‘justify’ in 3.20a, what is the function of 3.20b? Paul says that by the works of the Law no flesh will be judged righteous before God, for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin…

B: Exactly. The function of 3:20b is to provide the premise, explaining the conclusion stated in 3:20a. The reason no [mere] flesh will be found righteousness in His sight by the works of the Law [apart from grace], is that the Law does not have the power to make flesh righteous. Law is not grace. What the Law has the power to do, says St. Paul, is give us knowledge of sin. It does not have the power to overcome sin. As St. Paul goes on to say, only by grace [i.e. a participation in the divine Life] are we able to die to sin (Rom 6:2). The Law, however, does not kill sin; it only occasions more sin, for the person without grace (Rom 7:5-13).

D: …3.20b is confirming or providing an explanation for why no flesh will be judged righteous on the basis of works of the law: all flesh is sinful. That is, the reason no flesh will be justified by works of the law is that no flesh has done them.

You responded to my quoting the verse but not to my own comments about it after the quoting. The reason you give, that you claim is indicated in 3.20b, is that “the Law does not have the power to make flesh righteous.” I agree that the Law does not have the power to make flesh righteous, but this is not what 3.20b says, not the reason confirming what is said in 3.20a. The confirming reason is that through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. Again, the inability for the Law to make anyone righteous is only a problem because, antecedently, people are unrighteous. If people were already righteous, the inability of the Law to make them righteous would be irrelevant. The problem is not that the Law cannot make one righteous (though it is true that it cannot do this), but that people are in fact unrighteous. The Law helps reveal this: through the Law comes the knowledge of sin (unrighteousness). The Law does this in multiple ways. For one, as Rom. 3.9-19 says, the “Law” in the sense of the Scriptures themselves tell us (and hence provide knowledge) of human sin by telling us that in God’s sight no one is righteous, etc. For another, sin working inside one produces sin on the occasion (to adapt one of your terms above) of one’s being acquainted with the Law. E.g., when Paul hears the commandment against coveting sin produced coveting in him. But in either case, whether it is the Scripture’s telling us that all are sinful or the commandments themselves providing occasions for sin to produce sin in one, the fundamental problem is sin; attested by the Scriptures or working in one on the occasion of hearing commandments. Hence, the confirmation of 3.20a by 3.20b works this way: the Law reveals (provides knowledge) that all flesh is sinful, not righteous; and therefore, since only the righteous will be found righteous, no flesh will be found righteous (justified) by works of the Law in His sight. So I re-affirm what I’ve already said and what I’ve quoted just above, that the confirmation 3.20b provides for 3.20a is that all flesh is sinful/lawbreaking. In addition to providing rational support for the claim in 3.20a, this interpretation of 3.20b is also confirmed by 3.9-19; for the point of this passage was likewise the sinfulness of all flesh as said in the Law.

But, the Law in itself lacks the power to make us holy. That’s what St. Paul means in Rom 8:3 “For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did.”

No; you’ve omitted in your quotation the part of the verse that actually says what God did, and it is not “make us holy” as you claim. The entirety of Rom. 8.3 is: “For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh…”

and that even a [hypothetical] unfallen man, apart from grace, who kept the moral law, would still not be righteous in His sight. Such a [hypothetical] man would have only human righteousness, not the righteousness of God.

This is diametrically opposed to Rom. 2. If a hypothetical unfallen man kept the moral law, was a doer of the Law, he would indeed be justified as the proper recompense according to his deeds. The reason we need a righteousness of God and from God is precisely because we are lawbreakers and hence stand guilty and deserving of condemnation rather than justification. There is nothing unsatisfactory with a merely human righteousness! It’s precisely the kind of righteousness God’s moral nature expects of humans and it is the lacking of this kind of righteousness that results in guilt and one’s deserving condemnation. The Fall was a result of a human’s disobedience to God.

We should not take “works of the Law” as referring to merely “external” works done without love, for in context the accusation being made against Jew and Greek, resulting in every mouth (Jew or Greek) being closed and all the world (Jew and Greek) being accountable to God, is that all flesh (Jew and Greek) has broken the moral law. (This is perfectly consistent with the Mosaic Law’s being broken, because the moral law is in the Mosaic Law.) Gentiles could only be brought into the accusation if the breaking of the moral law is in view; since it was the only aspect of the Mosaic Law they had written on the heart and were accountable to keep. Further, the moral law itself demands obedience from the heart, not merely external or formal obedience.

Your argument is that since the moral law demands obedience from the heart, and since the moral law is included within the Mosaic Law, therefore “works of the Law” [in Rom 3:20] should not be taken as works of the Law [apart from grace, faith, hope and agape].

My conclusion was that the “works of the Law” in Rom. 3.20 should not be taken as works of the Law done apart from or without love. You then respond:

But you are [mistakenly] conflating “obedience from the heart” with “[having] grace, faith, hope and agape]. There are two sorts of love for God. There is natural love for God, commanded by the moral law (i.e. the natural law), and there is supernatural love for God (i.e. agape), which is poured forth into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). Agape is not commanded by the natural law. We have agape only by grace, not by nature. So, your conclusion does not follow. Just because the moral law demands obedience from the heart (and I agree that it does), that does not entail that “works of the Law” [referred to in Rom 3:20] must be referring to those done with grace, faith, hope, and agape.

This distinction between the “love” commanded by the law and the “love” (agape, which is a Greek word for love) poured into our hearts is illegitimate. In Mat. 19.19, wherein Christ is quoting from the Law, the verb agapaw (which is a verb meaning “love” and is a cognate of the noun “agape” which means “love”) is used for “love” in the quotation of “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” In Mat. 22.36, someone asks Jesus which is the “great commandment in the Law,” and Jesus responds with “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” The word for “love” is agapaw. Then in v. 39 Jesus gives the second greatest commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” again agapaw being used for “love.” In Mk. 12.28-33, someone asks Jesus “what commandment is the foremost of all.” After this Jesus gives the same two commandments (the foremost, and the second), again with agapaw being the verb for “love”; subsequent to which his interlocutor agrees with Jesus and, in repeating those two commandments himself, agapaw is used in both cases. In Lk. 10.25-27 someone asks Jesus “what shall I do to inherit eternal life,” and in vv. 26-27 the same two commandments are quoted as being “what is written in the Law”; and again agapaw is the word for “love.” Subsequent to this exchange, we get the story of the good Samaritan, wherein Jesus gives a picture of what it means to “love one’s neighbor as yourself.” This is agape, love, being exemplified, and it is what the Law requires. Because of human sin and fallenness the love required by the law can only exist in one if God by his Spirit works it in one; but the love the Spirit works is the love required by the moral law of God, not some other kind of love. My conclusion does follow, because there is biblically no difference between the “supernatural love” infused by God and the love commanded in God’s law.

Ezek. 36.26-27: Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

The sanctity God infuses into us causes us to obey his moral law as it was meant to be obeyed; that is, it does not cause us to obey some “new” or “higher” standard of conduct or righteousness but rather to truly obey the “old” one (which is already high enough).

We see the contrast already in the next verse (Rom 3:21), where St. Paul contrasts the righteousness of God through faith, with the condemnation that comes from “works of the Law.” If faith (and grace, and hope, and agape) were included in the “works of the Law” of Rom 3:20, then the rest of the chapter (and the rest of the epistle) wouldn’t make sense.

Paul does not contrast the righteousness of God received through faith with “the condemnation that comes from ‘works of the Law’.” No condemnation comes from works of the law. Condemnation comes from failing to do the works of the law (Rom. 2.6-13). If one did the works of the Law in God’s sight that would lead to justification (2.6, 13). It’s not clear how the rest of the chapter would not make sense if faith (and grace, and hope, and agape) were included in the “works of the Law.” My best bet is that it seems to you that the rest of the chapter would not make sense if we do not add such a restriction only because you are assuming that one is in fact justified by certain works of the law (one’s done in grace). But this is precisely the doctrine that I’ve argued to be erroneous in this thread in connection with Rom. 2 and 3. In justification by faith one is granted eternal life; not a new beginning in sanctity with which one can then performs works of the Law in the right way and eventually be justified unto eternal life by them. Justification by faith does not begin a process culminating in justification by works of the Law; rather, Paul has claimed that there will be no justification by works of the law on the day of wrath, and justification by faith fills this gap, providing an alternative righteousness unto justification unto eternal life.

My contention is not that we should include faith grace and love in “works of the Law” in 3.20 per se. Rather, my contention is that we should not add a positive restriction to “works of the Law” such that it means works of the Law done without these things (particularly love). I am not claiming Paul has these things in mind (faith grace love) and is lumping them in with “works of the Law.” I am claiming that the kind of works of the Law Paul has in mind are the kind of works such that if they were done they would result in justification for the doer; and hence he is not making a restriction that would leave out love, for loveless works would not justify anyone. Works in love are obviously the kind of works in view in Rom. 2.6-13 and Paul doesn’t change the subject in 3.9-20; rather Paul emphasizes that no one has sufficiently done these works of the Law (there is none righteous, not even one, etc.; all have fallen short of the glory (3.23) offered through obedience to the law (2.7)). In fact, in addition to a lack of evidence that Paul is changing the subject, there is positive confirmation that he is not changing the subject; because in 3.9 he says “for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin.” By the “already” he makes explicit that in 3.9f. he is not making a new argument but rather summing up one that he has been developing in chapters 1 and 2.

It is true that in 2.25-29 Paul contrasts merely literal circumcision and circumcision of the heart by the Spirit, but he nowhere says that the role of circumcision by the Spirit is to put one in a position to be subsequently justified by lawkeeping. Those who are so circumcised are justified by faith, which as I’ve already argued entitles them to eternal life and saves them from condemnation on the day of wrath. In other words, once one has Christ’s Spirit there is no more eternal life to merit by walking in it; for the Spirit is a gift given in pledge of an eternal inheritance that has already been accomplished by Christ’s work and already been vouchsafed to the believer by the Spirit’s seal. Those who have and walk by Christ’s Spirit (Rom. 8.1f.) are not walking in it in order to merit eternal life and a “final justification”. Rather, those who walk by the Spirit already have been justified (5.1, 5; 8.1-2) and thereby granted eternal life and saved from God’s wrath on the day of wrath; through Christ’s blood (5.1-11) and obedience (5.15-21) and intercession (8.33-34) and love (8.35-39) that is for those and only for those who trust in him rather than their own righteousness (10.5-13 – this dichotomy’s being Paul’s dichotomy).

In the first part of the post I explained how I was posing two distinct challenges to Trent. 6.16 and canon 32 in connection with Rom. 3.19-31 ((1) and (4)). In the second part I further defended (1) by further defending the view of “works of the Law” in 3.20 according to which Paul is saying that no flesh will be justified by works of the Law simpliciter – not merely that no flesh will be justified by works of the Law done outside a state of grace. In the process of defending this view I also further argued that “make righteous” would be an erroneous interpretation of ‘justify’ in 3.20.

Thanks for the careful and charitable discussion.

Likewise.

I have to take a break for a few weeks. So, if you reply right away, I won’t get to it until some time in March.

There is no rush as far as I’m concerned.