I finally got around to reading this and found it very interesting. I think it's a cool way of parsing out what it means to sin and be good. I think it's important to emphasize that the only way to please God is through faith. However, there were a couple parts that gave me pause, but maybe you could clarify if it was just me misunderstanding your argument.
The declaration of Paul in Romans 3:12 that "there is no one who does good, not even one" is held in the context of attaining righteousness through the law. Even our righteousness are like "filthy rags" according to Isaiah. Because of this, I may go even further and oppose the idea that one can actually "do good" by practicing faith in God. After all, Paul didn't say "the only ones who do good are those with faith." That is, if one could truly "do good" by having faith, then it seems faith itself would become meritorious, and therefore a work. If faith truly merits anything, then what was the purpose of the cross? On the other hand, the scripture consistently pits works and faith against each other. That they are antithetical to each other. Faith is nothing in itself, and clears us of no wrongdoing. For example, just because a criminal confesses his crimes, feels sorrowful, and asks for forgiveness means nothing in the court of law. It would only be because of the great mercy of the judge that he would forgive this repentant criminal and take the punishment on himself. Consequently, WE aren't the ones doing good when we have faith, but Christ's goodness being imputed to us. We are called righteous, not because our faith obligated God to call us righteous, but because of the righteousness he freely and undeservedly gives to those with faith.
This slight critique may be aimed at my poor reading of the text, so let me know if I represented you well! Overall, I found it incredibly insightful and a great way to share the gospel.
Those are some good probing questions, and you're definitely getting into the deep stuff with them. Hopefully I can clarify without too much trouble.
It sounds like you may have detected (maybe without knowing it) the small sleight of hand I used in the article. Looking back, I can see that I didn't clarify where I meant faith as a thing given to us by God and where I meant it as a trusting obedience to God. But I don't think that's necessarily a big issue; using the two almost (key word, *almost*) interchangably does pretty accurately reflect the way I think about the biblical concept of faith.
For an example, take Abraham's faith. According to Romans 4 and Genesis 15, his faith is "credited to him as righteousness." That sure sounds pretty meritorious. But which of the kinds of faith are we talking about? If this faith is a trusting response that Abraham is expected to have on his own, that would definitely make his justification a matter of merit. But if this faith is given to him by God, then it becomes simply the vehicle for his justification, rather than a condition of merit. With that said, though, Abraham's acting in obedience to God is still rightly called faith.
In addition to the above, consider Adam as a test case. In a pre-fall world, there is no need to be justified, but there is still need for faith. Adam displeased God and sinned against him precisely at the moment when he no longer trusted God's word and believed a lie instead. God expects faithful obedience of us as His creatures, and that is why acting in faith can be considered righteousness. So with that in mind, Rom. 3:12 takes another meaning: there is no one, by their nature, who has faith in God, not even one.
In light of the context, that being righteousness through the law, consider also Hebrews 4:2. The Jews under Moses did not profit precisely because the law "was not united in faith by those who heard." Faith has always been the expectation, and the failures of the Jews with the law were explicitly because of their lack of faith.
I think that’s a good clarification you made between the faith of repentance and the faith of trusting obedience. I would agree that trusting obedience can be a good work insofar as it is an action that springs out of trust in God. However, our imperfect degree of trusting obedience will never match God’s perfect standard. We will never merit anything from God with our weak and unstable faith. Christ obviously was the most obedient, and therefore we trust in his merits rather than our own.
On the other hand, I would contend that the faith of repentance is not a good work, or even meritorious. I would find it concerning if the act of humbling oneself and admitting inadequacy were meritorious, because that would seem to mean that it would obligate God to save us. This conflates the decision of the sinner to repent with God’s choice to save the repentant. Of course God is not obligated to save anyone, even those who ask for it. Abraham's faith did not earn righteousness, but it was credited to him as righteousness. God freely imputed righteousness to Abraham, righteousness which Abraham himself did not merit by responding in faith. As Romans 3:25 says "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith." The power is in Christ's atonement, not the faith. Paul is emphasizing that the gift of salvation through faith is apart from anything meritorious, which must mean that faith itself is not meritorious. If indeed repentance were meritorious, this would bring up some major concerns about God's plan of salvation. If salvation requires any merit on our part, even if given the ability to perform this merit by God, then salvation can not properly be called a "free gift" because it would still require merit from the man. Catholic teaching, for example says that salvation is purely through grace, but man can nevertheless perform good works when enabled by God, which in turn merit salvation: "Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit" (Catholic Catechism 2010). My concern with this teaching, and also the teaching that faith is a meritorious gift of God is that it ultimately still gives man some work or merit he must perform (even if enabled or caused by God to do so). I believe the clear teaching of scripture, on the other hand, to be that faith is not meritorious, nor a good work, nor anything we do to contribute to our salvation. God is under no moral obligation to save the repentant, and does so only out of his grace and mercy.
John Piper has a great article on the topic and I think it clarifies very well how the merit of Christ is imputed to us, rather than our faith meriting it.
This view ends up in pretty much the same place as your article describes. Anything done from faith is seen by God as righteousness, and anything not from faith is sin. The distinction lies in how the merit is being obtained. Do we obtain the merit when enabled by God? Or is it Christ because he is the object of our faith? I believe that the only way to be righteous is to respond to God in faith, but that is not to say that the righteousness is our own. It is the righteousness of faith, not the righteousness of the law. It is Christ's righteousness being transferred to our account. We did nothing to deserve it or merit it, as not even our faith merits it. I hope this clarifies! I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Lovely post Josiah! I've not seen this argument made quite this way before. Very creative (and probably right). I do wonder how your definition of sin fits within the two ways Paul sees sin within Romans. On the one hand, moral failings are certainly one sense of sin. The other, commonly recognized by scholars of all stripes, is Sin as cosmic power to which we are enslaved. In what sense is enslavement to sin a lack of trust?
I also think your definition of faith leaves something to be desired. Trust is certainly a foundational element, but it doesn't seem like a sufficient basis for ethics. Indeed, that which ultimately comes from faith is "doing good" but is there something that happens between faith and works?
Fair questions, and well asked. The sense in which enslavement to sin fits in is in relation to the unbeliever's inability to believe God and His word, and I would tie that to Romans 8:7.
I would say that faith is most certainly a sufficient base for ethics if you include the object of that faith. Faith as an abstract concept is not a ground for ethics, but faith in the Triune God, His grace, and His word absolutely is. It's the only ground as far as God is concerned. Faith in God's word produces moral obedience, but the faith is the justifying component.
Would you mind expounding on your second point? How exactly does trust in God serve as a basis for an 'ought' statement? Within Romans, it seems that faith primarily serves as an antithetical to "works of the law". Once Paul turns to ethical exhortation in 12, faith takes a backseat apart from a brief mention in the section on matters of conscience. Elsewhere it seems that ethics are primarily connected to the Spirit, not faith which is primarily directed to Christ.
The faith component, as mentioned in the article, is the means by which the moral exhortations are meant to be followed. This is expressed in the phrase (from Gal. 2:20), "the life I now live I live by faith in the Son of God." My belief is that all the commands of God are to be carried out in faith. This includes both believing that they are of God, being holy and righteous, and trusting in His grace to carry them out.
I finally got around to reading this and found it very interesting. I think it's a cool way of parsing out what it means to sin and be good. I think it's important to emphasize that the only way to please God is through faith. However, there were a couple parts that gave me pause, but maybe you could clarify if it was just me misunderstanding your argument.
The declaration of Paul in Romans 3:12 that "there is no one who does good, not even one" is held in the context of attaining righteousness through the law. Even our righteousness are like "filthy rags" according to Isaiah. Because of this, I may go even further and oppose the idea that one can actually "do good" by practicing faith in God. After all, Paul didn't say "the only ones who do good are those with faith." That is, if one could truly "do good" by having faith, then it seems faith itself would become meritorious, and therefore a work. If faith truly merits anything, then what was the purpose of the cross? On the other hand, the scripture consistently pits works and faith against each other. That they are antithetical to each other. Faith is nothing in itself, and clears us of no wrongdoing. For example, just because a criminal confesses his crimes, feels sorrowful, and asks for forgiveness means nothing in the court of law. It would only be because of the great mercy of the judge that he would forgive this repentant criminal and take the punishment on himself. Consequently, WE aren't the ones doing good when we have faith, but Christ's goodness being imputed to us. We are called righteous, not because our faith obligated God to call us righteous, but because of the righteousness he freely and undeservedly gives to those with faith.
This slight critique may be aimed at my poor reading of the text, so let me know if I represented you well! Overall, I found it incredibly insightful and a great way to share the gospel.
Those are some good probing questions, and you're definitely getting into the deep stuff with them. Hopefully I can clarify without too much trouble.
It sounds like you may have detected (maybe without knowing it) the small sleight of hand I used in the article. Looking back, I can see that I didn't clarify where I meant faith as a thing given to us by God and where I meant it as a trusting obedience to God. But I don't think that's necessarily a big issue; using the two almost (key word, *almost*) interchangably does pretty accurately reflect the way I think about the biblical concept of faith.
For an example, take Abraham's faith. According to Romans 4 and Genesis 15, his faith is "credited to him as righteousness." That sure sounds pretty meritorious. But which of the kinds of faith are we talking about? If this faith is a trusting response that Abraham is expected to have on his own, that would definitely make his justification a matter of merit. But if this faith is given to him by God, then it becomes simply the vehicle for his justification, rather than a condition of merit. With that said, though, Abraham's acting in obedience to God is still rightly called faith.
In addition to the above, consider Adam as a test case. In a pre-fall world, there is no need to be justified, but there is still need for faith. Adam displeased God and sinned against him precisely at the moment when he no longer trusted God's word and believed a lie instead. God expects faithful obedience of us as His creatures, and that is why acting in faith can be considered righteousness. So with that in mind, Rom. 3:12 takes another meaning: there is no one, by their nature, who has faith in God, not even one.
In light of the context, that being righteousness through the law, consider also Hebrews 4:2. The Jews under Moses did not profit precisely because the law "was not united in faith by those who heard." Faith has always been the expectation, and the failures of the Jews with the law were explicitly because of their lack of faith.
Thanks for the thoughtful response!
I think that’s a good clarification you made between the faith of repentance and the faith of trusting obedience. I would agree that trusting obedience can be a good work insofar as it is an action that springs out of trust in God. However, our imperfect degree of trusting obedience will never match God’s perfect standard. We will never merit anything from God with our weak and unstable faith. Christ obviously was the most obedient, and therefore we trust in his merits rather than our own.
On the other hand, I would contend that the faith of repentance is not a good work, or even meritorious. I would find it concerning if the act of humbling oneself and admitting inadequacy were meritorious, because that would seem to mean that it would obligate God to save us. This conflates the decision of the sinner to repent with God’s choice to save the repentant. Of course God is not obligated to save anyone, even those who ask for it. Abraham's faith did not earn righteousness, but it was credited to him as righteousness. God freely imputed righteousness to Abraham, righteousness which Abraham himself did not merit by responding in faith. As Romans 3:25 says "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith." The power is in Christ's atonement, not the faith. Paul is emphasizing that the gift of salvation through faith is apart from anything meritorious, which must mean that faith itself is not meritorious. If indeed repentance were meritorious, this would bring up some major concerns about God's plan of salvation. If salvation requires any merit on our part, even if given the ability to perform this merit by God, then salvation can not properly be called a "free gift" because it would still require merit from the man. Catholic teaching, for example says that salvation is purely through grace, but man can nevertheless perform good works when enabled by God, which in turn merit salvation: "Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit" (Catholic Catechism 2010). My concern with this teaching, and also the teaching that faith is a meritorious gift of God is that it ultimately still gives man some work or merit he must perform (even if enabled or caused by God to do so). I believe the clear teaching of scripture, on the other hand, to be that faith is not meritorious, nor a good work, nor anything we do to contribute to our salvation. God is under no moral obligation to save the repentant, and does so only out of his grace and mercy.
John Piper has a great article on the topic and I think it clarifies very well how the merit of Christ is imputed to us, rather than our faith meriting it.
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/is-faith-meritorious
This view ends up in pretty much the same place as your article describes. Anything done from faith is seen by God as righteousness, and anything not from faith is sin. The distinction lies in how the merit is being obtained. Do we obtain the merit when enabled by God? Or is it Christ because he is the object of our faith? I believe that the only way to be righteous is to respond to God in faith, but that is not to say that the righteousness is our own. It is the righteousness of faith, not the righteousness of the law. It is Christ's righteousness being transferred to our account. We did nothing to deserve it or merit it, as not even our faith merits it. I hope this clarifies! I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Lovely post Josiah! I've not seen this argument made quite this way before. Very creative (and probably right). I do wonder how your definition of sin fits within the two ways Paul sees sin within Romans. On the one hand, moral failings are certainly one sense of sin. The other, commonly recognized by scholars of all stripes, is Sin as cosmic power to which we are enslaved. In what sense is enslavement to sin a lack of trust?
I also think your definition of faith leaves something to be desired. Trust is certainly a foundational element, but it doesn't seem like a sufficient basis for ethics. Indeed, that which ultimately comes from faith is "doing good" but is there something that happens between faith and works?
Fair questions, and well asked. The sense in which enslavement to sin fits in is in relation to the unbeliever's inability to believe God and His word, and I would tie that to Romans 8:7.
I would say that faith is most certainly a sufficient base for ethics if you include the object of that faith. Faith as an abstract concept is not a ground for ethics, but faith in the Triune God, His grace, and His word absolutely is. It's the only ground as far as God is concerned. Faith in God's word produces moral obedience, but the faith is the justifying component.
Would you mind expounding on your second point? How exactly does trust in God serve as a basis for an 'ought' statement? Within Romans, it seems that faith primarily serves as an antithetical to "works of the law". Once Paul turns to ethical exhortation in 12, faith takes a backseat apart from a brief mention in the section on matters of conscience. Elsewhere it seems that ethics are primarily connected to the Spirit, not faith which is primarily directed to Christ.
The faith component, as mentioned in the article, is the means by which the moral exhortations are meant to be followed. This is expressed in the phrase (from Gal. 2:20), "the life I now live I live by faith in the Son of God." My belief is that all the commands of God are to be carried out in faith. This includes both believing that they are of God, being holy and righteous, and trusting in His grace to carry them out.