Dr. R.C. Sproul

Declared Righteous: Rome vs. the Reformation

by R.C. Sproul, with comments

——————

R.C. Sproul quote:

Rome set forth their doctrine — and still does — that God will never declare a person just until that person actually, under divine scrutiny, is found to be just…when God looks at us, he will not say that we are just until he sees that we really are just.Rome teaches that we cannot be just without grace, that we will never become just without faith, and that we will never become just without the assistance of Christ. We need faith, we need grace, and we need Jesus. We need the righteousness of Christ infused or poured into our soul, but you must cooperate with that grace to such a degree that we will in fact become righteous. If we die with any impurity in our soul, thereby lacking complete righteousness, we will not go to heaven. If no mortal sin is present in our life, we will go to purgatory, which is the place of purging. The point of the purging is to get rid of the dross so that we become completely pure. It may take three years or three million years, but the object of purgatory is to make us righteous so that we can be admitted into God’s heaven.

Part of the reason for this belief, that justification is rooted in an inherent righteousness in the sinner, comes from something unfortunate in church history. In the early centuries, when the Greek language passed away from the central attention of the church fathers and Latin became the dominant language, many scholars read only the Latin Bible, not the Greek bible, and they borrowed the Roman or Latin word for justification, iustificare, from which we get the English work justification. The Latin verb ficare means “to make” or “to shape” or “to do.” Isutus means “righteousness” or “justice,” so iustificare literally means “to make righteous,” which we believe is what happens in sanctification, not in justification.

The Greek word that we are dealing with here in the Romans text is the word dikaioo, dikaiosune, which does not mean “to make righteous” but rather “to declare righteous.” In the Roman Catholic view, God will never pronounce a person just or righteous until, by the help of God’s grace and Christ, that person actually becomes righteous. [But] If God were to judge us tonight, what would he find? Would he find sin in our lives? Could he possibly declare us just if he considers only the righteousness that he finds in us today? Remember what the Apostle Paul said: “By the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight” (3:20). That is precisely why the ground for our justification cannot be found in us or in any righteousness inherent in our souls. That is why we need so desperately what Luther called a iustia alienum, an alien righteousness, a righteousness that comes from outside ourselves. Luther called this righteousness extranos, outside or apart from us.

In simple terms, this means that the only righteousness sufficient for us to stand before the judgment of God is the righteousness of Christ.

Excerpt from Romans (St. Andrew’s Expositional Commentary) by R.C. Sproul

————–

Response from visitor considering Roman Cathoicism:

I love R.C Sproul, even though I am now going Catholic. I love how he always gives the proper Catholic teaching. The sad part about it though, is that he is discounting the Catholic form of justification for a legal argument made my Luther and Calvin, and he is presupposing that when Paul says “By the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight” that Paul is talking about the moral natural law of God, and not the Jewish ceremonial laws that he is combating in the early Church.

Sungenis a former Westminster graduate who is now a Catholic, wrote a very detailed book on “Not by faith alone” and he has tried to get Sproul to have a genuine and honest open conversation about it, and Sproul does not want to do it. I am not saying it is because Sproul isn’t right, but I believe that for someone like me, who is leaning Catholic, it would be very helpful to hear one of my heroes R.C Sproul address this book that is pretty in depth.

—————-

My Response:

_____, if you don’t mind I would like to comment on something you posted: You said, “…he [Sproul] is presupposing that when Paul says “By the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight” that Paul is talking about the moral natural law of God, and not the Jewish ceremonial laws that he is combating in the early Church.”

If we look at the context of the whole epistle as to how Paul is using the term Law, it becomes immediately apparent that his warning not to circumcise also encompasses a much broader warning not to trust in anything other than Christ alone, whether it be circumcision or anything else. The specific context of Romans 1-3 (out of which you quote), however, focuses in on a list of humanity’s sins which constitute the breaking of the moral law of God, and Paul finishes his argument that all men are under sin by saying, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” SO the law does not show our moral ability but our moral inability. And Christ came to set us free from such bondage (Gal 4: 1-7; 21-31). to ceremonial laws like circumcision precisely because practicing it would then require us to obey the entire moral law perfectly. Consider what Paul says about this in Galatians: “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.” Gal 5:1,2

Notice, Paul tells the Galatians that if they trust in circumsicion, they will also have to obey the whole law (which includes the moral law) perfectly, if the want to save themselves. Likewise Later in Gal 6 he says, “even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”

So Paul makes it plain here that those who keep the ceremonial law cannot keep the whole law so it is useless. So we cannot make obedience to the law into a Savior. His only boast is Christ alone. They were also boasting in their converts. Rememeber Paul attached an anathema at the beginning of the epistle to those who reject this understanding, so I would encourage you to consider VERY seriously your next step. I pray the Lord bless you and open your heart and eyes to the true Gospel.

It is true that many Protestants may misrepresent RCC by saying that they believe in a salvation apart from grace. We understand that both Roman Catholics (and Arminians for that matter) would denounce any belief which says you can be saved without the grace of God. However, it is important to note that the Reformers never claimed Rome believed you can be saved apart from grace. That wasn’t the debate. The debate at the time of the Reformation was never, even for a moment, about the NECESSITY of grace, it was always about the sufficiency of grace. And frankly that remains the issue today – and is the central debate in the church. Is Christ sufficient to save us to the uttermost? Is Christ’s work enough? In RCC theology, if you either have to attain or maintain your own just standing before God, then what Christ did for us (in his life and death) was not sufficient in itself to redeem us…it was not enough. It may have been necessary, but it was not sufficient. Christ, in this case, is no longer a Savior, but simply one who helps us save ourselves. Such is the position RCC has placed themselves in.

———–

Response from visitor considering Roman Cathoicism:

I agree. This is clearly where the debate should be. I am tired of talking to people who claim that grace is not taught in the RCC, so thanks for honestly defining the RCC.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The highest calling in the world!

You’ll be surprised how expository preaching has actually been very unliked. Earlier on in 2009, Andy Stanley, pastor of North Point Community Church, and son of esteemed Baptist preacher Dr. Charles Stanley, said this over as missiologist Ed Stetzer’s blog:

Guys that preach verse-by-verse through books of the Bible– that is just cheating. It’s cheating because that would be easy, first of all. That isn’t how you grow people. No one in the Scripture modeled that. There’s not one example of that.

Well, I could take Pastor Stanley to task for his foolish comments regarding both the nature and the usefulness of expositional preaching, but he’s not alone. David Fitch, over at Out of Ur, a blog hosted by ChristianityToday.com, made the following scathing attack on exposition:

There is a myth surrounding expository preaching among North American evangelicals. It goes like this: if the preacher follows the text more closely in his preaching, both he/she and the congregation will stay true to the Word of God. No other agendas or human wisdom will slither into the preaching. Implied is, if the preacher but applies the exegetical historical-critical skills learned in seminary and studies the text in its original language, (s)he can arrive at the meaning of the text all by him/herself. This is the mythology I believe is behind expository preaching in the evangelical world.

Why do I label this a mythology? Well first of all, the historical-critical method in the hands of individuals has not yielded a singular meaning as “intended by the author” in over 100 years. Instead what we have is thousands of commentaries on the Bible that present numerous unresolved options for interpreting practically every verse in the Bible. Historical-critical exegesis hasn’t generated more unity over Scripture; it has generated less.

Again, anyone who has actually studied the history of preaching could take serious issue with this. However, in my spiritual journey, from Pentecostalism, through a slight detour through the cults, back to Pentecostalism and then the Reformed faith, I have found that the faithful preaching of the Word of God, verse-by-verse, is actually relevant in our entertainment-addicted, media driven culture. Here’s why:

I. God’s Word is still God’s Word: Yes, I am beginning from the outset with the blatent obvious. If Scripture is the word of God – God literally communicating to and with us – then surely we will want to hear that Word taught constantly.

II. God’s Word is the means of our sanctification: Paul had the right idea when, in his speaking to the Ephesian elders, he said:

Acts 20:32 KJV And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

III. (And this ought to be the main one) Preacher, you are commanded to preach the Word constantly!

2 Timothy 4:1-4 KJV ¹ I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; ² Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. ³ For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; ⁴ And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

In season…out of season – sounds like “all the time” to me. That exposition may involve dealing with doctrines or passages of Scripture, but the point remains the same – the preacher/teacher of God’s Word is to be engaged in the continual teaching of the Word. Anything less is a failure – before God, and to the flock which God committed to his hand.

So, you see, exposition remains as relevant in 2009 (bordering on 2010) as it did during the days of the Reformation. Preachers who do this, keep on doing it! And those who don’t, well, bring the Book and preach it faithfully…

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Dr. R.C. Sproul

Any written document must be interpreted if it is to be understood. The United States of America has nine highly skilled individuals whose daily task is to interpret the Constitution. They comprise the Supreme Court of the land. To interpret the Bible is a far more solemn task than to interpret the U.S. Constitution. It requires great care and diligence. The Bible itself is its own Supreme Court. The chief rule of biblical interpretation is “sacred Scripture is its own interpreter.” This principle means that the Bible is to be interpreted by the Bible. What is obscure in one part of Scripture may be made clear in another. To interpret Scripture by Scripture means that we must not set one passage of Scripture against another passage. Each text must be understood not only in light of its immediate context but also in light of the context of the whole of Scripture.
In addition, properly understood, the only legitimate and valid method of interpreting the Bible is the method of literal interpretation. Yet there is much confusion about the idea of literal interpretation. Literal interpretation, strictly speaking, means that we are to interpret the Bible as it is written. A noun is treated as a noun and a verb as a verb. It means that all the forms that are used in the writing of the Bible are to be interpreted according to the normal rules governing those forms. Poetry is to be treated as poetry. Historical accounts are to be treated as history. Parables as parables, hyperbole as hyperbole, and so on.
In this regard, the Bible is to be interpreted according to the rules that govern the interpretation of any book. In some ways the Bible is unlike any other book ever written. However, in terms of its interpretation, it is to be treated as any other book.
The Bible is not to be interpreted according to our own desires and prejudices. We must seek to understand what it actually says and guard against forcing our own views upon it. It is the sport of heretics to seek support from Scripture for false doctrines that have no basis in the text. Satan himself quoted Scripture in an illegitimate way in an effort to seduce Christ to sin (Matthew 4:1-11).
The basic message of the Bible is simple enough and clear enough for a child to understand. Yet the meat of Scripture requires careful attention and study to understand it properly. Some matters treated by the Bible are so complex and profound that they keep the finest scholars perennially engaged in an effort to sort them out.
There are a few principles of interpretation that are basic for all sound study of the Bible. They include the following:

(1) Narratives should be interpreted in light of “teaching” passages. For example, the story of Abraham offering Isaac on Mount Moriah might suggest that God didn’t know that Abraham had true faith. But the didactic portions of Scripture make it clear that God is omniscient.

(2) The implicit must always be interpreted in light of the explicit; never the other way around. That is, if a particular text seems to imply something, we should not accept the implication as correct if it goes against something explicitly stated elsewhere in Scripture.

(3) The laws of logic govern biblical interpretation. If, for example, we know that all cats have tails, we cannot then deduce that some cats do not have tails. If it is true that some cats do not have tails, then it cannot also be true that all cats have tails. This is not a matter merely of technical laws of inference; it is a matter of common sense. Yet the vast majority of erroneous interpretations of the Bible are caused by illegitimate deductions from the Scripture.
Summary:
1. The Bible is its own interpreter.
2. We must interpret the Bible literally—as it is written.
3. The Bible is to be interpreted like any other book.
4. Obscure parts of the Bible are to be interpreted by the clearer parts.
5. The implicit is to be interpreted in light of the explicit.
6. The rules of logic govern what can reasonably be drawn or deduced from Scripture.

Biblical passages for reflection:
Acts 15:15-16
Ephesians 4:11-16

(Taken from R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, (c) 1992, pg. 33-34)

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.