James Akin and the Roman Catholic View of Justification

[Ed Walsh]

I hate to ask, but I need some help answering this inquirer who wrote to reformed.org. Will one or more of you take a little time to give me a hand? I told him I would try to write back by Monday.

Thanks

His letter starts below:

=============

I have a friend of mine from college who is Catholic, and we have been engaging in an ongoing gentleman's debate via email.

A few weeks ago, that friend sent me an article written by James Akin (from Catholic Answers) regarding justification and his rebuttal to the reformed view. One of his points I have been struggling with for a few weeks. The concept he addresses is an attempt to prove that justification is an ongoing process of coming to grace and falling from grace. This obvious goes against the Reformed view of justification being a one-time event. His argument is as follows:

Romans 4 uses the example of Abraham regarding justification. In particular, Paul points us to Genesis 15 where Abraham believed and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. No doubt Abraham was justified in Genesis 15

However, a reading of Hebrews 11:8 indicates to us that Abraham demonstrated saving faith when he obeyed God to leave his home land. This is in reference to Genesis 12. Additionally, a reading of Genesis 12 shows us that Abraham even builds an altar to God at this time. More so, the entire concept of Hebrews chapter 11 is the saving faith of different old testament figures.

The question he poses is basically how could an unregenerate, unrighteous man (Abraham) obey God through faith and even build an Altar to him? This text seems to imply the Abraham was justified before Genesis 15, which adds to Akin's premise that justification is an ongoing process.

I've really tried to reconcile this exegetically without much luck. Would appreciate some insight.

 

[Scott Bushey]

This may fall on the idea that Abraham was regenerated earlier, acting on this regeneration and converted (justified) at a later time. I see no struggle. The regenerated man can act on things he 'sees', prior to conversion.

 

[JTB.SDG]

See this post: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/was-abraham-already-justified-in-genesis-15-6.92423/

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Jon,

Thanks for the pointer. In the next post at the link, Rev. Winzer settles it:

"What was made explicit in chap. 15 is implicit in chap. 12. In Gal. 3, the apostle draws in the fact of Gentile justification from the promise made to Abraham in Gen. 12. The promise of chap. 15 gives a further clarification to the promise made in chap. 12, so faith and justification must have been present in the earlier call. It seems appropriate that his justification should be made explicit at the specific time when he believed in the clear revelation of Christ as his seed (accepting the natural interpretation of the apostle's words in Gal. 3:16)."

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Abraham “believed” God the moment he left his home land and followed God.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

His argument, on this point, presupposes Rome’s view instead of letting the scriptures speak.

One thing that needs to be hammered home is what James Buchanan states in his work on Justification: “Justification is a legal, or forensic, term, and is used in Scripture to denote the acceptance of any one as righteous in the sight of God.”

Anthony Burgess States that “justification, besides the pardon of sin, doth connote a state that the subject is put into, viz. a state of favor...in this sense, the scripture always speaks of it, as connoting a state or condition the subject is put into”. (Vindication of The True Doctrine of Justification, pg. 283)

 

[Ed Walsh]

Anthony Burgess States that “justification, besides the pardon of sin, doth connote a state that the subject is put into, viz. a state of favor...in this sense, the scripture always speaks of it, as connoting a state or condition the subject is put into”.

I agree completely.

Genesis 15:6
And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

The word for 'righteousness' in this verse is used only here in Scripture in this form. Does this verse teach that Abraham was justified at exactly this point? In fact, the word 'righteousness' does not seem to be synonymous with the New Testament's forensic (legal) term justification at all. I think Gen. 12 with Heb. 11:8 proves that Abraham was saved at this point if not somewhat before. I know that I may be alone in this idea, so I am very tentative in all that I say. Could it be that Abraham's belief in God was just what the Bible says it was? It was a righteous act--an act of great faith, but not the exact moment of his salvation.

Scott Bushey post #2 tried to address this from a different angle. Abraham was regenerate in Gen.12 but converted (justified) in Gen. 15. Is this a good answer?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Scott Bushey post #2 tried to address this from a different angle. Abraham was regenerate in Gen.12 but converted (justified) in Gen. 15. Is this a good answer?

No, it's not (sorry, S.B.). I've recently preached Gen.15, after preaching the earlier chs. It makes zero sense to understand Abram is unconverted after he is "called" (and that effectually) out of Ur of the Chaldees. We need to connect everything we know about salvation to the story of this immense man of faith, who was in so many important ways a father to us.

The best exposition of this passage is inspired, it is Paul in Rom.4 and Gal.3. In Rom.4 quite clearly, he (much like the writer to Hebrews, ch.6) takes in the whole sweep of Gen.'s focus on Abraham, from Gen.12-22 (when Isaac starts to take prominence). It is central to Paul's polemic against works-righteousness that Abram is justified apart from any of his actions. So, we need to come to Gen.15 having accepted that. We don't read Gen.15:6 as if we never knew anything about redemption. Not even Israel read it thus, because they first read it (in this form) in the aftermath of their own deliverance.

Gen.15:6 has to be read in the context of the whole of Abram's life of faith. The beginning of this pericope, v1, has God saying to Abram (after he has been raised to "hero" status according to men, the great rescuer of ch.14) "There is no earthly reward, no achievement, comparable to my favor. You give nothing to me or defend me; I am your defender and your great reward (or your reward is/will be great)."

Abram doubts, or we might say that the devil attacks him at this moment, trying to make him a doubter. He reproaches the Lord, vv2-3, for that the signal "great reward" for which he left everything behind is a son. "What can you possibly give me that will make up for the fact I have no son? By now it is too late (for all practical purposes) for me." It is in that moment that God declares plainly that he will have a son of his own; his servant will not inherit. And he takes him outside to look up at the stars, and promises him comparable fecundity.

That is the moment of Gen.5:6. I think this is the place referenced in Rom.4:20, that Abram (he and his wife's womb as good as dead) "grew strong in faith." How did he grow strong? Because God moved in favor of his elect man, not because Abram was sufficiently strong in order to reward him, but because he needed strength. God supplied him with grace afresh to make him strong; and he made him the oath and covenant in vv7-21 (see Heb.6:17-18) to confirm and strengthen his faith--that otherwise would have faltered.

The other thing to realize is how false it is to read the text to say that this faith was a "righteous act." Nor does faith come in the room of works, to substitute (as it were) for them. I follow John Brown at this point, as he exposits Gal.3:6, which takes him back to Gen.15:6. The division of 3:6 is properly into three parts:

1) even as Abraham believed God
2) and it was accounted to him
3) for righteousness (justification)
​

The final part "hangs equally" (Brown) of both former parts. So that we might render it thus:

1) Abraham believed God for (unto, resulting in) righteousness
and
2) it was accounted to him for (unto, resulting in) righteousness
​

Brown highlights what Paul draws out of the Gen.15 text: that Abram does no work and trusts in no work; he just believes God. For his part, God accounts Abram just what he is: a believer in him, unto righteousness.

The LXX uses the same terms as Paul in Gal.3:6 at Gen.15:6. The Gen.15:6 passage in Heb. uses "he" instead of Abraham, and "the LORD" instead of "God." The second verb identifies the Lord as the Actor, "He reckoned it," rather than the passive voice of the Gk. The question is simply this: to what does "it" (her) refer? There is no apt antecedent noun, feminine or otherwise. "Righteousness" afterward is n.f.; however, is that the intent: to say "He reckoned it--i.e. righteousness--to him?" That does not appear to be the understanding of the LXX translator, or of Paul.

This leaves but one interpretation: "it" must refer to the full prior expression: "And he believed in Jehovah," yielding the second part to mean, "And he reckoned he-believed-in-Jehovah to him: righteousness."

Once we've seen that God makes no account of Abram's heroics, and bids him make no account of them, there's nothing left for Abram to boast in. Surely, he has no lesser work in which to come before God. Once we've seen Abram struggling to believe there's still a reward worth having, and needing to be built up further in his faith (further grace that God supplies to the helpless, not to the one who did all he could with what was in him), we can see clearly what v6 indicates.

God does not justify Abram because of his faith, or because of the faith wrought in him. He justifies believers believing in him. It's as simple as that. Not as a prelude to the works they will do, by which they will then be justified, or more justified. God casts out Abram's greatest work to date, saying "You only look to me." He casts aside Abram's fresh doubts, not counting them against him (cf. Ps.32:2), and bids him keep believing. And he does, and God counts the believer righteous.

It is not the case that yesterday's justification is transferred to today, provided one keeps believing. Abram was justified from the start when he first believed and left Ur. It is that believers believe, and they ARE justified. So, God can say of you today (who believed at first many days ago) "There goes one of my believers; he is justified. You were, and are, and will be righteousness, who believe in me."

 

[Dachaser]

I hate to ask, but I need some help answering this inquirer who wrote to reformed.org. Will one or more of you take a little time to give me a hand? I told him I would try to write back by Monday.

Thanks

His letter starts below:

=============

I have a friend of mine from college who is Catholic, and we have been engaging in an ongoing gentleman's debate via email.

A few weeks ago, that friend sent me an article written by James Akin (from Catholic Answers) regarding justification and his rebuttal to the reformed view. One of his points I have been struggling with for a few weeks. The concept he addresses is an attempt to prove that justification is an ongoing process of coming to grace and falling from grace. This obvious goes against the Reformed view of justification being a one-time event. His argument is as follows:

Romans 4 uses the example of Abraham regarding justification. In particular, Paul points us to Genesis 15 where Abraham believed and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. No doubt Abraham was justified in Genesis 15

However, a reading of Hebrews 11:8 indicates to us that Abraham demonstrated saving faith when he obeyed God to leave his home land. This is in reference to Genesis 12. Additionally, a reading of Genesis 12 shows us that Abraham even builds an altar to God at this time. More so, the entire concept of Hebrews chapter 11 is the saving faith of different old testament figures.

The question he poses is basically how could an unregenerate, unrighteous man (Abraham) obey God through faith and even build an Altar to him? This text seems to imply the Abraham was justified before Genesis 15, which adds to Akin's premise that justification is an ongoing process.

I've really tried to reconcile this exegetically without much luck. Would appreciate some insight.

I have been enjoying going through a video series from RC Sproul on Luther and the reformation, and he did a really nice job in explaining what the Church of Rome really sees as what Justification is, and how that really differs from how the reformers saw it.