Does Romans 3:28 Support Justification By Faith Alone?

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to answer a number of Roman Catholic claims regarding Romans 3:28 and justification by faith alone. The author resorts to the usual tactic of distinguishing between the meaning of works and works of the Law in Paul's letters. He even tries to make a distinction between the meaning of works in Paul and in James, which backfires in a way that is almost comical. Following are excerpts from the author along with a critique of those assertions:

          "Romans 3:28 is a key verse in the differences between traditional Protestants and Catholics. You will notice that Paul says a man is justified by faith (pistei in Greek). When Martin Luther translated the letter to the Romans into German in the sixteenth century, he added the word alone —but alone is not in the original Greek text. The phrase “faith alone” does occur in the New Testament: one time, in James 2:24. There the inspired apostle denies that justification is from faith alone. Let me quote it: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

          Romans 3:27-28 contrasts between faith and works as two different paths of obtaining a just status before God. The latter is excluded by the Apostle Paul as being an available avenue of justification for man to use. While it is true that the exact word "alone" does not occur the Greek text of Romans, that does faithfully and accurately capture the thrust of Paul's argument. James 2:24 is part of a context about the demonstration of a saving faith. That text addresses justification from an evidential point of view. The contexts of Romans 3 and James 2 cannot be conflated.

          "Paul categorically excludes works from our salvation. But what kind of works is Paul talking about? If we believe the entire Bible, we need to see how Paul’s words fit together with James’s words, because James clearly says that “a man is justified by works.” If Paul and James mean the same thing by works, then they contradict one another. Since you and I both believe that the Bible cannot contradict itself, we must agree that Paul and James mean two different things by the word works."

          A distinction between the meaning of works in James and the meaning of works in Paul has been invented with no basis in fact or as a contextual necessity. The Apostle Paul undoubtedly had the Mosaic Law in mind when he wrote Romans. However, there is much more to it than customs such as circumcision. The Mosaic Law also had commandments to love God and love neighbor. Paul even brings up the prohibition against coveting, which is a part of the Ten Commandments (Romans 7:7). James would indeed have these kinds of works in view. Further, Roman Catholicism regards these aspects of the Law as being necessary for justification before God, while rejecting other aspects such as circumcision and Sabbath observance. 

          "A careful reading of Galatians will show that Paul is using works of the law to refer especially to the law of circumcision. He is so strong about this that he says in Galatians 5:2, “Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.” Paul’s opponents in Galatia wanted to bring the Gentile Christians back into the Old Testament law. These are the works of the law that Paul is fighting against, and they have no place in our justification. Paul is saying in essence that Gentile Christians do not have to be circumcised and live like Jewish Christians in order to be saved."

          Paul's only point of emphasis when discussing the instance of justification before God in Romans and Galatians is faith. Hence, we see the reason for such contexts being appealed to as evidence for the doctrine of being declared righteous in His sight on the basis of faith alone. Assume for the sake of argument that the Apostle Paul had in mind the ceremonial and dietary aspects of the Mosaic Law as opposed to good works in general when he speaks of works of the Law. The Roman Catholic Church would still stand condemned according to his teaching. Paul's larger point is that any works, whether moral or ceremonial, cannot justify a person before God.

          Romans 3:28 follows Paul's statement in verse 26, where he identifies God as both “just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” This verse emphasizes that justification is grounded in God's righteousness, not in human performance or adherence to the Law. Romans 3:28 then builds on this by declaring that justification is by faith apart from works of the Law, reinforcing that salvation is a divine act, not something earned through human effort. 

          The immediate context also includes verse 29, where Paul asks, “Is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also?” This rhetorical question highlights the universal scope of justification by faith, transcending ethnic and cultural boundaries. Paul's argument dismantles the idea that specific works are prerequisites for salvation. Instead, he presents faith as the great equalizer, accessible to all who trust in Christ.

Does The Roman Catholic Church Teach That We Are Saved By Grace Alone?

        "If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Canon 1)

         Rome does not maintain that a man pulls himself up by his own bootstraps, but speaks in terms of "cooperating with grace." In Roman Catholic theology, a person has to do good works in order to get justified in the sight of God. One keeps his righteous standing before Him by that same means. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that one must attain an inherent righteousness in order to be accepted by God. However, these ideas run contrary to the teaching of Scripture. 

         The grace of God does not come about as a result of the actions of man (Romans 11:6). Grace and works are at odds with each other in the context of justification. Simply put, to speak of grace being infused at the moment of water baptism (which is a work) and being maintained through good works is a contradiction of terms. Paul would have understood grace to be an unmerited favor of God. It is something in which man is passive while God takes the initiative.

         We have failed to meet the standard of moral perfection that God requires and so have incurred for ourselves condemnation (Psalm 14:2-3; Isaiah 64:6; Romans 3:9-23; Galatians 3:10). If He kept a record of our sins, then we could not stand and say that we are righteous (Psalm 130:3). No one could be saved if God chose not to be merciful toward us. We do not look to ourselves for righteousness. We look to Christ alone and the righteousness that He gives to us (Luke 18:9-14; Philippians 3:3-9). 

        The point of contention with Roman Catholicism is not whether our lives as Christians should be characterized by obedience to God. It does not center around whether we perform good works, as they are a display of His grace in our lives. However, good works are not to be viewed as meritorious in the sight of God. Our grounds for justification before Him is the shed blood of Jesus Christ (Romans 5:19). Good works are not to be added to faith as a condition for salvation.

        If justification is "not of ourselves" and "not as a result of works" (Ephesians 2:8-9), then that means faith alone is the instrumental cause of justification before God. It is not obtained by both grace and works because it cannot be done that way. There are no good deeds that can save us from eternal condemnation, including those done in a state of grace. The Roman Catholic Church views grace as being necessary for salvation, but not sufficient. 

        Elsewhere, the Apostle Paul says, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we did in righteousness..." (Titus 3:5). He is talking about anything righteous that we do. He continues on that thought with a stark contrast, "but according to his mercy he saved us." God did not save us because of any merit on our part. Therefore, Paul condemns the sacramental system of justification taught by Rome. Some people ironically use this verse to teach that baptism is necessary for obtaining a right standing with God, but that would be a self-contradictory interpretation (i.e. saying that a work is necessary to save upon saying works cannot save us).

How The Gospel Brings About Unity

"One of the defining characteristics of modern cults is the turning of the convert against his family, and the cutting off of that convert from his parents. The true gospel does not do that. We teach young converts to honor their fathers and mothers, even when those parents oppose the Gospel. Unlike the modern cults, the alienation comes only when unbelieving parents disown, expel, or disenfranchise believing children. In such cases, the family of the local assembly is all the more important. The original family has cast out the new believer."

Understanding the Church, by Joseph M. Vogl and John H. Fish III, p. 98

Pillar And Ground Of The Truth

"The word pillar (στῦλος, stylos) would have special significance to the Ephesians in that their city was the site of the Temple of Diana which had 127 marble pillars upon which announcements were regularly affixed. The local church was a pillar upon which the truth was to be held up that all might see it. By “truth” (ἀληθεία, alētheia) Paul means the full revelation of God in Christ as [1 Timothy] verse 16 makes clear...The church is a household called to manifest the truth in its message and to conform to it in its conduct. Paul adds that the church is the “support” or buttress (ἑδραίωμα, hedraiōma) of the truth. The church, the Apostle implies, exists to maintain the faith and protect it from all danger."

Understanding the Church, by Joseph M. Vogl and John H. Fish III, p. 49

Non-Christians And Church Attendance

"Nowhere in the New Testament is there any indication that the church met to preach the gospel. Rather the church met to worship, to teach the word, to pray, to have fellowship. The meeting of the church was to edify believers and to glorify God. But it was not to preach the gospel to unbelievers. Rather the saints went out into the world to preach the gospel. … there is no biblical mandate for an “evangelistic service” when the church comes together. There is a mandate to equip the saints to preach the gospel. The work of Christians is not to invite unbelievers to church so that they might hear the gospel. It is to preach the gospel themselves."

Understanding the Church, by Joseph M. Vogl and John H. Fish III, p. 132

Conversion Entails Spiritual Change

"If conversion to Christianity makes no improvement in a man’s outward actions—if he continues to be just as snobbish or spiteful or envious or ambitious as he was before—then I think we must suspect that his “conversion” was largely imaginary; and after one’s original conversion, every time one thinks one has made an advance, that is the test to apply. Fine feelings, new insights, greater interest in “religion” mean nothing unless they make our actual behavior better; just as in illness “feeling better” is not much good if the thermometer shows that your temperature is still going up."

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 207

A Patristic Witness Against Baptismal Regeneration

          Following are a number of excerpts from an Anonymous Treatise on Re-baptism (254-257 A.D.), which seem to convey early disagreement with the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation. The first objection from the author concerns people who heard the gospel and never had a chance to get baptized upon becoming a Christian:

          "And what wilt thou determine against the person of him who hears the word, and haply taken up in the name of Christ, has at once confessed, and has been punished before it has been granted him to be baptized with water? Wilt thou declare him to have perished because he has not been baptized with water? Or, indeed, wilt thou think that there may be something from without that helps him to salvation, although he is not baptized with water? They thinking him to have perished will be opposed by the sentence of the Lord, who says “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven;” because it is no matter whether he who confesses for the Lord is a hearer of the word or a believer, so long as he confesses that same Christ whom he ought to confess...therefore nobody can confess Christ without His name, nor can the name of Christ avail any one for confession without Christ Himself."

          The author references Jesus' promise in Matthew 10:32. This would suggest that confession of faith is sufficient for salvation, regardless of baptismal status.

          The author of this treatise also uses the example of the apostles and their betrayal of Christ as an argument against baptismal regeneration:

          "...but all the disciples, to whom, though already baptized, the Lord afterwards says, that “all ye shall be offended in me,” all of whom, as we observe, having amended their faith, were baptized after the Lord’s resurrection with the Holy Spirit…the baptism of water, which is of less account provided that afterwards a sincere faith in the truth is evident in the baptism of the Spirit, which undoubtedly is of greater account."

          The example of the apostles, who despite being baptized, abandoned Jesus but later received the Holy Spirit, is used to argue that the baptism of the Spirit holds greater significance than water baptism. This implies that a sincere faith and the reception of the Holy Spirit are more crucial for salvation than the physical act of being baptized with water.

         The author even goes to distinguish between the baptism of water and the baptism of the Holy Spirit:

          "Which Spirit also filled John the Baptist even from his mother’s womb; and it fell upon those who were with Cornelius the centurion before they were baptized with water. Thus, cleaving to the baptism of men, the Holy Spirit either goes before or follows it; or failing the baptism of water, it falls upon those who believe."

          He notes instances where the Holy Spirit was bestowed without prior water baptism (e.g., John the Baptist and those with Cornelius). This would suggest that the Holy Spirit can precede or follow water baptism, or even occur in the absence of water baptism, emphasizing faith as the key to receiving the Holy Spirit. Consider this excerpt from the treatise:

          "And there will be no doubt that men may be baptized with the Holy Ghost without water, as thou observest that these were baptized before they were baptized with water; that the announcements of both John and of our Lord Himself were satisfied, forasmuch as they received the grace of the promise both without the imposition of the apostle’s hands and without the laver [baptismal font], which they attained afterwards. And their hearts being purified, God bestowed upon them at the same time, in virtue of their faith, remission of sins; so that the subsequent baptism conferred upon them this benefit alone, that they received also the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, that nothing might appear to be wanting to the integrity of their service and faith."

          The last excerpt underscores the belief that people can be saved through the Holy Spirit without being baptized with water. Water baptism is seen as supplementary, conferring the invocation of Jesus' name. It is not seen as necessary for the remission of sins or salvation.

Why People Need Not Be Baptized Twice

"And so there was this same presumption concerning Christ in the mind of the disciples, even as Peter himself, the leader and chief of the apostles, broke forth into that expression of his own incredulity. For when he, together with the others, had been asked by the Lord what he thought about Him, that is, whom he thought Him to be, and had first of all confessed the truth, saying that He was the Christ the Son of the living God, and therefore was judged blessed by Him because he had arrived at this truth, not after the flesh, but by the revelation of the heavenly Father; yet this same Peter, when Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders, and priests, and scribes and be killed, and after the third day rise again from the dead; nevertheless that true confessor of Christ, after a few days, taking Him aside, began to rebuke Him, saying, “Be propitious to thyself: this shall not be;” so that on that account he deserved to hear from the Lord, “Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offence unto me, because he savoured not the things which are of God, but those things which are of men.” Which rebuke against Peter became more and more apparent when the Lord was apprehended, and, frightened by the damsel, he said, “I know not what thou sayest, neither know I thee;” and again, when using an oath, he said this same thing; and for the third time, cursing and swearing, he affirmed that he knew not the man, and not once, but frequently denied Him. And this disposition, because it was to continue to him even to the Lord’s passion, was long before made manifest by the Lord, that we also might not be ignorant of it. Again, after the Lord’s resurrection, one of His disciples, Cleopas, when he was, according to the error of all his fellow-disciples, sorrowfully telling what had happened to the Lord Himself, as if to some unknown person, spoke thus, saying of Jesus the Nazarene, “who was a prophet mighty in deed and in word before God and all the people; how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and fastened Him to the cross. But we trusted that it had been He which should have redeemed Israel.” And in addition to these things, all the disciples also judged the declaration of the women who had seen the Lord after the resurrection to be idle tales; and some of them, when they had seen Him, believed not, but doubted; and they who were not then present believed not at all until they had been subsequently by the Lord Himself in all ways rebuked and reproached; because His death had so offended them that they thought that He had not risen again, who they had believed ought not to have died, because contrary to their belief He had died once. And thus, as far as concerns the disciples themselves, they are found to have had a faith neither sound nor perfect in such matters as we have referred to; and what is much more serious, they moreover baptized others, as it is written in the Gospel according to John."

Anonymous Treatise on Re-baptism (254-257 A.D.)

The Forgiveness Of God For Lapses In Faith

And now blush if thou canst, Novation; cease to deceive the unwary with thy impious arguments; cease to frighten them with the subtlety of one particular. We read, and adore, and do not pass over the heavenly judgment of the Lord, where he says that He will deny him who denies Him. But does this mean the penitent? And why should I be taking pains so long to prove individual cases of mercies? Since the mercy of God is not indeed denied to the Ninevites, although strangers, and placed apart from the law of the Lord, when they beseech it on account of the overthrow announced to their city. Nor to Pharoah himself, resisting with sacrilegious boldness, when formerly he was stricken with plagues from heaven, and turning to Moses and to his brother, said, “Pray to the Lord for me, for I have sinned.” At once the anger of God was suspended from him. And yet thou, O Novation, judgest and declarest that the lapsed have no hope of peace and mercy.

A Treatise Against the Heretic Novatian by an Anonymous Bishop

Does Acts 17:11-12 Support Sola Scriputra?

• Discussion:

          -Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin wrote an article in response to the citation of Acts 17:11-12 as being supportive of Sola Scriptura. His focus is on the nature of the response of the Bereans to Paul's teaching and the canon of Scripture being incomplete. Akin's comments are cited in bold and followed with a critique:

          "...the contrast isn’t between the skeptical Bereans, who insisted on Scriptural proof of what Paul was saying, and the credulous Thessalonians, who accepted it without question. Instead, the contrast is between the open-minded Bereans, who were willing and eager to examine the Scriptures and see if what Paul was saying was true, versus the hostile Thessalonians, who started a riot and got Paul in trouble with the authorities, even though he had proved from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ."

          Acts 17:11-12 supports Sola Scriptura in that the Bereans had tested the validity of the Apostle Paul's message by comparing it to the Old Testament, which is Scripture. As for the contrast in the nature of the response of people from that city and that of the Thessalonians, that does not change the argument. In fact, the context records Paul himself as appealing to those same Scriptures as the final court of authority in debating Jews (Acts 17:1-3).

          "There is also another reason why this passage isn’t a good proof text for sola scriptura, which is this: The Christian faith contains doctrines that aren’t found in the Old Testament. What’s why even those who favor doing theology “by Scripture alone” don’t favor doing it “by the Old Testament alone.” While the Old Testament does contain prophecies that point forward to Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ, it doesn’t contain the whole of the Christian faith."

          Saying that Paul and Silas did not have a compiled New Testament in their hands is nothing but a red herring. The original intent of an author does not rule out a present application of a biblical passage to broader conditions. It is therefore not out of bounds to cite Acts 17:11-12 as a supporting text for Sola Scriptura. Further, in Roman Catholicism, scriptural proof is not necessary in order for a dogma to be true. The "laypeople" are not even allowed to interpret Scripture authentically:

          "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." (CCC # 100)

          This kind of thinking is different from what we see taking place during the encounter with the Bereans and them accepting the gospel message. Paul did not direct these people to an infallible teaching office in order for them to understand the content of his message. The Bereans did not wait for a council or bishop to tell them what to believe. They interpreted the Word of God for themselves. The Old Testament Scriptures were sufficient for the purposes of Paul as he witnessed to others. They were also sufficient for the Bereans to verify the message that he delivered. Otherwise, they would not have appealed to them as the final source of authority to begin with.