Some Questions for a Presbyterian Minister on the Topic of Justification by Faith Alone.

I have posted some questions for the Presbyterian minister to answer concerning his presentation on the topic of justification.

Justification by Faith Alone; Sola Fide the Reformation Solas Conference.

(Note - The entire Youtube channel entitled "Protestant Witness" was deleted at around about 13 September 2018).

If Abraham was justified by faith alone in Genesis 15:6, where is the evidence for the court room scene, when the context of Abraham’s encounter with God was Isaac as the promised son of the inheritance, which God would provide as through an act of divine power. God would act within Abraham’s marriage to provide the son of the promise and Abraham believed and was justified. The context of Abraham’s justification is then familial and covenantal and not predominantly a courtroom scene. No?

If righteousness is imputed to my account, how do I get to see God face to face (1 John 3:2) when I am still unrighteous?

If a believer’s best works are as filthy rags in this life, what happens to the believer in heaven to transform every action into righteousness? For in heaven there is nothing impure.

You oppose indulgences and infer an opposition to purgatory. Yet scripture teaches nothing impure shall enter heaven. Even if the believer’s account has Christ’s righteousness, it seems the believer himself must also be pure to enter heaven. No? Please explain.

If all men are sinners one Earth and there is no sin in heaven, what happens to the elect between death and heaven to change the elect from sinners into impeccable saints?

As there is no faith in heaven (1 Cor 13:11-13), how are the elect in heaven justified?

As there is no faith in hell, why then are the damned not justified, when the elect are also justified without faith in heaven?

If God can make the elects actions in heaven pure and righteous, why cannot he do the same while a man is on earth?

If God can make the elects actions in heaven pure and righteous, and God can make men on earth righteous, why then hold to the doctrine that every act, even of the righteous on earth is as filthy rags?

2 Cor 5:21 was understood by the church fathers as Christ was made a sin offering. The fathers did not hold to the reformed understanding of Christ as seen by the Father as a sinner for the elect. Why then hold to a doctrine of the imputation of the sins of men to Christ when there is no clear teaching of such in the NT?

Even if there was some clear teaching of imputation of the sins of men to Christ, such a teaching would only mean the Father has falsely imputed sin to the righteous Christ, thus making the Father sin and the righteous Christ grant consent to the Father’s sin. By stating 2 Cor 5:21 has a meaning in accord with the Reformed Christ, the meaning only infers another series of unresolved problems. Why then quote from 2 Cor 5:21 and infer the text says Christ was imputed with sin, when such a reading only causes other serious problems, such as those stated above?

Your presentation assumes the scriptural teaching of private interpretation as binding on the believer. Yet there is no teaching in the scripture to establish the private interpretation of the scriptures to bind the faithful. Why then base your understanding of what God has revealed upon only private interpretation when private interpretation is not found in the scriptures?

Acts 15 records the Council of Jerusalem which made some decrees concerning the abolition of circumcision and the removal of keeping the Mosaic Law. The Council infers there was a Christian institution with the authority to bind and lose in accord with the deposit of faith. Where is that institution of the church with the power to bind and loose in church history?

If Presbyterianism is the true faith, where was Presbyterianism within church history 700, 1000, 1500, 1700 year ago?

If Presbyterianism did not exist in church history prior to the Reformation, what certitude do Presbyterians have that Presbyterianism is from God rather than only a human fiction?

If Presbyterianism did not exist in church history prior to the Reformation, which church did exist prior to the Reformation? Was it the Roman Catholic church, the Orthodox church? If so, why not remain with those historically based churches?

If the Presbyterian church is deflectable why should we trust your preaching when your preaching may contain one, or perhaps several, or perhaps many errors?

If the Presbyterian church is the true Church, why then do so many Protestants not believe the Presbyterian version of the Gospel, but rather follow many other versions of the gospel using the same method of private interpretation?

If private interpretation of the scriptures is the method required to know the gospel, why is there no 1) inspired lexicon, 2) inspired  dictionary, or 3) inspired accompanying method of interpretation, 4) inspired school to teach hermeneutics to students, which accompanies the inspired scriptures?

--------------------------------------------------

The terms, works, grace, and faith must be carefully defined before making an argument on the topic of justification. St Paul may well be using the terms works in Rom 4:4 and Rom 11:6 equivocally, or analogously. The same problem also occurs when the same terms are used in the other Pauline letters. As you have not clearly shown St Paul uses the terms in the way you think he used them, your argument are only compelling to those who buy into your version of Christian justification. Why expect the listeners to believe your arguments when you assume the meaning of the terms, which must firstly be demonstrated?

If man is justified by faith alone, and faith is a work (1 Thes 1:13, 2 Thes 1:11), how is man justified without any works, and yet must make the act of faith, which is itself a work?

If works exclude any human act other than faith and faith is a gift of God, how are works of hope and love excluded from justification when hope and love are also gifts of the same God who justifies?

In Hebews 11:1, faith is defined in terms of hope - Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. How is justification by faith alone when faith is always connected to hope?

In 1 Cor 13:2, faith without love is nothing. How then does faith alone justify, when faith is nothing without love?

If Abraham believed and righteousness was imputed to him by God, how is Abraham's act of faith not meritorious when the text says Abraham acted, then God imputed? 

The reformers taught faith was an instrumental cause of justification, and yet faith is only an act, and a habit. Where then does scripture teach faith is an instrument? For a pen in the hand of a poet is an instrument, what then of faith in the intellect of the believer? What sort of instrument is faith?

God justifies the ungodly whilst men are still ungodly is only an interpretation of the text (Rom 4), which is not expressly stated in the text. For Rom 5 clearly, state men are made righteous. Why then not conclude the imputed righteousness of Rom 4:4 corresponds with the new created, interior righteousness of Rom 5:19?

The Old testament and New Testament contains a theology of the covenant. What covenant was Abraham in when God justified Abraham? If Abraham was in a covenant with God, what are the associated covenant signs and consequences of Abrahams justification? If Abraham was not in a covenant union with God, how does Abraham's justification relate to the new covenant with Christ?

------------------------------------------------------

Some questions to consider.

God accounts a man righteous in a legal sense and yet the man is still a sinner. How is the Presbyterian position on justification different to that of a legal fiction which makes God into a liar?

Biblically, divine speech acts with the divine power which corresponds with the words spoken. For example, God speaks and thereby creates the universe. When God speaks the words of justification, how does the power of God not act to make a man intrinsically righteous, rather than only extrinsically, or only legally righteous?

If God reckons but does not make a man righteous, how then is the power of God not affected, when St Paul teachs the gospel is the power of God and the righteousness of God (Rom 1:16-17)?

In Romans 4, St Pauls uses the term, works in the context of circumcision (Rom 4:9-12). Why then assume, or believe the term works means any human work other than faith, when works is more likely to mean any covenant work, such as circumcision?

If justification is by faith alone, and faith is a gift of God, given by the Holy Spirit, then the work of the Holy Spirit is assumed in the act of faith made to cause justification. Why then believe in Christ alone, when the act of faith is through the act of the Holy Spirit in the believer?

If faith is caused by the Holy Spirit, why not believe in the Holy Spirit alone?

If the Father sent the Son to redeem man, why not believe in the Father alone?

The act of redemption and sending of the Holy Spirit is an act of love of God towards man (John 3:16). Why then believe in faith alone, when the act of the cross is an act of divine love? Why not profess in love alone, when the appropriate response to the act of divine love is for man to return love through the action of the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5)?

How does imputed righteousness related to St Pauls teaching on the Christian as made righteous in Rom 5:19? "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." For if righteousness is imputed, why not also infer the righteousness is also in accord with the new creation of man, simultaneous with the imputation of righteousness?

If a man is justified by faith alone, by grace alone through Christ alone, how does justification occur when the three solas are all mutually exclusive of each other? After all if a man is alone, then he is not with another man. So too, if justification is by faith alone, then faith is not with grace and Christ.

If the scriptures never actually say faith alone, Christ alone, or grace alone, why then believe in only three or four solas, rather than say 6, 7, 8 or 10 solas? After all if the Father and Holy Spirit are involved in justification, why not add in the Father alone and the Holy Spirit alone? If we include the above two additional solas, we now have 5 solas. We could then add in scripture alone, to make a 6th and so on.

If justification is by Christ alone, what then is the role of the Father and the Holy Spirit in justification?

If the Father and the Holy Spirit have a role in justification, why then profess Christ alone?

If the Father and the Holy Spirit do not have a role in justification, how then is justification a Trinitarian act, when every act of God is always one act?

Why believe in faith alone theology when the doctrine is tied into penal substitution, which has so many problems? One problem with penal substitution is Christ is unjustly imputed the sins of the elect, whilst Christ never sinned. Such an imputation infers the Father has lied about Christ and Christ gave consent to such a lie. Penal substitution then infers God must be redeemed from the very action of the redemption of mankind.

Matthew 25 records the judgment scene where the sheep and goats are sent to heaven and hell based upon good works done to Christ who exists in other men. How does Matt 25 relate to faith alone theology, when the emphasis on final justification is on works? 

I will be pleasantly surprised if my questions are answered.