Freed from the Law . . . by the Law?

I recently reread Romans 8 in its immediate context.  It’s interesting how we often take the classic verse referring to our acquittal and justification (Romans 8:1) out of the context which follows it.  I think it is worth another look:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

~Romans 8:1-9

Okay, so let’s break this section down and follow Paul’s line of reasoning.  He begins the section by telling us that there is no condemnation for those who are “in Christ Jesus.”  This is consistent with Paul’s language elsewhere of being “in Christ,” vitally and covenantally (Romans 6).  To be “in Christ Jesus,” then, is to be justified.  We no longer stand condemned before God.  But that is not where Paul stops.  In the next eight verses he goes further.

For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.

The “For” (γὰρ) here does not necessarily mean that this presents a cause to the lack of condemnation.  It is likely that Paul is elaborating on the further results of the justification we have already received in Christ.  Cranfield takes it as “confirmation of the reality of the fundamental liberation described in v. 1.”¹  Douglas Moo, on the other hand, takes “for” here to indicate the “basis on which the person ‘in Christ’ is forever saved from condemnation” (i.e. justification), and this is probably the reason he must interpret certain subsequent phrases as he does.²

We often say without much thought that we have been freed from the bondage of the Law by grace.  Christ has taken upon himself to obey the Law in its entirety, and so fulfilled the “righteous requirement” of the law himself in our place.  His works are accounted to us.  This is all true (see my post on imputation in Paul), and I actually appealed to Romans 8:1 to show this.  But the following verses also show us that this is not the whole story.  Paul tells us here that we are freed from the law by the law.  Specifically, we are freed from the “law of sin and death” by the “law of the Spirit of life.”  So often the law is spoken of only as a condemning imprisoning entity, which we must escape.  Usually it is Romans 7:6 that is quoted, which speaks of us being released from the law.  How then does Paul speak of the law as being the thing that has freed us?

First, one may argue, as Douglas Moo does, that Paul here is not even speaking of “law” in the Torah sense.  It is possible Paul is using the word to refer to an abstract principle or power.³  In which case we do not have such a difficult passage here, at least in the first couple of verses.  With this reading, we would say that the principle (or power) of the Spirit of life has freed us from the principle of sin and death.  Indeed, Paul speaks of sin and death and cosmic powers which are defeated by Christ.  And if all we had were the first couple of verses in Romans 8 we might read it this way and be very comfortable.  But Paul does not stop there.

For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do.

Can Paul really be speaking of some sort of abstract principle?  Here he refers to “the law,” which is deficient because it has been “weakened by the flesh.”  This is strikingly in line with how he often speaks of the Mosaic law and administration.  In fact, he is referring back directly to Romans 7:14.  “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.”  The law is spiritual, but fallen humanity is of the flesh.  The deficiency then is not inherent to the law, but is found in our sinful unregenerate natures.  If we take the “law” of vv. 2 and 3 of chapter 8 to mean the same thing (and I see no good reason in the text why we should not), then we must conclude that Paul is speaking specifically in this section of the law as given by God (i.e. the Mosaic law, under the Old Covenant).  This becomes even more clear immediately in the next verse:

By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

God condemns the sin in the flesh through Christ, who took on himself the just punishment for sin, though sinless.  And what is the result—or rather, the purpose—of this?  “In order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us“!  Well, this is something unexpected, is it not?

We are used to saying that Christ has fulfilled the righteous requirements of the law on our behalf.  Sin has totally corrupted us, and we have no ability to fulfill the law.  Christ must do it for us.  Even as redeemed and saved people, we cannot obey the law perfectly, which is perfectly evident, since we know that we fail and sin constantly.  1 John tells us that if we say we are without sin, we are liars!  So what can Paul mean by saying that the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us?

Perhaps he means that the law is fulfilled by Christ and that we simply receive the benefits?  Again, this is how Moo reads this section.⁴  After all, Paul says the requirement of the law is fulfilled in us, not by us.  In this case, it is still Christ’s obedience to the law that is in view.  We are simply vessels of that fulfillment, the evidence of Christ’s work done.  However, I am not convinced this is the best reading of this verse.

First of all, this would be a rather curious and round about way of expressing that idea.  But more than that, is what Paul says in clarification of this fulfillment.  The righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in whom?  In those “who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”  The fulfillment of the law in us is directly related to how we walk.  And again, immediately after, Paul continues:

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.

Paul is concerned with how we walk and how we live.  And again he uses the contrast of the Spirit and the flesh.  If we walk and live according to the Spirit, we put to death the deeds of the flesh (Romans 8:13).  Remember again what Paul said in v.2.  The law is deficient because of the flesh.  But if we put to death the flesh, as Paul says we must do, then this deficiency is no more:

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you.

Again the contrast.  In the flesh we cannot please God, but in the Spirit we are able.  Paul says that those in the flesh are hostile to God, specifically because this one “does not submit to God’s law; indeed it cannot.”  The implication then is that the one who is in the Spirit does live in submission to God’s law, and so is able to please him.  In a similar way, in Galatians 6:2 Paul exhorts us to “fulfill the law of Christ.”

If the Spirit of God dwells in us we are freed from the law of sin and death!  The law of the Spirit has liberated us.  In case we should mistake him, he emphasizes that all who are in Christ must also be in the Spirit and have the Spirit:

Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

So then.  The righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us through our walk and our living in the Spirit.  Does this diminish grace?  Certainly not.  The very fact that we are in the Spirit is because of God’s grace, and only through the instrument of faith.  In Ephesians 2:10, Paul makes it clear that even our works done in the Lord are “prepared for us” beforehand.  It is God who works in us to will and work his good pleasure (Philippians 2:13).  In this sense, the good works we do in Christ are truly Christ’s works, graciously given to us.  Do we continue to sin?  Certainly we do.  But our sin is covered by the perfect blood of the Lamb.  We are in Christ, and so God continues to look on us with grace and favor.

What then is the implication for imputation (in the classical Reformed sense of the word)?  Christ’s work is indeed accounted to us, because we are united to him.  It must be, for we certainly do not bring anything to the deal in terms of our own works.  Even in this very section, Paul makes clear that in the flesh (before we are regenerated) it is impossible to please God.  But in Christ, all that is Christ is ours.  With him as our covenant representative (Romans 5), in the court of heaven the just judge cannot do otherwise but to justify us.  This is, as it were, a down payment.  It is a totally unmerited justification, based solely on our identification with Christ.

Having now been placed in Christ, we continue in that state of no-condemnation, for we show forth the walk and the living of one who is in Christ and has his Spirit.  Paul says that for us who walk in the Spirit, the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us.  This, also, is totally unmerited justification, again based solely on our identification with Christ.  Yet it is not another justification, or a rejustification.  Rather, it is the outworking and continuing effect of that one declaration of God—it is faith made perfect (as in James 2:22, “faith completed” in ESV).  The good works we do cannot even be said to be truly our own.  They are not of ourselves, for only the works done in faith can truly be called “good.”  And just like faith, God has given these works to us and prepared them ahead of time that we should do them.  You cannot claim a gift as your own merit, particularly to the person who gave it to you. ⁵

In this way, then, the law has set us free from the law.

This law is not essentially a different law.  It still has righteous requirements, and still must be fulfilled.  Instead, it is we who are different.  We once made the law weak through the flesh, and so could not fulfill it.  But God did what the law in that state could not do, condemning the flesh and giving us his Spirit so that we could walk and live before him.

Is Paul saying then that we are saved by works?  Not at all.  For only the saved can work.  Only in the already-transformed are the righteous requirements of the law fulfilled.

Just want to end by saying that this is still an area of study for me, and I’m open to any thoughts and interactions.  So please feel free to comment!

Did Paul Teach the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness?

This is an unavoidable question from my last couple posts on Paul and Romans. Does the apostle Paul teach the Reformed doctrine of imputation?  One might come to the conclusion that I don’t think he does, based on my post on “Perishing Apart from the Law.” And one would be correct.  Sort of.  It’s not so clear-cut as that, since the question is actually asking two things.  So let me lay out clearly what I think, at least at this point.

First, it’s necessary to define the Reformed doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.  Here’s how I would define it:

A sinner is justified by God, not because of any merit of his own that might be brought to judgment as righteousness, but only for the sake of the righteousness of Jesus Christ laid to the sinner’s account.  God, as the just judge, when he looks upon a redeemed and believing sinner, sees instead the righteousness of Christ and on that grounds alone justifies.

I think that is a satisfactory definition.  If anyone has anything to add to it, feel free to comment.

So, to our question—or actually, questions, which might have very different answers:

• Does Paul teach this doctrine?
• Does Paul have this doctrine in mind when he uses the word “impute”?

I must answer “yes” to the first question and “no” to the second.  I believe Paul does teach that Christ’s work of righteousness stands in place of our own before God, since we have nothing of our own to offer.  However, I think Paul is talking about something else, something more general when he talks about imputation, especially in Romans 5.  So there is “imputation” in the Reformed sense, and there is “imputation” in the Pauline sense, which I don’t believe are quite the same thing, but nevertheless do not exclude each other.

First the Pauline.  In Romans 5:13 Paul says that sin is not imputed where there is no law.  This cannot be in reference either to the accounting of Adam’s sin to fallen mankind, nor to the accounting of Christ’s righteousness to justified man.  It would render the Reformed doctrine nonsensical if there were an entire stretch of generations to which imputation in the Reformed sense does not apply (to say nothing of its implications for the Gentiles, who, Paul appears to be arguing, are under the same paradigm as those generations between Adam and Moses).  Therefore, it must be the imputation of man’s sin to his own account.  I believe this is also the sense in which Psalm 32:1-2 (quoted in Romans 4:7-8) speaks.

For Paul, imputation is not necessarily a transfer of sin or righteousness from one account to the other.  Rather, imputation is the accounting itself of the thing, regardless of where it originally came from.  If your sin is imputed to you, then God holds you especially accountable for what you’ve done.  You are counted as a transgressor.  This is what Paul means when he says that sin is not imputed where there is no law.  Yes, sin persisted during this period, and was strong enough to maintain the associated reign of death.  But sin was not imputed because there was no transgression of stated commandments.¹

In Romans 5:20, the law comes in through Moses so that transgression and resulting guilt might be increased.  That is, with the coming of the law, sin is then imputed, thereby making the sinner accountable under the law.  This is the same situation as the Gentile who was once perishing apart from the law and then learns of the law as a God-fearer (which is, by the way, what I believe Romans 7 is describing).

Similarly, when Paul says in Romans 4:3 that “Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him as righteousness,” we must not insist that “it” refers to the alien righteousness of Christ transferred to Abraham’s account, for the idea is nowhere found in the context.  Rather the picture we get is as if Abraham had faith (given by God through the work of the Spirit) and in lieu of any deeds by which he might otherwise be declared righteous—indeed, Paul points out, before the law of circumcision had even been given that he might keep it—God says, “I’ll take that; consider yourself justified.”

By the means of  faith then, Abraham apprehended God’s promises to him and to his seed, just as we receive the promises of God through a true and living faith in Jesus.  As with Abraham, this faith itself is credited to us by God as righteousness, apart from any works of the law.  This is what I believe Paul is talking about when he talks about imputation.

So what about imputation in the Reformed doctrinal sense?  Does Paul teach that we are justified on the grounds of Christ’s righteousness alone?  He certainly does.  God’s declaration of righteousness on us is a free gift that was attained by Christ’s work alone.

And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.  Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
Romans 5:16-18

Here we see Christ’s “act of righteousness” is what leads to our justification.  In a Reformed theological sense, we might say that it is imputed to us.  As a side, I must insist that Romans 5:18 is speaking of a single act that attains justification, otherwise it destroys the parallel to Adam’s one trespass.  It is one act of righteousness that makes the whole thing possible.  Imputation of Christ’s life-work not explicitly found here.

What was this single righteous act?  Paul has already told us in Romans 5:8-9.

. . . but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

We are justified by Christ’s blood.  This does not necessarily obliterate the idea of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience, but I would say Paul makes no such distinction.  Justification is more organic than taking a log entry from one roll and arbitrarily transferring it to another in order to settle the books.  The key is that we are placed “in Christ.”  For Romans 4-7 is Paul’s entire argument to bring us to one conclusion:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Romans 8:1

This is the grounds for our justification.  For if we are in Christ, then all that he is has become ours.  That is our imputation.  When we by faith receive Christ, God regards all that is Christ’s as ours, for we are in him.  How are we placed in him?  Romans 6 gives us this answer: by baptism, and all that it represents.

Whether Romans 6 is speaking of water baptism, or only of “spirit baptism,” or both, is a topic for another discussion, but whichever it is speaking of, this baptism is the means by which we are placed in Christ, by which we receive his righteousness to our account, and are therefore judged righteous before God.

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.  For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Romans 6:3-11

Does this render the Reformed doctrine of imputation “redundant” with union with Christ?  Not at all.  Rather, with this understanding, imputation and forensic justification are the inevitable result of our vital union with Christ and his covenant headship.  That is, union and imputation are related but distinct concepts.

It was Jonathan Edwards who said:

“The atonement worked by Jesus’ life and death is achieved by such a community of him and us that if the Father loves the Son, he must love us also.” ²

We might take this thought and apply it just as legitimately to forensic justification.  If we are found “in Christ,” as Paul says, then because of that union, if the Father regards the Son as righteous, then He must justify us also.

. . . for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Galatians 3:26-27

If we are united to Christ his righteousness must appear on our account because his account and ours are the same account.

So does Paul teach the Reformed doctrine of imputation?  Yes.  He just doesn’t call it that.

What Luther (et al.) Didn’t Know

When Luther and many of the Reformers read Galatians, they naturally saw it in the light of their contemporary situation.  The Roman Catholic Church was in effect perpetuating a practical doctrine of works righteousness.  Do this, and have assurance of salvation.  Pay your indulgences, and shave years off your time in Purgatory.¹

So when the Reformers read Galatians and how a man is justified through faith in Jesus Christ, rather than by “works of the law,” this naturally seemed to be speaking directly to the abuses of the church in their day.  Is it a legitimate application of Galatians?  Certainly!  Paul’s epistle does indeed condemn any doctrine that would claim grounds for justification other than faith in Jesus Christ.

But another question is this: was that the situation of Paul’s day?  Was Paul dealing with 1st century Jews who were attempting to earn (merit) their way to heaven through good works?  I think not.  Reading Paul with the assumption that he was dealing with the same abuses in his day as the Reformers were in the 15th century led Luther and others, and still leads many, to stumble over other passages, such as the book of James.

Some recent discoveries in the last century shed new light on the 1st century Jewish situation and their general attitude toward the Law and justification.  The one I want to focus on here is a Jewish hymn from the “Community Rule” scroll (1QS11) found at Qumran in 1949.  This was one of the first discoveries of the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls.

First some background.  The Qumran community is thought by most to have been a community of Essene Jews.  Of all the Jewish sects, the Essenes were the most conservative.  They separated themselves from the rest of the world in order to remain pure, they abstained from sexual relations, they kept strict community rules that even the Pharisees would have balked at, they had complex systems of ritual purification, and they did not recognize the Hellenized Temple cult because they considered it corrupt.

They were the strictest of the strict in the 1st century Jewish world and had harsh penalties for violations.  If anyone would espouse a doctrine of justification by works, it would be them.²  So if we read their writings, we would expect to get merit x10.  Earn your way straight into the Kingdom (or else)!

Instead, in one marvelous example of 1st century Jewish hymnody, we get this:

As for me,
my justification is with God.
in His hand are the perfection of my way
and the uprightness of my heart.
He will wipe out my transgression
through his righteousness.

For my light has sprung
from the source of His knowledge;
my eyes have beheld his marvelous deeds,
and the light of my heart, the mystery to come.
He that is everlasting
is the support of my right hand;
the way of my steps is over stout rock
which nothing shall shake;
for the rock of my steps is the truth of God
and His might is the support of my right hand.

From the source of his righteousness
is my justification,
and from His marvellous mysteries
is the light in my heart.
. . .

My iniquities, rebellions, and sins,
together with the perversity of my heart,
belong to the company of worms
and to those who walk in darkness.
For mankind has no way,
and man is unable to establish his steps
since justification is with God
and perfection of way is out of His hand.
All things come to pass by His knowledge;
He establishes all things by His design
and without Him nothing is done.

As for me,
if I stumble, the mercies of God
shall be my eternal salvation.
If I stagger because of the sin of flesh,
my justification shall be
by the righteousness of God which endures forever.
When my distress is unleashed
He will deliver my soul from the Pit
and will direct my steps to the way.
He will draw me near by His grace,
and my His mercy will He bring my justification.
. . .

Blessed art Thou my God,
who openest the heart of Thy servant to knowledge!
Establish all his deeds in righteousness;
and as it pleases Thee to do for the elect of mankind,
grant that the son of They handmaid
may stand before Thee forever.
For without Thee no way is perfect,
and without Thy will nothing is done.

When I first read this years ago, it was a real eye opener.  Wow, where did that come from?  This does not look like the picture of Judaism that Luther and so many others painted. This hymn could almost have been written or sung by the apostle Paul.  Writings like this should make us think again about how we view the 1st century Jews.

And in all fairness, it isn’t the fault of Luther and the Reformers that they did not have a better understanding of 1st century Judaism.  They didn’t have the benefit of discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls.  And many of the Jews in the time of the Reformation, in a post-Temple existence did in fact hold to a merit-based view of the kingdom.³

And I think therein lies the key.  There is a marked difference between the pre and post-Temple Jewish existence, and so we should read phrases like “works of the law” with this in mind.  I am not saying that we should force an extra-biblical view onto the biblical text.  Rather, we must hear the biblical text with 1st century ears.

What would a man who wrote or sang the hymn of 1QS11 have said is necessary for justification?  Would he say that one needed to do enough good works to earn or merit salvation?  Certainly not!  The text of the hymn is clear.  It’s almost proto-Pauline in its view of man’s basic relationship to God.  Man is totally unable to establish his way, and he “belongs to the company of worms.”  Salvation is of God’s mercy alone.  Only God is able to justify, and the grounds for man’s justification is God’s own righteousness!  So to the 1st century Jews, the idea that one could not earn salvation was by no means a new idea, nor one with which they really would have had any disagreement.

On the other hand, would the writer of this hymn have said that the “works of the law” were necessary for justification?  If he were an Essene, or anything close to it, I think he would have.  And this is what Paul takes issue with.  Even as the Jew sings of justification coming from God, he assumes one thing: in order to attain to the the glorious state that the hymn expresses, you must be Jewish.  And to be a Jew, you obviously must be of the circumcision, which is the first basic “work of the law.”

This is clear from the context of the hymn.  The rest of the “Community Rule” scroll is filled with condemnations against apostates (the Sadducees and Pharisees of Jesus’ day) and reveals the stifling sectarian exclusivity of the community, which they considered to be the only pure assembly.  Is that in conflict with the hymn itself?  A Qumran sectarian would not have thought so (though we certainly would, reading through the lens of Paul).  Jewishness was basic to them, not because of some ethnic megalomania, but because it was the Jews who were under the blood of sacrifice.  Even the Qumran sect, while rejecting the Hellenized Temple cult, looked forward to the coming of “The Righteous One” who would purge and purify the Temple.  To Israel belonged the Temple and the sacrifices to atone for sin, or so they thought.  And that was why they believed they could claim that God justified them apart from their own righteousness and yet at the same time require that Gentiles become Jewish (come “under the law”) in order to enter the Kingdom.  Because in their mind, the sacrifices applied to those of the circumcision.

This is where Paul interjects.  No, he says, you do not have to be Jew!  With the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who was prefigured by the Old Covenant sacrifices, the shadows are passing away.  The realization of all that was promised has come.  The circumcision is not the line that separates the justified from the unrighteous, and it never really was.  Rather, it is and always has been faith in Jesus Christ.  The blood of Jesus’ sacrifice applies not only to those of the circumcision, but rather to all who believe in Christ and confess Him.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28

Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.
Colossians 3:11

For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Romans 10:12-13

So were the Reformers wrong?  What does this say about our traditional application of Paul against merited salvation and works-righteousness?  Is it still valid?  I think it is.  Paul’s insistence on faith in Jesus Christ as the instrument of justification does indeed by necessity exclude a meritorious role for our righteousness.  Even if that is not the exact issue that he is addressing.

What difference does it make?  Well, it gives us a more nuanced understanding of what Paul means by “works of the law.”  He is not speaking about a belief that one can earn their way into heaven.  He is not even speaking of “good works” in general.  And so we need not pull our hair out and engage in mental and exegetical gymnastics to synthesize Paul with James. The “works of the law” that Paul talks about are not the same thing as the “works” that James speaks of when he says “a person is justified by works, and not by faith alone.”

As when we read the 1st century Jews, we should not take the plain sense of James 2:24 to mean that one might earn or merit their salvation.  I believe the basic difference between Paul’s “works of the law” which do not justify and James’ “works” which do, is this:

Paul’s “works of the law” deals with those who would make being Jewish—being “under the law”—a requirement for justification; James is dealing with those who espouse belief and show no fruit.  Paul’s theme is faith in Jesus Christ apart from the “works of the Torah”; James’ point is faith in Jesus Christ that results in good “works.”  “Works of the law” cannot justify; good “works” flowing from faith in Jesus Christ are required for justification.

Does that imply meritorious earning?  Not at all.  It is all of grace, through faith.  And so we may say with the Reformers: Sola Fide . . . just as long as we qualify that fides sine operibus non fide.⁴

FOOTNOTES: