John the Baptist, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the Danger of Taking Scripture Out of Context

We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. 

- St. Augustine, "On Nature and Grace"

Does the Immaculate Conception of Mary Contradict Scripture?

Protestants sometimes accuse Catholic Tradition of contradicting Scripture.  Here is one example from evangelical apologist Dr. Gregg Allison's book, Roman Catholic Theology and Practice: An Evangelical Assessment (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014), p. 90:

Without question, Scripture affirms the sinfulness of all human beings and does not allow for any exceptions; every human person, as a descendant of Adam, is conceived in sin, has a sinful nature, and sins in word, deed, thought, intention, and so forth. According to Catholic Tradition, however, there is one individual who was conceived without sin, did not possess a sinful nature, and never sinned in word, deed, thought, intention, or in any other way. In this clear case, Scripture and Tradition are diametrically opposed to each other; equally clearly, the Church has sided with Tradition over against Scripture and affirmed the immaculate conception of Mary.

Scripture verses Allison has in mind include ones like Romans 3:23--"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."-- and Ecclesiastes 7:20--"For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."--among several others.  Certainly, it looks like Allison is correct.  These passages do not acknowledge any exceptions.  They seem to be universal and general.  If we take them at face value, we will have to say that Mary, too, like the rest of the human race, committed sin.  We will also have to say that Jesus committed sin.  But Protestants will agree with Catholics that Jesus is an exception to these passages.  No, the passages themselves do not say that Jesus is an exception, but other places in Scripture affirm that Jesus was sinless.  Perhaps an argument from Scripture could have made against Jesus on this point during his earthly ministry--"You say that you do not sin, but the Bible (the Old Testament) says that there is no one who does not sin, so we know you're wrong."  They would seem to have a point, except that we know from our acceptance of the New Testament revelation that such passages in the Old Testament were not meant to exclude the idea of a future sinless Messiah (even though they themselves do not even hint at such an exception).  So we see the importance of interpreting Old Testament passages in their full context--including the context of the New Testament revelation--instead of trying to pit those passages against the wider context within which they are supposed to be interpreted.  Likewise, with passages like Romans 3:23, we recognize the importance of interpreting New Testament passages in the light of and not against other New Testament passages.  Though Paul says "all have sinned," and the New Testament elsewhere affirms that Jesus was sinless (Hebrews 4:15, etc.), we know not to interpret Romans 3:23 in such a way as to oppose Hebrews 4:15 but rather to allow Hebrews 4:15 to inform and alter what would otherwise most likely be our interpretation of Romans 3:23.

And, of course, Catholics would make a similar argument, but they would expand the appropriate context for the interpretation of Scripture to include not just Scripture but the Tradition of the Catholic Church, for the Catholic doctrine is that both Scripture and Tradition are the Word of God and authoritative as such, and that the Church is the divinely-guided and divinely-authorized interpreter and applier of Scripture and Tradition.  (See, for example, Dei Verbum, Chapter II.)  According to Catholic doctrine, it would be just as inappropriate to interpret Scripture in ways that are contrary to the Tradition of the Church as it would be to interpret Old Testament passages to be contrary to New Testament passages, or New Testament passages to be contrary to Old Testament passages or other New Testament passages, etc.  Rather, Scripture should be interpreted in light of Tradition (and other Scripture).  With regard to the Immaculate Conception of Mary, for example, though the Bible says that all have sinned and nowhere do we find any explicit exception made with regard to Mary (though we do with regard to Jesus), we know from Tradition that Mary was an exception.  Catholic teaching holds that, unlike the rest of us, who were born with original sin and commit actual sin and are rescued from both by the atonement of Christ and the grace of God, Mary was rescued from sin by Christ in an even greater way--by being prevented by grace from falling into sin in the first place.  It was not Mary's own native abilities that kept her out of sin, but the grace of God through the merits of Christ.  Mary could rejoice in God her Savior in an extra-special way.  So, in reading passages like Romans 3:23, Catholics will say that Paul is speaking generally, but not intending to address the special case of the Virgin Mary (or the special case of Christ).  We could also say that, in a sense, Mary is included in the "all have sinned," in the sense that she too needed to be rescued from sin by the grace of Christ.  All people besides Christ, including Mary, would be lost in sin forever without the atonement of Christ.  He is the Savior of all.  Nothing in this interpretation contradicts anything in Romans 3:23, though it goes beyond what Paul says there.  Now, if Paul had said, "All have sinned, including Mary--she committed sin as well," then it's hard to see how we could escape a contradiction.  But he didn't say that.  He didn't address the question of Mary's sin, and we can make such an inference from Paul's general statement only by assuming what cannot actually be proven from the text.

Protestants are thus guilty of begging the question when they use this kind of argument against Catholicism.  Romans 3:23 and similar passages only constitute proof against the Immaculate Conception of Mary if we assume that Scripture should not be interpreted in the light of Catholic Tradition (and should even be interpreted in opposition to it).  But Catholics do not agree to that assumption, so the assumption must be proved before it can be used in an anti-Catholic argument.  To simply assume without proof a Protestant principle of biblical interpretation in an argument with a Catholic is to commit the fallacy of begging the question.

Two More Examples

The principles and assumptions one brings to biblical interpretation often affect the outcome of such interpretation, as our examples above illustrate, and so what may seem to be proved may not be so proved once one's assumptions have been questioned and it is shown that one is leaving out important relevant contextual information.  Here are a couple more examples to further illustrate this.

In John 1:19-23, we read this exchange between John the Baptist and the Jewish leaders:

And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who art thou?" And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, "I am not the Christ." And they asked him, "What then? Art thou Elijah?" And he saith, "I am not." "Art thou that prophet?" And he answered, "No." Then said they unto him, "Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?" He said, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias."

John says here that he is not Elijah.  The reference is clearly to Malachi 4:5-6:

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

From this, the Jews derived the idea that Elijah the prophet would come ahead of the Messiah.  The Jewish leaders, in John 1, are asking John if he is Elijah the prophet come before the Messiah.  His answer is that he is not.  So we know from this that John the Baptist was not the Elijah prophesied in Malachi 4.  He is not the fulfillment of that prophecy.  It seems like a pretty watertight case.

However, then we have Matthew 17:10-13:

And his disciples asked him, saying, "Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come?" And Jesus answered and said unto them, "Elijah truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, that Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them." Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

Wait a second!  I thought that John the Baptist wasn't Elijah!  We have a clear contradiction here between John 1 and Matthew 17, don't we?

Sure, it sounds like a contradiction.  It could be taken as a contradiction.  But it is not necessary that it be interpreted as a contradiction.  Since we know that Matthew and John are both parts of the inerrant Word of God, we will go with a non-contradictory sense and not jump to the conclusion of contradiction where we do not have to.  John the Baptist is not literally Elijah the prophet, for he is a different person.  However, he is the fulfillment of Malachi 4, as he has come "in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Luke 1:17).  Why did John say he wasn't Elijah to the Jewish leaders?  Perhaps he didn't want to identify himself with false ideas about the coming of Elijah they would have imputed to him if he had said yes.  But at any rate, there is no necessary contradiction here.  However, if we only believed in the Gospel of John, and we assumed that the synoptic gospels were not the Word of God, we would probably tend to interpret their difference as a contradiction and argue against the synoptic view on the ground of what St. John says--just as Protestants argue against the Immaculate Conception on the ground of Romans 3:23 and similar verses.

Likewise, consider Matthew 27:38-44:

Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, and saying, "Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross." Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, "He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'" The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.

How many thieves were crucified with Jesus?  Two.  How did they treat him?  They mocked and reviled him.  What if I said that only one of them did so, but the other one was humble and righteous towards him?  You might respond by saying that I was contradicting what St. Matthew says, for he seems clearly to indicate that both thieves reviled and mocked Jesus.  He says "the thieves," plural, "cast the same in his teeth."  Since there were only two thieves, the plural must imply that both of them were involved.

Ah, but then we have Luke 23:39-43:

And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, "If thou be Christ, save thyself and us." But the other answering rebuked him, saying, "Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss." And he said unto Jesus, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." And Jesus said unto him, "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."

Is this a contradiction?  It could be seen as such.  But not necessarily, because the two are harmonizable.  We can say that Matthew was not intending to deny that one of the thieves was penitent, but he was also not interested in calling attention to that fact.  He gave a more shorthanded version of the event, emphasizing how everyone around Jesus, even those crucified with him, mocked him.  Luke expands on Matthew's shorthand account and fills in further details.  If we didn't accept Luke as the Word of God, however, we might try to use Matthew to argue against him.

In all of these cases, we have passages that, on the surface, have some appearance of contradiction.  They could be interpreted to be contradictory.  But they do not necessarily have to be interpreted in a contradictory manner, for they can also be reasonably and plausibly understood to harmonize with each other.  Whether we tend to want to interpret them as contradictory or as harmonized depends partly on our prior attitude towards the texts--whether we think they are the Word of God or simply human ideas, whether we are prone to be hostile and suspicious towards them or whether we are prone to think them reliable and accurate.

Conclusion

Do Romans 3:23 and similar texts contradict the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary?  Only if we take the most hostile interpretation rather than a more favorable one.  Both interpretations are possible and reasonably plausible in themselves, for the biblical texts are very general and do not directly address the question of Mary and whether she might be a special case in some ways.  So why do Protestants often interpret these passages as contradictory to rather than as harmonizable with the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?  Because Protestants do not accept Catholic Tradition as divine but as only human, and because they are prone to be suspicious of Catholic Tradition and to see it as unreliable.  Once these deeper assumptions and nuances are recognized, it will be seen that the Protestant objection to the Immaculate Conception from these verses is merely an exercise in question-begging, for the argument only works if we assume beforehand that the Protestant view of Scripture and Tradition is correct and the Catholic view is wrong (and that one should go with the Scriptural interpretation most hostile to Catholic Tradition).  One has to assume already that Catholicism is wrong in order to use this argument against Catholicism.

For more on the Immaculate Conception, see here and here.

The Original Version of the Default Argument

The argument I call the "Default Argument" is an important part of the reason I am a Catholic rather than a Protestant.  Coming to recognize its truth was the crucial turning point that led me to decide to become Catholic out of Presbyterianism.  I have described this argument already in a number of places, particularly here and here, and in the context of my personal narrative documenting my doctrinal progression leading up to my conversion.

Not too long ago, I ran across a document I had written back in the first few days after I started considering transitioning to Catholicism.  This document contains a whole bunch of rambling thoughts back and forth, and part of it contains the first written version of the default argument, written down just as I was coming to understand and embrace it.  I first began to consider converting to Catholicism at the end of the day on March 14, 2015 (really in the middle of the night between March 14 and March 15--so far as I recall, I went to bed that night greatly troubled about where Sola Scriptura had led myself and my family, and when I woke up in the morning the thought of considering Catholicism had formed in my mind).  March 14 was a Saturday.  This first version of the default argument was written probably around the following weekend, maybe Thursday the 19th, Friday the 20th, or the next couple of days.  I first came to see the truth of the argument in my mind on Thursday the 19th.  Before that, I had been coming to the conclusion that I should stick with Sola Scriptura and Presbyterianism, despite the great difficulties of following it and the troubles it seemed to be leading us into.  The default argument provided the evidence that pushed me over the line.

So you will find below that original version of the default argument.  I've left it exactly as it is in the document.  One clarification:  I talk about an idea regarding the interpretation of Scripture I call "the best reading is the right reading."  This was an idea I had developed over the years as necessary to make Sola Scriptura work.  Basically, it means that since I am supposed to use Sola Scriptura to interpret the Bible, Sola Scriptura must work, and so I must assume that whatever the best reading of a biblical passage or series of passages is regarding a particular topic we need an answer to, that reading must be right--for otherwise it would be impossible to determine what the correct conclusion is when Scripture is somewhat obscure.  Take infant baptism, for example.  In order to be able to follow Christ, we have to know whether or not we should baptize babies.  The answer may be that we should, it may be that we shouldn't, it may be that we can do it if we want to, etc., but we have to do something, and we have to be able to know what we should do (for otherwise God would have made it impossible to do the right thing, which is absurd).  But Scripture nowhere addresses infant baptism.  We have to infer it from various things Scripture does say.  Now, if we don't know for sure that "the best reading is the right reading"--that no matter how obscure the evidence is, if there is any conclusion that has even a 1% greater chance of being right than the others, we can be sure that conclusion is correct--then we can't possibly use Scripture to tell us what is right.  We might try to infer that, if asked, the apostles would have told us to baptize infants, based on what they said and what the Old Testament said and what Jesus said, etc., but we really could have no idea if our inference is right.  But if "the best reading is the right reading," then we can be sure our inference is correct so long as it seems to be even slightly the best inference.  So if Sola Scriptura is correct, it must be the case that "the best reading is the right reading," for Sola Scriptura cannot function without that assumption.

OK, with that defined, here is the original default argument.  Why am I posting this?  Why would anyone care about seeing the first version of my default argument?  I have no idea.  I'm putting it here because I want it to be here, and it's my blog.  So enjoy, or ignore, at your pleasure!  Oh yes, I should also note--what becomes evident upon reading it--that I what I did is write out two arguments, the first supporting Sola Scriptura and the second opposing it.  The first argument was the argument I used to make as a Protestant.  But then I realized my error, and that is what led to me embrace argument #2.  After both arguments, I wrote out an analysis of them and why the second rather than the first is right.

I should also mention that I am less sanguine now than I was then about the ability to make a good case for Sola Scriptura from Church history.

OK, here we go:

The Default Arguments:

1. Christianity is true.

2. By clear observation: Christianity is a divine revelation.

3. By logical inference: If God has given a revelation in Christianity, he wants us to know and follow it, so it must be possible to find out what it is, understand it, and follow it.

4. By observation from Christian historical literature (particularly the Bible, the church fathers, and the general observation of developing Christian tradition through the centuries): A plausible case can be made for sola Scriptura (A).  A plausible case also can be made for Scripture interpreted in light of traditions involved in the living practice of faith in the church and trust in God's guidance through his Spirit of the overall tradition of the catholic church (B).

5. By observation of Christian historical literature: The Scripture is pointed to so clearly as a locus of divine revelation (and even the ultimate foundational source of Christian doctrine) that it is abundantly clear that Scripture is such.  The historical record is such that we must say that if Scripture is not a revelation, we do not have one.

6. Since Scripture is able to function on its own, without any other infallible context of interpretation (if we add the assumption, logically necessary to make Scripture work on its own in this way, that “the best reading is the right reading”), Scripture alone (A) fulfills the requirement that we be able to find, understand, and follow, a divine revelation.  Nothing else is therefore needed to satisfy that requirement.

7. Logically following from #6: The requirement to find a locus of divine Christian revelation (established in #3) does not justify believing in in infallible catholic tradition, for such is not needed to fulfill that requirement.  Therefore, in order to warrant belief in such, additional independent evidence will have to be given.  The default will be to A, for A is established as workable by the fact of the reliability of Scripture while B is not.

8. From #4, we observe that there is no such sufficient additional evidence.

9. Therefore, from #7 and #8, we conclude that we are unjustified in holding to any infallible catholic tradition, which leaves us with A as our conclusion.  (In short, since A satisfies our requirement for a Christian divine revelation and we have no independent sufficient evidence for any other infallible authority, the situation described in #4 logically entails that we go with A.)  Therefore, we should follow A, even if that means defying the stated teachers of the church and breaking the organizational unity of the church.  We are commanded to defer to our teachers and to the unity of the church, but we have no reason from observation of the data to conclude that such deference must be absolute, and so we are warranted in defying it if obedience to God calls for it, and the lack of warrant for B constitutes such a call (for we cannot, in honesty, affirm what we have no basis to affirm)  In short, the Reformation was justified.

1. Christianity is true.

2. By clear observation: Christianity is a divine revelation.

3. By logical inference: If God has given a revelation in Christianity, he wants us to know and follow it, so it must be possible to find out what it is, understand it, and follow it.

4. By observation from Christian historical literature (particularly the Bible, the church fathers, and the general observation of developing Christian tradition through the centuries): A plausible case can be made for sola Scriptura (A).  A plausible case also can be made for Scripture interpreted in light of traditions involved in the living practice of faith in the church and trust in God's guidance through his Spirit of the overall tradition of the catholic church (B).

5. By observation of Christian historical literature: The Scripture is pointed to so clearly as a locus of divine revelation (and even the ultimate foundational source of Christian doctrine) that it is abundantly clear that Scripture is such.  The historical record is such that we must say that if Scripture is not a revelation, we do not have one.

6. Scripture is able to function on its own without a further infallible context only if we add the assumption that “the best reading is the right reading” (for otherwise Scripture, as a complex and often somewhat informal and occasional literary document, does not give us sufficient information to clearly and positively decide its meaning or conclusions in a number of areas).  By observation, it would appear that Scripture itself does not clearly tell us that this assumption is true.  Therefore, the fact of the reliability of Scripture (established in #5 and assumed by both A and B) does not by itself logically imply that the assumption that “the best reading is the right reading” is true and therefore that Scripture can function on its own without an infallible catholic tradition.

7. From logical inference from #6: Both A and B require additional assumptions beyond the simple fact of the reliability of Scripture.  Therefore, the fact of the reliability of Scripture does not by itself decide between A and B or lead us to default to one or the other.  The fact of the reliability of Scripture does not by itself infer that A or B works.  Therefore, we cannot infer A from that fact alone (or B).  Additional information or argumentation is therefore required to decide between A and B or to warrant us to choose either of them.

8. Logical inference from clear observations in Christian historical literature: Since God has given us teachers in the church (the bishops or elders who have succeeded the apostles) and has commanded us to obey them, and since he has commanded us to preserve the organizational unity of the church, it follows that we ought to defer and default to submission to our teachers and to the preservation of the unity of the church and not break away from these at least unless there is good, sufficient reason to warrant this.  In short, our practical default ought to be deference to the stated teachers and the unity of the church.

9. From #4-#7, it follows that we have no clear and sufficient reason from the data arising from Christian historical literature to affirm A over B (or vice versa).  Therefore, combining this conclusion with the claim of #8, it follows that we ought to defer and default to the stated teachers and the organizational unity of the church and not break away from these, for we have no good reason for doing so and so insufficient warrant to do so.

10. Since adhering to the conclusion reached in #9 requires us to accept B, it follows that we ought to accept B.  If it is objected that we have no reason from the data (following #4) to accept B and that therefore it is unwarranted for us to do so, it must be said in reply that we equally have no reason from the data to accept A and that therefore if B is unwarranted so equally is A.  But, following #3, we must be able to decide between A and B.  We are warranted to infer, therefore, that since, following #8, in such a situation we ought to defer to the stated teachers and the unity of the church, such deference will lead us to the right conclusion, and therefore we can conclude that B is true.  In short, the Reformation was unjustified.

Analysis:  The arguments are the same up to #5, and then at #6 they diverge.  The divergence point is that the first argument asserts that the fact of the reliability of Scripture (established in #5) logically implies the workability of A, while the second argument asserts that #5 does not logically imply the workability of A.  The first argument concludes that since A is workable (following logically from #5), we know that A satisfies the demand (established in #3) for a knowable and followable revelation of Christianity, and so that demand rests its case upon nothing more than the conclusion of #5 (the reliability of the conclusion that Scripture is a divine revelation).  Therefore, since nothing more is needed besides Scripture alone, #4 leads us directly to default to A, and B is left to have to provide for itself additional independent data outside of anything determined from #4 to establish its warrant.  But #4 indicates that it can't do so, and so B has no warrant, and so A is right.  The second argument, however, does not believe that the workability of A can be logically inferred from #5.  Therefore, #5 does not show that Scripture alone can satisfy the demand of #3, and so it does not show that nothing more is needed.  Therefore, unlike with the first argument, #4 does not produce a default to A and leave B to establish additional warrant.  Instead, #4 leaves A and B as equals.  Both the first and the second arguments agree that we ought to defer practically to the stated teachers and to the organizational unity of the church, but both also acknowledge that such deference may not be absolute but may be able to be overridden by other concerns.  The first argument, since it sees #4 (in light of the other points, particularly #7 and #8)) as implying that we ought to embrace A and not B, sees this as sufficient warrant to overturn our practical default of deferring to the established church in order to affirm A as correct, while the second argument, since it sees #4 as leaving A and B as equals, does not acknowledge a reason to override our practical deference to the established church, and so it concludes that, in the absence of other data leading to other conclusions, it must be right to continue that deference, and so concludes from this that B and not A is the right position.

My current observation of these arguments suggests to me that the second argument is correct while the first argument is flawed.  It appears to me that the first argument begs the question by jumping from the fact of the reliability of accepting Scripture as divine revelation (established in #5 and agreed upon by both A and B) to the conclusion that A is workable without providing proof for this leap.  #5 does not inherently imply that A is workable, because the additional assumption needed to make A work (“the best reading is the right reading”) is not clearly taught in Scripture.  We have to provide additional data (which doesn't exist) in order to establish that assumption and so the workability of A.  So then, it seems that #4 and #5 actually leave A and B as equals rather than giving us reason to default to A.  Once that is granted, we no longer have sufficient warrant to overturn our deference to the established church, etc.  So it would seem, granting all the premises of the second argument, that B and not A is our justified conclusion.

A Look at Paul's Doctrine of Justification in Romans 1-8 (Earlier Draft)

 Dialogue between Catholics and Protestants regarding the doctrine of justification often focuses on the doctrine as it is developed in the writings of the Apostle Paul, especially in the books of Romans and Galatians.  In these letters, St. Paul focuses his attention on this doctrine.  In Romans, chapters 1-8, St. Paul engages in a somewhat systematic exposition of the doctrine of justification, and so these chapters are particularly useful in gaining an understanding of Paul's theology.

I think that St. Paul's writing in Romans 1-8 is, on the whole, fairly clear and straightforward.  There are some points of obscurity, but he lays out his basic ideas on justification relatively clearly.  I would like to do an inline commentary on these chapters in an attempt to follow systematically Paul's exposition of his doctrine of justification in order to expound a basic understanding of this doctrine, and also to compare St. Paul's teaching with both the Catholic and the historic Protestant doctrine of justification.

As I proceed with my inline commentary, I will especially focus on elements in Paul's text which have a substantial bearing on questions relating to the doctrine of justification.  I may comment on other things as well, but I will feel free to pass by or to address only very briefly less centrally relevant points.

My text is taken from the KJV text on the Bible Gateway website, tweaked and formatted to fit my purposes in this article.  I will skip St. Paul's introductory material at the beginning of chapter 1, and begin with verse 18.  For smoother reading, I have removed chapter and verse numbers.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Paul comments on the state of the world of mankind in general.  It is in a state of evil and rebellion against God.

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?  If you think you're exempt from this blanket condemnation of mankind in general, you're not, Paul says, for you're in the same boat. Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; but glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God.

God will judge the world, and the criterion of judgment is simple.  Those who lived evil lives will be condemned, and those who lived good lives will be rewarded with eternal life.  Where man ends up is a matter of justice, as God gives to men's deeds what they deserve, what it is fitting for them to receive.  (Of course, a question is raised at this point.  If everyone is evil, as Paul seemed to be saying a moment ago, then how is this judgment thing going to work out well for anyone?)

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Everyone has the moral law of God.  Some, like the Jews, have it in written form, delivered by a special revelation from God.  Others, the Gentiles, have it in their conscience.  Both Jews and Gentiles alike will be judged by the moral law.  Only those will be justified--that is, vindicated, or declared righteous--who keep the law in whatever form they have access to it.  As Paul said earlier, God will give to each man's deeds what those deeds deserve in his righteous judgment.

Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Apparently Paul thinks the Jews might try to claim special privilege and exemption from God's moral judgment by virtue of the fact that they have been given the law in a special revelation and have been circumcised (a sign of their special covenant with God).  But Paul pulls the rug out from under any such idea.  Jews will not be treated with favoritism.  They will be treated the same as the Gentiles, each judged according to the law as they have access to it.  The Gentiles don't know about circumcision because they don't have the special revelation, but God won't count that against them if they obey the law in their conscience.  And if Jews disobey the law, their circumcision will count for nothing.  It won't save them from the righteous judgment of God against their sins.

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, "That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged." But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

Paul clears up a misconception.  He's not saying that Jews have no advantages over Gentiles in any way.  Of course it is an advantage to have the "oracles of God" and to be God's special people.  The fact that the Jews turned out to be unrighteous and faithless to the law of God they were given doesn't make God's plan pointless, as he uses evil for his good purposes.  But none of this justifies Jewish unrighteousness.  In terms of moral judgment, Jews are in the same boat as the Gentiles--they will be judged by the law of God.

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, "There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes."

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Paul here reaches his first big conclusion.  He's shown that God will judge the world by his moral law.  He's shown that the world of man in general has really blown it in terms of being righteous, and are thus condemned by the law.  The Jews tried to escape by claiming to be the special people of God, but Paul showed that the Jews will also be judged by the law of God just like the Gentiles and their special position will not save them from unrighteousness, and it turns out that the Jews are evil just like the Gentiles.  So it looks like God will judge the whole world according to his moral law, and nobody is righteous according to that moral law.  So everyone's condemned.  Well, this is depressing.  Fortunately, Paul doesn't stop here.  He's going somewhere more positive with all of this ultimately.  But, for now, the main point is that everyone is condemned by God's moral law.

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Now Paul begins discussion of the good news.  Even though we're all condemned by the moral law of God, we can still be saved.  Even though we don't have a righteousness of our own that can satisfy God's law, we can still get right with God by means of the redemption of Christ and faith in him.  Christ made a propitiation, or an expiation, or an atonement, by his blood and his death, and through that atonement and faith in that atonement we can attain a state of righteousness as a gift of God's grace.  (But a question arises here:  How is this possible?  Can God justify the ungodly?  That is, can he accept the ungodly as if he is godly?)

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

There is no boasting in this way of salvation.  We cannot be justified--made right with God--by our own righteousness.  We can only be justified through faith in Christ's atonement.  So it is Christ's works and not ours which save us.

And not only does this way of justification through faith reconcile us all to God, but it brings Jews and Gentiles together, for there is a way of salvation given that is apart from the requirements of the law given to the Jews, which included the requirement of being circumcised and thus joining the Jewish people of God.  Paul said earlier that Gentiles who didn't have the specially revealed law given to the Jews would be judged by the law they had been given--the law written in their conscience.  But even so, it is to the Jews that God gave his special revelation, and so the Gentiles have not been on equal ground with the Jews.  To gain the fullness of all that God has given, including access to the advantages of having the specially revealed law of God and being his special people, they had to embrace the Jewish law.  But now we have a way of salvation above and beyond the Jewish law, although that law bore witness to it.  It is the way of faith, open to Jews and Gentiles on the same basis--faith in Christ and his redemption.

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.  Paul begins to get here at the question we asked earlier:  How can we be justified by faith?  How can God justify the ungodly?  Wouldn't this be "to call evil good"?  The new way of faith establishes rather than makes void the law both in that it is testified to by the law and fulfills what the law pointed to and that it provides a righteousness which satisfies the law--though in a different way from the way of works. What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin."

So through faith in Christ's atonement, we are given a state of righteousness that we did not have on our own.  God "imputes" righteousness to us through faith.  Note that it is not that faith is a good thing and so if we have faith we are righteous, and so God accepts us as righteous.  That would be to miss Paul's entire point, which is that, on our own, we don't have the righteousness the law requires.  Our faith is not to be in ourselves but in Christ and his atonement, and if we have that faith, God will impute or credit righteousness to our account as a free gift of grace.  God will not hold our sins against us, but will count us as righteous.  We have here (at least in part) the answer to our previous question:  How can God justify the ungodly?  He does so by giving the ungodly a righteousness as a free gift which they did not possess on their own.  When he has counted that alien righteousness to be theirs, he can then accept them as righteous without "calling evil good".

Obviously, there is no place for boasting in this way of salvation, as there would be if we had earned God's favor by our own righteousness.

Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Abraham was the father of the Jews, as is illustrated by his being circumcised, but Abraham's justification did not come through keeping the ceremonies of the Jewish law given later, but his justification was through faith.  His circumcision was a symbol of his faith.  In his being justified by faith above and beyond the Jewish law, Abraham showed himself to be the father not only of the Jews who would receive that law but of all peoples who, along with the Jews, can be justified by faith.  So we see again how justification by faith both reconciles sinful men to God and also binds Jews and Gentiles together.

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.  Abraham was promised that he would be the father of many nations, even of the whole world.  But this was not through the Jewish law, but through faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.  If Abraham's destiny was established through the law, this would not only divide Jews from Gentiles, but it would also destroy any hope of salvation, for we are all sinners and so cannot be saved by the law.  We don't have the righteousness it requires. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, (As it is written," I have made thee a father of many nations,") before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, "So shall thy seed be." And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; and being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

Paul links Abraham's faith in God to give him a child with faith that brings justification.  There is an obvious analogy here.  Abraham and Sarah had no power on their own to produce a child, as Sarah was barren and they were both far too old.  But God can do what men cannot.  He is the Creator, who "calleth those things which be not as though they were."  If he called the world into being out of nothing, he could surely give Abraham a son in his old age, and he can surely justify the ungodly by giving them a righteousness they do not possess on their own.

Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Jesus died and rose again, overcoming sin and death.  Through his sacrifice and his victory, we are saved from our sins and made right with God.  Our trust must be in him for all of this.

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope: And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

We have been made right with God by God's grace through Christ.  We therefore have all the benefits of being right with God.  We rejoice in hope of the glory of God.  We can even glory in our troubles, for God, by his grace, uses them to help us grow.  God has shed abroad his love in our hearts through the Holy Spirit.

For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Paul highlights the graciousness of our justification.  It is Christ who has saved us, and not we ourselves.  We were sinners and enemies of God.  Since Christ died for us when we were nothing but sinners and enemies, he will certainly give us all that we need to attain to full salvation.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.) But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Paul makes a comparison between Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness.  There is a parallel here.  The reason we are all sinners, and as sinners doomed to death, is because of Adam's sin.  His sin constituted us all sinners.  From him we have inherited sin and all that sin brings with it, including death.  Similarly, if we are to be made righteous, it must be through Christ.  Just as Adam's sin constituted all men sinners and so brought all men to condemnation and death, so Christ's righteous obedience and redemption constitute all who are in him righteous and so brings them to a state of justification and thus to eternal life.

But the parallel breaks down, because Christ's righteous obedience is much greater than Adam's sin.  One sin of Adam brought us all into the position of being sinners, but Adam's sin and all our sins became the basis for Christ being sent into the world to take away our sins and to bring us salvation.  Christ's righteous obedience not only parallels Adam's sin, but it responds to it and overcomes it, bringing deliverance from sin.

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.  How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is justified from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

So if we're saved by God's grace, and our sin has called forth from God such a wonderful response of mercy, should we just continue to live in sin so that more and more mercy will be called forth from God?

No, of course not!  That would be absurd, because the whole point of justification by faith is that we have been set free from sin!  If we have been set free from sin, how can we continue to live in it?  Jesus died for our sins once for all, and now he has overcome sin and has been raised from the dead and dies no more.  So if we are united to him (as we have been united with him in baptism), we are united to both his death and his resurrection.  We have thus been set free from sin and are now alive to a new life of righteousness.

Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Again, if we have been set free from sin, we should live accordingly.  That is, we should live as those freed from sin and made righteous.

What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Paul combats here a false conclusion that some might make from his doctrine of justification by faith.  Some might think that if we are justified by a gift of grace and not by our own righteousness, that means we don't need to be righteous any more.  God has imputed righteousness to us as a gift, and so now we can live in sin with impunity, with no fear of punishment.

But this is completely false.  As Paul said earlier, Christ's atonement did not do away with the moral law; rather, it fulfilled the moral law.  Faith in Christ's atonement does not free us from the demands of the moral law, or make it so that sin no longer brings death and righteousness is no longer required to attain life.  Rather, Christ's atonement, and justification by faith, have made it so that we can become righteous and so meet the demands of the moral law.  It is not that God imputes righteousness to us and so we don't have to be righteous.  It is that God imputes righteousness to us and so we can now be righteous and live righteously, and so attain to eternal life.

For Paul, saying that we have righteousness imputed to us and so we don't have to live righteously is just as absurd as saying that because someone has given to me a house as a free gift, that means I no longer have to live in a house.  The whole point of being given a house is so that we might live in it!  Or it is like saying that I have been given the gift of medicine as a free gift, and so now I don't have to take medicine!  No, if I don't take my medicine I will die.  I have been given medicine as a free gift precisely so that I can take it and live!  Likewise, the point of being given righteousness as a free gift is so that we no longer have to live in sin and receive the death that that necessarily brings; now, instead, we have a righteousness by which we can attain life.

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Paul uses an analogy of marriage to describe our life under the law compared to our life under grace.  Before, we were "married" to the law.  This brought death, because we were sinful.  No one obeyed the law, and so the law brought only condemnation.  Since we couldn't meet the law's demands, being sinful, we were in a hopeless state.  But now, through faith, we have become dead to the law and "married" to Christ.  Now, unlike our previous marriage, this is a fruitful union, because Christ's grace enables us to live lives of righteousness through the power of the Spirit.  We can thus bear proper fruit unto God and therefore be on the way to eternal life.

Note that being "dead to the law" does not mean we are no longer obligated to obey the law.  We are dead to the law not in terms of moral obligation, but in terms of a way to attain righteousness.  In Christ, we attain righteousness not through our own efforts in our own strength to obey the law but through the power of the Spirit given to us.

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, "Thou shalt not covet." But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

The problem was not in the law.  It was in us.  The law is perfectly good and just, but we are sinners.  That's why the law couldn't save us.  On the contrary, the law made matters worse for us, because it showed up our sins, like suddenly shining a flashlight into a room full of rats or cockroaches (I owe this image to a former pastor of mine).

What Paul says here parallels his comments earlier when he said that from Adam until Moses, sin was not imputed, because the law had not yet been given.  Paul doesn't mean that no one from Adam until Moses was a sinner, or that we aren't sinners until we hear the specially revealed moral law.  We saw earlier that the Gentiles are still responsible to God even though they haven't received the special revelation of the law given to the Jews because they have God's moral law written on their conscience.  What Paul is saying here is not that we weren't sinners at all until we heard the law, but that it was through the hearing of the law that our sin was shown clearly and explicitly and dramatically to be the evil that it naturally is.  The clarity of the law brings out our sin by its dramatic contrast.

By the way, some scholars have argued that the "works of the law" that cannot save us that Paul talks about in this letter to the Romans are only ceremonial works of the Jewish law, like circumcision, and do not include moral works of the law, like not coveting or not stealing.  This interpretation has become somewhat popular among modern Catholics as well.  I don't want to spend a lot of time examining this question in particular, but I want to briefly point out that our study thus far has shown the falsity of this viewpoint.  The works of the law that cannot save us include the entirety of the law of God, including both its ceremonial and its moral aspects.  We saw that Gentiles could not be saved by the law and were condemned by it.  This must refer to the moral aspects of the law, because they didn't even have the ceremonial aspects, only having the law written in their conscience.  We saw that our problem--all of us, Jews and Gentiles--is that we are sinners and do not have the righteousness to live up to the law of God.  This makes no sense if Paul is meaning to exclude the moral components of God's law from his discussion.  It is precisely the moral aspects of the law we cannot do which make us sinners!  The ceremonial components of the law are important in Paul's discussion as well, since Paul is not only concerned with our reconciliation with God but also with the relationship between Jews and Gentiles, but Paul does not separate out the ceremonial from the moral components.  And we see here once again, in the section we are now commenting on, that it is the moral aspect of God's law that causes us trouble as sinners, for "Thou shalt not covet" certainly belongs to the moral and not to the ceremonial aspect of God's law.  The "works of the law" that cannot save us include all the works of the law of God, both ceremonial and moral, for we are saved not by the moral law as opposed to the ceremonial law but by Christ and his redemption and faith as opposed to obedience to the law.  In short, to limit the "works of the law" that Paul says cannot save us to only the ceremonial as opposed to the moral law is to miss Paul's fundamental message, which is that we are not saved by our own righteousness but only by the righteousness of God given to us as a free gift.  We cannot fulfill the moral law on our own, but fulfillment of that law is given to us as a gift of grace through faith in the atonement of Christ.

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Paul once again here outlines our fundamental moral problem.  The law is good and just, but we are not.  We know very well how we ought to be, but we find ourselves driven to act other than our conscience says we ought to act.  Left to ourselves, therefore, we are doomed.  That's why we need Christ.

There has been a controversy among Paul's interpreters as to whether Paul is describing here in this section of Romans 7 the condition of a person without Christ or a person with Christ but who has not yet been made perfect.  I think the basic answer is that the former view is correct.  As we have seen already and as we will see again in the next section, Paul wants to contrast our hopeless state without Christ with our hopeful state in Christ.  It would be very incongruous, then, to read Paul's pitiful description here as intended to describe a man saved by Christ.  When Paul refers to the inward self that delights in God's law and wants to obey it and contrasts this with the "law of the members" which drives him to sin, I do not think he is referring to the battle of the soul renewed in Christ with remnants of the now conquered sinful nature.  Rather, the "inward man" here probably refers to our conscience, on which the law of God is written, and by which we know and agree that the law is good.  The "law of the members" refers to us in our sinful condition as we fail to live up to what our conscience declares we ought to do.  (However, having said all of this, I will grant that Paul may have partially and secondarily had in his mind his own experience as a regenerated soul struggling against remaining sin, for it is true that we are not yet made perfect.  Paul will make that very point in the next chapter.  So it may be that while Paul's primary point here is to describe the wretched condition of sinful man under the law without Christ, he may be mixing in with this description some language reminiscent of the regenerate soul's struggle against remaining sin.)

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.  We see here clearly that man as saved by Christ is contrasted with the man described in the previous section--man as wretched without Christ. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

In these paragraphs, Paul sums up his entire message regarding salvation.  We could not be saved by the law because we are sinners.  But Christ, through his atonement, has purchased for us a righteousness to be given to us as a free gift, a righteousness that fulfills the requirements of the moral law.  God imputes this righteousness to us and makes it ours, and it is infused into us through the power of the Holy Spirit, who enables us to put to death our sinful lives and to live lives of righteousness which are pleasing to God.  This is how we can attain to eternal life.  If we continue to live in sin, we shall die, for sin always brings death, for it cannot please God.  But, through Christ, we are enabled to live lives of righteousness which please God, resulting in eternal life.  And not only this, but in being united to Christ we are made children of God, sharing Christ's Sonship and his relationship with the Father.  We receive the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Sonship, who makes us righteous and pleasing to God and who also makes us God's children and cries out within us, "Abba, Father!"

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

Our salvation, while fully accomplished in Christ, is not yet completed in us.  We still await the fullness of perfection.

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

The whole of our redemption is by the grace of God from start to finish.  It is all the outworking of God's eternal plan of predestination.  (But I'll leave that concept be for now, lest it take us into a whole new field of inquiry!)

Paul brings the whole discussion to a dramatic conclusion:

What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, "For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter." Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Let me end with a few comments regarding how Paul's doctrine of justification compares with the Catholic and with the Protestant doctrines of justification.

As I've discussed elsewhere (here and here) I think we can read the Protestant doctrine in what I would consider a more positive way or in a more negative way.  The positive way of reading it puts it in line with Catholic teaching fundamentally.  The negative reading makes it contrast fundamentally with the Catholic doctrine.  Protestant doctrine is a bit hazy in a way that allows these two readings to be possible, and I think that both ways of looking at the doctrine tend to affect Protestant thinking in general.  Looking at Protestant theology from the perspective of contrast with the Catholic doctrine, we can summarize the Protestant doctrine of justification as the idea that we are made right with God entirely by the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ imputed to us in such a way that this process excludes any input from the infusion of righteousness into us or any moral transformation in our lives.  Protestants (at least some of them, like the historic Reformed) believe that internal moral transformation happens and is necessary, but they exclude it from the idea of justification and make it a completely separate issue (they call it "sanctification" to contrast it with "justification").  So, in this view, we are made right with God solely by the imputation of righteousness as opposed to any infusion of righteousness into us or internal moral transformation.

The Catholic view, by contrast, teaches that we are indeed made right with God by the righteousness of Christ given to us as a free gift and not by our own righteousness, but that in order for us to actually come into a right relationship with God, this righteousness must be not only imputed to us but also infused within us, making us internally righteous.

So which of these views would St. Paul agree with, based on what he says in Romans 1-7?  I think the answer is clear.  He would agree with the Catholic view.  For St. Paul, our justification is a free gift of grace and nothing we can boast about, but justification by grace through faith does not annul the moral law's requirement that we ourselves be actually righteous.  Sin leads to death, and righteousness leads to eternal life.  It cannot be otherwise.  God cannot simply impute Christ's righteousness to us and on that basis alone, regardless of our internal moral condition, consider us righteous.  He cannot treat us as righteous unless he actually makes us righteous, and this is what he does when he justifies us.  He imputes Christ's righteousness to us, but he also infuses it within us, and so we are reconciled to him and enabled to be pleasing to him and acceptable to his moral law.

It would be worthwhile to do a similar inline commentary on Paul's letter to the Galatians, as he contributes substantially to these themes there as well.  I will probably do this sometime in the future, and when I do I will link to that article here.  It would also be useful to bring in other passages of Scripture and see if they further confirm our systematic analysis of Romans 1-8 and its application to the question of the Protestant and the Catholic doctrines of justification.  I have done this to a great degree already in this article.

Published on the feast of the Most Holy Name of Jesus.

ADDENDUM 2/6/18:  Here is an inline commentary I have now done on the Book of James, and here is one on Galatians.

What Exactly Is the Protestant Doctrine of Justification?

For quite a few years now, since the Summer of 2003, I have felt that the Protestant doctrine of justification is capable of two basic interpretations.  I've discussed this previously, particularly here, but I've been thinking lately that it would be helpful to give labels to these two different interpretations of the Protestant doctrine.  So what I want to do here, briefly, is lay out the two positions, give them labels, describe what I think is fundamentally wrong with one of the positions, and then again raise the question to Protestants--Which view is the one you actually want to advocate?  For the answer to that question is hugely important in itself, and also for Catholic-Protestant dialogue.

First of all, let's give the standard description of the classic Protestant doctrine of justification.  (And I should note that when I talk about the "classic Protestant doctrine of justification," I have in mind primarily the description of this view which has come to be dominant in the world of Reformed theology--Calvinism--in particular.)  Here is the definition given in the Westminster Larger Catechism, one of the most important of the standard, historic statements of the Reformed faith:

Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.  (WLC 70--taken from the website of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, footnotes removed)

Back in 2007, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, a Reformed denomination, put out a report on the doctrine of justification.  In that report, we find this brief commentary on this definition from the Larger Catechism:

In this definition, all the major elements of the biblical, Reformed doctrine are set forth. Justification is a forensic, judicial act of pardoning, accepting, and accounting, not a transformative work by which a sinner is made subjectively holy through an infusion of grace. According to this definition, justification is a blessing granted to sinners, those who have fallen short of God’s righteous requirements and stand condemned before him. In response to our sin, God, by his free grace, does two things for our justification: he pardons all our sins and accepts and accounts us righteous in his sight. God not only wipes away the guilt of sinners, but he also credits righteousness to them. In justification, God declares that we are innocent of ever sinning against him and credits us with keeping his law perfectly. The ground for this great work, WLC 70 goes on to explain, is nothing that is wrought within us or done by us. Instead, its ground is the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, imputed to us. In other words, Christ’s perfect obedience to God’s law is credited to us, so that we stand before God as if we ourselves had kept that law perfectly. And Christ’s perfect sacrifice of atonement is imputed to us, so that we stand before God as if we had atoned for our law-breaking. Finally, WLC 70 teaches that justification is received by faith alone. Not any work of obedience, but faith that receives and rests upon Christ, is the only instrument of justification.  (Justification: Report of the Committee to Study the Doctrine of Justification [Willow Grove, PA: The Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 2007], 11-12)

So this is the standard Reformed Protestant doctrine of justification.  Its meaning seems clear enough.  We are made right with God only by the righteousness of Christ legally accounted ours, and not by any righteousness we have within us or that we perform, even through the work of God's grace.  (Reformed Protestants believe that God does change us and make us inwardly holy by his grace, but they say this is something entirely distinct from justification--from being made right with God and acceptable to him as righteous.)  But I would ask for further clarification, and I think everything hinges on this further clarification.  Let me put my question this way:  "When you say that we are made right with God only by the righteousness of Christ imputed, apart from any change God might make within us by his grace, do you mean that this imputation by itself makes us right with God in principle, but our reconciliation with God only takes place in full actualization when this imputation achieves its full fruit in our becoming inwardly holy?  Or do you mean to say that, both in principle and in full actualization, God views us as fully righteous and is entirely morally pleased with us once Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, apart from any consideration of the fruit of that imputation in making us inwardly holy?"

Let me try to explain further what I'm getting at here:  I have no problem with the idea that Christ's righteousness imputed to us is, in principle, all we need to be right with God.  I would interpret this to mean that Christ's righteousness is sufficient to make us entirely right with God, and that once this righteousness is declared ours (imputed to us), we now possess everything we need to be right with God.  However, I would add that unless this imputation bears its fruit in us by making us actually inwardly holy, it cannot succeed in actually making God see us as righteous or find us wholly morally acceptable.  This is because God is not blind, and as a holy being, he cannot but exhibit a moral response to our actual inward moral condition.  If Christ's righteousness could somehow be imputed to me, while at the same time I am left in a state of moral enmity against God, my actual moral condition could not help but be morally displeasing to him.  He could not find me entirely morally acceptable, or see me as perfectly righteous, because, in fact, I would not be perfectly righteous.  God's moral holiness implies that he hates sin and loves righteousness.  He cannot find me acceptable morally unless I am actually righteous.  Therefore, the idea of God imputing Christ's righteousness to me without making me inwardly actually righteous involves a kind of legal fiction--where God decides to pretend that I am something I am not.  He can see perfectly well that I am not righteous, but by some kind of legal trick he decides to pretend that I am and to treat me as such.  Such a view I find to be both unbiblical and morally absurd.  (I've critiqued this view in a number of places, including here and here.)

So imputation can be said to be sufficient in principle, but only because it is seen as necessarily implying that what is imputed will also be infused.  Christ's righteousness is fully sufficient, but without the infusion of it into us, the imputation of it to us is left hanging and ends up being only a legal fiction--a declaration without any real substance to it, leaving us just as unrighteous in the sight of God in actual experience than if we didn't have any imputation.  Without the infusion being connected to the imputation, God would declare Christ's righteousness to be ours, but would fail to actually deliver it to us in a way that would affect our actual experience.  If Protestants can agree with me here, then I have no problem with their viewpoint.  In fact, I would say that, on this point at least, it is identical to my own in substance.  (And it always has been my own view.  It is my view now as a Catholic, and it was my view when I was Protestant.  See this sermon I wrote as a Protestant where I laid out this same basic idea.)

However, what if Protestants mean to say that the imputation of Christ's righteousness is fully sufficient to actually make us fully righteous, fully morally acceptable to God, fully pleasing to him and satisfying to his holy nature and view, completely apart from the consideration of any inward infusion of righteousness, any actual making of us inwardly holy?  What if they mean to say that once we have imputation, even if we were actually completely unrighteous inwardly and there was no infusion of grace and never would be (which won't actually happen according to Protestants, but we consider it merely as a hypothetical scenario), God would view us as fully righteous and have no moral problem with us at all?  In this case, as I said before, I would have to declare such a position both unbiblical and morally absurd.  It would imply a kind of blindness in God, as if God could see things other than as they really are.  It would imply that God has no moral concern for inward moral attitudes and behavior, provided evil attitudes and behavior are covered with a kind of superficial, outward cloak that prevents God somehow from seeing them--like snow covering a dung-hill, to use an expression I've heard attributed to Luther.  It would imply that sanctification is pointless, since what could be the point of inward moral holiness if God himself doesn't have any moral concern about it whatsoever?

I'm going to label the first, morally sensible interpretation of the Protestant doctrine of justification the Pro-Augustinian Interpretation of the Protestant Doctrine of Justification, or Pro-Augustinianism.  I'm going to label the latter, morally absurd version the Anti-Augustinian Interpretation of the Protestant Doctrine of Justification, or Anti-Augustinianism.  I choose these labels because they compare the Protestant doctrine with the position of St. Augustine of Hippo, who formulated a doctrine of justification that included within the idea not only the legal forgiveness of sins and imputation of righteousness, but also the infusion of grace and inward holiness.  I believe this position to be the biblical one, and it is also the historic form of the Catholic doctrine of justification, as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Pro-Augustinian Protestants and Catholics might argue about whether or not the term justification ought itself to include the infusion of grace, or whether two terms, justification and sanctification, ought to be used--one to refer to the imputation of righteousness, and one to refer to the infusion of grace--but I believe that this would be a relatively minor dispute theologically, since both sides would agree on the fundamental substance of the position--that we have no righteousness of our own to make us right with God; that Christ's righteousness, given to us as a free gift, is all that we need; that Christ's righteousness is counted ours as a gift of grace and is also infused within us; etc.  This is not to say there would not be other important disagreements, but there would be agreement in substance at least on the point which has long been considered by many to be a fundamental point of division between Catholics and Protestants--the question of imputation vs. infusion in justification.

So my questions to Protestants are along these lines:  Which is your view of justification, the Pro-Augustinian view, or the Anti-Augustinian view?  Which view do you hold personally?  Do you think that the historic Reformed formulation of justification allows for both interpretations, or do you think it conforms to one and rules out the other?  And if it favors only one interpretation, which one?  I think a clear, careful, civil dialogue on this issue would prove immensely valuable.

Published on the Solemnity of Mary, the Holy Mother of God (and New Year's Day).

ADDENDUM 5/8/20:  It might be helpful to define the different contributions of imputation and of sanctification in both the Pro-Augustinian and the Anti-Augustinian doctrines of justification.  Let's consider what each of these contributes by itself, apart from the other.

In the Anti-Augustinian view, imputation gives us a legal righteousness that actually, in itself, makes us righteous before God.  God is completely morally satisfied with us.  His moral law--which is an expression of his moral nature--has no complaint against us but finds us perfectly pleasing, so that he sees it fit to reward us with eternal life.  Sanctification (and I'm including both regeneration and subsequent sanctification here) does not make us morally pleasing to God, for the goodness it produces in us through the Holy Spirit is mixed with our sinfulness, making it unable to satisfy the requirements of God's moral law to be counted as a righteousness worthy of God's regard and fit to be rewarded with anything other than hell.  Even when we become perfectly sanctified in heaven, because of the sins on our past record, our sanctification will still be imperfect and God's law will deem it only fit for hell.  So what purpose does sanctification have?  What does it actually do?  It gives us faith, by which we trust in Christ alone, and so are united to Christ and receive his benefits.  By nature, faith brings along with it other aspects of holiness, which, while not making us righteous in the sight of God, orients us away from ourselves and towards love to and trust in God, which is an attitude that fittingly accompanies our state of righteousness by imputation.  Therefore, just as God covers our moral ugliness with the cloak of Christ's imputed righteousness, making us fit for heaven and not for hell, so he clothes our holiness and our good works--morally ugly in themselves--with Christ's imputed righteousness and so, seeing only the good in them, declares them fit to reward with eternal life.

In the Pro-Augustinian view, imputation gives us a legal right to receive righteousness and to be made righteous, but it does not by itself actually deliver that righteousness to us.  It is a promise of righteousness, making it ours by a legal guarantee, but it does not actually bring it into our actual experience.  Sanctification is the fulfillment of that legal promise.  Through the work of the Spirit, Christ's righteousness is actually infused into us, making us actually righteous in the sight of God and thus fit to reward with eternal life.

Let's consider what would happen, hypothetically, if we could only have imputation or sanctification but not both.  Both views would consider this actually impossible, but it is instructive as a thought experiment.

In the Anti-Augustinian view, if we could have imputation but no sanctification, we would have righteousness and be righteous in the sight of God.  His moral law would completely approve us and declare us to merit eternal life.  We would be totally pleasing to God's moral nature.  But we would have no faith by means of which we would have laid hold of that righteousness, and the antipathy to God remaining in our nature to all eternity would be incongruent with our status as totally righteous people completely morally pleasing to God.  On the other hand, if we could have sanctification but no imputation, we would be inwardly holy and would have faith, but there would be no cover for our moral ugliness, and so we would be morally abhorrent to God's moral nature.  His moral law would declare us worthy only of hell.

In the Pro-Augustinian view, if we could have imputation but no sanctification, we would have a legal right to righteousness and a promise that we would be made righteous, but we would never actually receive righteousness or be made righteous in our actual condition or experience.  Therefore, the imputation would be nothing more than a hollow promise or a legal fiction.  We would remain morally loathsome to God, since he cannot but hate the moral ugliness of those who are at enmity with him.  God's moral law would declare us worthy only of hell.  If we could have sanctification but no imputation, we would be actually righteous in the sight of God.  We would be morally pleasing to God's moral nature, and God's moral law would declare us worthy to be rewarded with eternal life.  But we would have no legal right to be righteous.  We would somehow have righteousness from God without God ever having declared it ours.

I think this analysis is helpful in bringing out the very different natures of these two doctrines of justification.

ADDENDUM 5/11/22:  I thought of an analogy that might help to bring out the similarities and differences between the Anti-Augustinian and the Pro-Augustinian views:

Anti-Augustinian Scenario:  You are trying to get into a special event at an exclusive club, and the doorkeepers won't let you in without a nice tuxedo.  You don't have a tuxedo, and you don't have enough money to buy one.  Your friend Bob, however, offers to help you out.  He makes a deal with the doorkeepers to pay a sum of money in exchange for allowing his own tuxedo to count for two instead of just one.  The doorkeepers will count Bob's tuxedo as if it were not only his but also yours, and, when you come to the door, they will treat you as if you were wearing Bob's tuxedo even though you aren't.  They also give you an old, shabby, torn-up tuxedo to wear that they had in the closet.  This tuxedo is far from nice enough to get you into the club, but you are to wear it when you come anyway because it will function as a token, a receipt if you will, indicating that you have accepted Bob's offer to be treated as if you were wearing his tuxedo and as proof that that deal applies to you.

The club represents eternal life.  The doorkeepers represent the judgment which will determine whether we are right with the moral law so as to be admitted into eternal life.  The tuxedos represent righteousness.  Being without a tuxedo represents being without righteousness.  Bob is Christ.  The sum of money Bob pays represents Christ's life of righteousness, his merits, and his atoning sacrifice for our salvation.  The deal in which you are able to be treated as if you are wearing Bob's tuxedo represents the imputation of Christ's satisfaction and righteousness to believers.  The shabby tuxedo represents the gift of regeneration and sanctification.  The righteousness of sanctification is not good enough to justify us before God's moral law, but part of it is the gift of faith by which we accept the gift of imputed righteousness, and it functions for us as proof of our faith at the bar of God's judgment.

Pro-Augustinian Scenario:  You are trying to get into a special event at an exclusive club, and the doorkeepers won't let you in without a nice tuxedo.  You don't have a tuxedo, and you don't have enough money to buy one.  Your friend Bob, however, offers to help you out.  He uses his own money to buy a new tuxedo.  Once he has purchased the tuxedo, he makes a declaration transferring ownership of the tuxedo to you as a free gift.  Having been given the tuxedo, you put it on and wear it to the club.  The doorkeepers, seeing you have a nice tuxedo which meets their requirements, let you in.

The club represents eternal life.  The doorkeepers represent the judgment which will determine whether we are right with the moral law so as to be admitted into eternal life.  The tuxedo represents righteousness.  Being without a tuxedo represents being without righteousness.  Bob is Christ.  The sum of money Bob pays represents Christ's life of righteousness, his merits, and his atoning sacrifice for our salvation.  Bob's declaration that the new tuxedo is now yours represents the imputation of Christ's satisfaction and righteousness to the believer.  The putting on of the tuxedo represents regeneration and sanctification.  Passing the doorkeepers with the new tuxedo represents the day of judgment, where God will welcome us into eternal life after a review of our works.  Our works are truly pleasing to God and so pass the judgment, but our justification is always to be attributed only to the imputation of Christ's righteousness and not to anything else, because it is only by imputation that we become owners of the righteousness of Christ, just as it is Bob's declaration that the tuxedo is now yours that makes it yours, not your putting on the tuxedo or anything else.  Putting on the tuxedo is a fruit of it having been declared yours, and yet it is also true that the tuxedo doesn't ultimately do you any good in terms of getting into the club except by means of your putting it on.  Likewise, imputation is the only thing that gives us ownership of righteousness, and yet imputation does us no good except by means of it bearing its fruit of sanctification within us.