Sungenis On Declared Righteous

I would like to interact with Sungenis’ interview on the White Horse Inn. He made the claim to Michael Horton that the word groups of dikaio and logizomai never mean to be declared righteous in the forensic and soteriological sense (listen here to short clip of that conversation). When I first heard this I was amazed at the idea that someone would make such a claim when both conservative and liberal and even Roman Catholic Scholars have argued strongly and evidentially otherwise.

Now when it comes to Roman Catholic Scholars like Reymond Brown, Sungenis dismisses him as not representing the RC Church. Yet does he? Has Rome approved of his authority to speak in her behalf? Brown and Fitzmier, to my knowledge, have never been told by the Pope they are not Roman Catholics. Rome seems to put up with such.

Back to Morris’ book, since I have recently finished it, if just one passage shows that a man may be declared righteous before God, then Sungenis is wrong. On page 263 Morris writes about the Old Testament’s view of being declared righteous:

“d. Imputed Righteousness

In view of the importance of the concept of imputed righteousness for the New Testament doctrine we must notice its occurrence in the Old Testament, although it cannot be thought of as a leading Old Testament idea. It is recorded that Abram ‘believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him for righteousness’ (Gen 15:6). Again, Phinehas stood up, ‘and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed. And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore’ (Ps. 106:30). Both men are brought into right relationship with God: they are given the status of being ‘right’ with Him. In the case of Phinehas there is an action that is applauded, but the motive is important, as we see from Numbers 25:11: ‘he was zealous for my sake among them.’ These two examples, and especially that of Abram, are important as showing that men might be reckoned as righteous before God on grounds other than that of having lived meritorious lives.”

On pages 274-275 Morris writes concerning the NT's usage of Justification:

“The whole idea of righteousness has been modified for New Testament writers because Jesus Christ has come into the world. ‘He that doeth righteousness is righteous even as He is righteous’ (1 Jn 3:7) brings the very conception of righteousness into the closest of relationships to the life of the incarnate Lord. This again is a thought which recurs, and it underlies many passages where it is not explicit. For the early Christians all things were made new, their standards of righteousness included, because the Son of God had come into the world. Accordingly, there are many passages which exhort believers to lives of righteousness. Indeed, it is just as characteristic of the New Testament that righteousness in the ethical sense should be a distinguishing mark of those who are Christ’s, as it is that it is not their own righteousness that brings them salvation, but the righteousness of God. (Compare the aim of an upright life in Phil 3:10 with the express disclaimer of the value if any ‘righteousness of my own’ in verse 9.)

But although there is this clamant demand for right living, and although the righteousness terminology is used in part to express it, yet it remains true that this is not the characteristic nor distinctive use of this terminology. As in the Old Testament and in Judaism generally, the forensic basis of this word-group is the really important thing.

We see this in such a passage as Romans 9:30-32….The forensic idea is very strong here. The Gentiles did not seek before God that righteous standing which the Jews sought by the way of the works of merit. Nevertheless they attained to righteousness, namely the righteousness that is of faith.”

I realize that TOA and other RCs would argue the works issue is different. I will deal with that in another post. Two more examples from the text of scripture should suffice.

Rom 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

Just as Adam’s act was sufficient to bring about the death of all men, so Christ’s one act is sufficient to bring about all those in union with Him to Life. This act is clearly imputed to the believing ones. They possess the righteousness of God in Christ.

Again,

2Co 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

The reason RCs may sound like Reformed Protestants while meaning something totally different is the simple reason that the Death of Christ is not of the Substitutionary nature. The Penal Substitutionary Atonement is rejected.

For Sungenis to say there are no passages that show that believers are declared righteous is simply absurd.

In my next post I will cite from White’s book, The God Who Justifies, in order to deal more specifically with the Genesis 15 issue raised by Sungenis.