Justification in Pauline Theology

So here, I want to respond to my Roman Catholic friend Will Herb. The Roman Catholic view of justification is essentially this (and he can correct me if I'm wrong): when you are baptized, you enter into God's favor. You increase in righteousness upon doing good works and drawing on the merits of the saints and Christ from the Treasury of Merit. Thus, to be justified is to be made righteous-that is, one is justified not only by faith, but also via the charity in the heart produced by the Spirit. You can lose your standing with God by committing mortal sin or apostatizing; if you commit mortal sin or venial sin, you must confess and do penance. Otherwise one stands severed from the grace of God, and is under His wrath again. 

On the contrary, the Protestant understanding is that upon trusting in all that God is for you in Christ, God imputes the perfect righteousness of Christ to our accounts. In other words, Protestants believe in a Treasury of Merit comprised solely of Christ's merit; that merit is transferred to our accounts upon faith and faith alone. We do not deny that the only kind of faith that justifies is the faith that produces charity and obedience to God; however, we affirm that it is on the basis of faith alone (not a faith that is alone, mind you) that God counts us righteous. I want to argue for the Protestant view by doing two things. First, we must establish what the Greek term dikaioo means, and secondly we must analyze how Paul uses the term. 

The Greek for Justify
I think Luke 7:29 is the best NT verse outside of Paul to see what the term used for "justify" means. 

"When all the people heard this, and the tax collectors too, they declared God just, having been baptized with the baptism of John,"

Now the Greek literally says that the people "justified God". You cannot make God righteous; but you can declare Him to be righteous. This is further confirmed when we look at the Septuagint. Exodus 23:7 says this: "[7] Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked. [8] And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of those who are in the right.
(Exodus 23:7-8 ESV)"According to Victor P Hamilton, "The LXX uses the verb dikaioo to translate...("I will not acquit")...It is the verb for "justify" that Paul uses in some of in some of His letters, especially in the opening chapters of Romans"). It makes no sense to not kill the innocent and the righteous because God will not make righteous the wicked; He clearly does throughout both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Rather, God will not declare righteous those who are wicked. He's commanding the people to not falsely charge others because God is just; He will stand over the person in judgment. In fact, the word is used to mean "declare righteous" elsewhere (Proverbs 17:15, Isaiah 5:23). So then...how can Paul make the claim that God does justify the ungodly? We will address that question. But in answering how Paul understand justification, we have to note something first. The word "justify" outside of Paul itself means "to declare righteous" (i.e Luke 7:29, Exodus 23:7), not "to make righteous". This is a legal term, denoting a defendant being acquitted before a judge. There were other terms in use that Paul could have employed to denote being made righteous-but he chose to use a legal term that denotes a right standing before a judge. So let's go more deeply into this. Romans 4Does Paul understand justification this way? I think the answer is undoubtedly yes. In order to see this, we must examine Romans 4. [1] What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? [2] For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. [3] For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” [4] Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. [5] And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, [6] just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: [7] “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; [8] blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” [9] Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. [10] How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. [11] He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, [12] and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.(Romans 4:1-12 ESV)Paul comes out of Romans 3 talking about how we're all under sin, and we've all fallen short. But since the righteousness of God has come through faith in Jesus Christ for all who have faith (see DA Carson's exposition of the text on youtube. It's like 9 minutes and I agree with it), that therefore we can be justified as a gift, by God's grace. Paul's further expounding on justification. If Abraham was "justified" (dikaioo) by works, he had something to boast about...but because he was justified by faith, he doesn't. What does that mean? ExegesisIn verse 3, Paul quotes Genesis in saying that Abraham believed God, and it was counted (logizomai) as righteousness. Let's survey the usages of the term "logizomai", as this will be central to understanding Paul's view of justification. Luke 22:37: For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.”

When the text says that Jesus was "numbered with the transgressors", the literal rendering is that He was regarded with the transgressors. It is a type of judgment that's being made of Jesus. 

"Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.”

-John 11:50 

Likewise, Caiaphas the high priest says that his audience does not "understand" (i.e reckon, or count-referring to a judgment) that it is better for one man to perish than the entire nation. 

Going back to Romans 4, the NASB literally renders logizomai as "impute", or "reckon", or more specifically, "credited". Abraham's faith was "credited" as righteousness. So with this understanding let's proceed with our exegesis of the text. Keep in mind that in Romans 3, Paul has just said that we are justified by grace as a gift...this will be useful in understanding his argument here. In verses 4-5, Paul draws on the analogy of a worker receiving his wages. To the one who works, his wages are counted not as a gift but as his due. What's the assumption here? Paul's arguing that a gift isn't something owed us; it's not our due. That's why he can contrast a "gift" and something that's "due". Whereas a gift is not our due, wages are. Thus, for someone to count a worker's wages as his due is to give that person what he deserves. You are reckoning the wages for what they are. 

Note what Paul says in following. "To the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies (dikaioo) the ungodly, His faith is credited as righteousness."  Remember, Paul has made the contrast between what is due us, and faith being credited as righteousness. To the one who does not work, but believes, their faith is imputed as righteousness. Since Paul is drawing a contrast in verses 4 and 5 between a "due" and a "gift", it follows that God credits faith as righteousness as a gift, not as our due. Whereas one ought to credit wages as a due, it is a gift to credit faith as righteousness. He is counting faith as what it is not (since He's not giving us what is due for faith, but He's giving a gift, which Paul contrasts with a due). God's crediting faith as righteousness. If righteousness (as in practical righteousness rather than imputed righteousness) were inherent to faith, then it would make no sense to say that God is crediting faith as righteousness as a gift rather than a due-as what it is not rather than what it is, since practical righteousness would be entailed in faith. 

From this, we can draw out three conclusions. For one, Paul is using dikaioo exactly how it's normally used. He's using it to mean "declare righteous"-that's why Paul connects "the God who justifies the ungodly" to the one who's faith is "credited as righteousness". He's using it as a legal term to denote the forgiveness of sins before God, and the righteousness needed to be regarded as perfectly holy. Two, we can also surmise that Paul is in fact speaking of imputation, since God is imputing faith as something it inherently is not. John Piper gives an analogy where his son forgot to clean the room he promised to clean before going to a football game: 

"'Barnabas, I am going to credit the clean room to your account because of your apology and submission. Before you left for school this morning I said, ‘You must have a clean room, or you won't be able to go watch the game tonight. Well, your room is clean. So you can go to the game.'

That's one way to say it, which corresponds to the language of Romans 4:6. Or I could say, 'I credit your apology for a clean room,' which would correspond to the language of Romans 4:3 and 5. What I mean when I say, 'I credit your apology for a clean room,' is not that the apology is the clean room; nor that the clean room consists of the apology; nor that he really cleaned his room. I cleaned it. It was pure grace. All I mean is that, in my way of reckoning ? in my grace ? his apology connects him with the promise given for a clean room. The clean room is his clean room.

You can say it either way. Paul said it both ways: “Faith is counted for righteousness” (4:3, 5, 9) and “God credits (or imputes) righteousness to us [by faith]” (4:6, 11). The reality intended in both cases is: I cleaned the room; he now has a cleaned room; he did not clean the room; he apologized for failure; in pure grace I counted his apology as connecting him with a fulfilled command that I fulfilled for him; he received the imputed obedience as a gift."

Piper adds the caveat that the analogy isn't to be pressed in every way, since it's not an allegory. But the point is this: God counts faith as what it (in and of itself) is not: namely righteousness. Is God lying in doing this? No. DA Carson explains why: 

"For the moment, it is sufficient to observe that faith, because of its object, is imputed to the believer as righteousness. It was because Abraham was “fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised” (Rom 4:21) that this faith “was credited to him as righteousness” (Rom 4:22). These words, Paul immediately adds, were written no less for us, to whom the Lord will impute righteousness (Rom 4:24)—“for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” (Rom 4:24-25). In short, righteousness is imputed when men and women believe in this sense: we are fully persuaded that God will do what he has promised. What God has promised, this side of the “But now” of Romans 3:21, is the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus. That is why there is no tension between believing the God who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 4:24) and believing in Jesus (Rom 3:26) whose death and resurrection vindicate God."

When God credits faith as righteousness, He's not saying "your faith is righteousness even though it isn't really righteousness", just as when Piper credits an apology as a clean room, he's not saying that the apology is a clean room. He's saying that he's going to treat the apology as though it was a clean room from his son in light of the fact that Piper will actually clean the room. In other words, his son's apology connects him with the reality of an actual clean room that's wholly provided for him apart from any practical obedience. Similarly, because faith connects us with One who is inherently righteous apart from any of our obedience, God can regard faith as righteousness. He's regarding faith as something it is not in one sense, since faith itself is not righteousness. But God can regard faith as righteousness because the object of that faith is righteous. God's not lying because He's not saying one's faith is actually inherently righteous; He's crediting faith as righteousness having already said that He's doing this as a gift in Romans 3. And once again, He can do that because faith connects us to the object of our faith-an infinite Treasury of Merit known as Jesus Christ. 

The third thing we can surmise (which reinforces the second thing) is that faith excludes works as a category (and thus excludes practical holiness as it pertains to justification). Once again, note the contrast between verses 4 and 5: to the one who works...the one who does not work, but believes." 

So to summarize, God is counting faith as what it inherently is not because of the object of our faith: Christ. This is a gift of sheer grace. Since faith unites us to Christ, it is on the basis of Christ that God can "impute faith as righteousness"-not because of faith itself, but because of the reality to whom we are irrevocably united. This faith excludes works; it is all by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone according to God's word alone as our final authority, all to the glory of God alone! 

Response to Justin Lee's Article on the Gay Christian Network

So Justin Lee has written an article endorsing gay marriage that can be found here: https://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php

Here's my response:  As a side note, I would prefer to call it the new view, because the "Reformed view" carries the connotations of reformed theology. But that aside...

Response to Counter Argument 1"Most deaf people today use sign language to communicate, and even though that's not what our hands were designed for, it gets the job done. None of us would call that "sinful."
The argument that "you shouldn't do that because that wasn't God's design" is really more of an excuse than a real argument. If anything becomes sinful just because it wasn't part of the original design of creation, we'd have to condemn wheelchairs, makeup, open-heart surgery, bicycles, acrobatics, pre-packaged foods… well, you get the idea."
Sure, but we as Christians believe that these things are the result of sin (aka the Fall). The Fall brought a curse on creation and distorted God's original design for nature-hence deafness, heart conditions, birth defects are all results of the curse brought about by sin-God withdrawing and giving creation over to decay as a result of sin. Secondly, none of the examples he cites here are willful-actions on a sinful inclination. I will get to that later, since to say that right now without addressing "Argument 4" would be question-begging on my part. 
The original creation sets a precedent and shows us what God actually deemed "good". By creating Adam and Eve, and uniting them as one flesh, God communicated to us that that was part of the good creation-whereas any other sexual expression is not. 
Response to Argument 2Agreed-I never use the argument that sex is for procreation, because I find that unbiblical. Song of Solomon is all about enjoying sex in the context of marriage because it's a beautiful gift; it doesn't mention procreation (though babies are certainly a gift from God as well). 
Response to 3
Well, again, I agree-it's more because the Bible explicitly forbids it. More on that in 4
Response to 4Actually, it comes more from Jude: [7] just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
(Jude 1:7 ESV)
The Greek for "unnatural desire" is literally "other flesh". What is meant by other flesh? Well, we know what's being condemned here is "pornea" (sexual immorality-the greek word denotes any sexual activity outside of marriage), and pursuing "other flesh". Well, given that the author is a Jew, that most definitely means "flesh other than the one that we're intended to pursue" (and that's the view of the vast majority of commentators-from agnostic liberals like Bart Ehrman, to moderates like Luke Timothy Johnson who acknowledges that the Bible condemns homosexual expression but dismisses that teaching anyway because he has a homosexual daughter, to conservatives). If it meant anything else, "pornea" would've covered it, and thus the author wouldn't have even needed to mention "pursuing other flesh". *That's* why Sodom and Gomorrah is valid for this. Now, of course, they weren't just condemned for homosexuality; but that was one thing among many. 
"The specific example is one his Roman readers would be immediately familiar with: the fertility cults in Rome, where men and women engaged in sexual orgies that included both heterosexual and homosexual sex rites."
No, actually, that's not the only example of homosexual expression. In fact, Paul's roman readers were familiar with committed, homosexual relationships. Aristophanes speech in the Symposium speaks of both men who are having sex with boys, *and* committed homosexual relationships where both partners have affection for each other. 
"Each of us when separated, having one side only, like a flat fish, is but the tally-half of a man, and he is always looking for his other half. Men who are a section of that double nature which was once called androgynous are lovers of women; adulterers are generally of this breed, and also adulterous women who lust after men. The women who are a section of the woman do not care for men, but have female attachments; the female companions are of this sort. But they who are a section of the male follow the male, and while they are young, being slices of the original man, they have affection for men and embrace them, and these are the best of boys and youths, because they have the most manly nature.
Some indeed assert that they are shameless, but this is not true; for they do not act thus from any want of shame, but because they are valiant and manly, and have a manly countenance, and they embrace that which is like them. And these when they grow up become our statesmen, and these only, which is a great proof of the truth of what I am saying. When they reach manhood they are lovers of youth, and are not naturally inclined to marry or beget children,--if at all, they do so only in obedience to custom; but they are satisfied if they may be allowed to live with one another unwedded;"
Plato's readers were aware of this kind of behavior-that's why Plato has Aristophanes speaking on an explanation for it. So when Paul condemns homosexuality in broad sweeping language (to use Matthew Vines' argument), he's doing so in light of knowing about homosexual relationships with affection. Now let's take a look at the text. 
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [21] For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
[24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, [25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; [27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
[28] And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. [29] They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, [30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, [31] foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. [32] Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
(Romans 1:18-32 ESV)
So verses 22 and 23 expand on the point made in 21; people knew God, but did not see fit to acknowledge Him, and started to worship things in creation. Verses 22 and 23 are an outworking of the heart of that refuses to submit to God in 21. Thus, what's being condemned here isn't just the fertility cults; it's every form of worship offered to anything else other than the one true God. In Paul's thought, everything we do is supposed to be a form of worship (Romans 12:1, 1 Cor 10:31 and Col 3:17). He also considers everything not done from faith sin (everything we do needs to be done on a God-glorifying trajectory). Verses 24-26 make an important point that the author misses: *because* of the idolatry of mankind, God gave people up to dishonorable passions. Because they worshiped the creation (verses 22-23, parallel to verses 24-26 in thought), God gave them up to the dishonoring of their bodies. So it's not the idol worship is a metaphor; it's that people chose to become idolaters and worshiped the creation (including themselves-i.e images in the likeness of mortal men) rather than the Creator. I in fact know of no "Traditionalist" who would say that Paul's using a metaphor here. Paul's saying that because of their choice to worship the creation, God gave them over to dishonorable passions. How does Paul define that? He defines it in terms of women giving up natural relationships for relationships with each other, and men doing the same. Paul doesn't need to therefore mention homosexuality again in the list of sins that resulted from turning from God because he already condemned it as a result of turning from God. It would just be redundant. 
Now as for "proof text 3", he only tells half the story. He's certainly right to say that such activity was frowned upon, as the Aristophanes quote shows. But the problem is that the quote also shows that some people (like Aristophanes himself) justified it. In other words, the activity wasn't universally condemned, and in fact was acknowledged as a reality (affectionate women loving each other for example). And again, the author doesn't tell the whole story with the term used in 1 Cor 6:9 or 1 Timothy 1:10. The NET translators (a Bible made under the direction of Daniel Wallace, one of the foremost koine Greek scholars in the US) has this to say: "On this term BDAG 135 s.v. ἀρσενοκοίτης states, “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9…of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. μαλακός…1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27.” L&N 88.280 states, “a male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’…It is possible that ἀρσενοκοίτης in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with μαλακός, the passive male partner.” Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification “practicing” was supplied in the translation, following the emphasis in BDAG." 1 Corinthians 6:9, interestingly uses distinct terms to condemn both passive homosexual partners and active ones. Luke Timothy Johnson, who considers himself a "Christian" and yet rejects the Biblical teaching, acknowledges that the Bible does in fact teach it. He has this to say:
"The task demands intellectual honesty. I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says, through appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says. But what are we to do with what the text says? We must state our grounds for standing in tension with the clear commands of Scripture, and include in those grounds some basis in Scripture itself. To avoid this task is to put ourselves in the very position that others insist we already occupy—that of liberal despisers of the tradition and of the church’s sacred writings, people who have no care for the shared symbols that define us as Christian. If we see ourselves as liberal, then we must be liberal in the name of the gospel, and not, as so often has been the case, liberal despite the gospel.
I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us. By so doing, we explicitly reject as well the premises of the scriptural statements condemning homosexuality—namely, that it is a vice freely chosen, a symptom of human corruption, and disobedience to God’s created order."
Now I would indeed argue that this is being liberal despite the Gospel. I don't know how to see this any other way. 
Now I've already explained why Christians don't fulfill certain parts of the Levitical Law. I will copy and paste that explanation here:

 "Now, regarding why we don't follow the Old covenant laws. I do think it likely that the hundreds and hundreds of Christian scholars (some of which do not accept the "fundamentalist" doctrines of innerancy and such) have thought through this, and the answers that they give, and that Paul and Jesus give are in fact consistent with the Christian faith. In order to answer this question, we must first understand the purpose of Israel. According to the OT, God's purpose in establishing Israel was to consecrate a priestly nation to Himself, and to distinguish this nation from the surrounding pagan nations. In order to do so, God gave them certain ceremonial laws (ie, circumcision, food laws, dress, etc...). By these covenant markers, Israel was distinguished from the nations that were uncircumcised, or didn't observe Sabbath, etc (so all nations that were not Israel...the pagan nations). In consecrating this nation, God's purpose was to bless all nations through Israel through the Messiah. Until the time of the Messiah, Israel was to be set apart from all the rest of the nations, performing its priestly function through the sacrificial system, which pointed to the time of the Messiah (more on this in the next paragraph). So when we say that the law was fulfilled in Jesus, this is precisely what we mean: God's purpose for the old covenant was fulfilled in the Messiah, through whom God is carrying out His promise to bless the world. Therefore, since the purpose of ethnic Israel and the old covenant was fulfilled, those covenant laws no longer apply, since Israel's purpose was different from the Church's purpose and function. So the reason it's not sin for the Church, for example, to eat shellfish, is because God's purpose for giving that law has already been fulfilled in the Messiah. "
As for Leviticus 18, that *is* in fact valid to appeal to, because those are things God condemned pagan nations for. He didn't just hold Israel accountable for them; He punished the people of the promise land because of those sins they committed. And yes, I would affirm because of that passage that sex with someone during their period is immoral, and thus it shouldn't be done. As Michael Brown says, 
"“What about Leviticus 18:19 and 20:18, which speak against a man having sex with his wife during her monthly period? Well, this act was not considered worthy of the death penalty, so it is viewed with less severity than homosexual acts, and it is not mentioned in any lists of sins in the New Testament. Still, the Old Testament is clear that God is not pleased with this because of the sacredness of the blood. (See also Ezekiel 18:6.) Many Christians have come to this same conclusion even without the witness of Scripture. So yes, I believe it is wrong for a married couple to have sexual intercourse during the wife’s menstrual period, but it is clearly not to be regarded as being as fundamentally wrong and offensive in God’s eyes as homosexual practice.”"
I would also add that blood was sacred because it was meant to point to Christ. In other words, the shedding of the blood of human beings only happens because we live in a fallen world, and require atonement. Sex should not be bloody, because sex is supposed to be a good gift pointing to Christ. A period, then, is a reminder of the brokenness of creation; sex isn't supposed to be. 
So while Justin is right to say that other prohibitions were to distinguish Israel from the pagan nations, Leviticus 18 entails universal prohibitions. 
Now let me address the head coverings argument.  (1 Corinthians 11:2-16 ESV)

[2] Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. [3] But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. [4] Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, [5] but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. [6] For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. [7] For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. [8] For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. [9] Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. [10] That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. [11] Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; [12] for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. [13] Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? [14] Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, [15] but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. [16] If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

There are only two readings I think are possible on this text. First of all, I'm inclined to think that the term translated "wife" should actually be translated "woman", as the NET translators do so-since the context is about men and women, not just about husbands and wives. Second, any churches across the nations actually take this quite literally, and their women wear head coverings to affirm the complemenatarian roles of men and women. This very well might be what the text is commanding. I take a slight different view, but affirm that the text commands a visible sign for complementarian roles.

Daniel Wallace explains here: "This view adopts the exegesis of the real head-covering view with one exception. It does not regard a real head covering as essential to the view. This is the view that I currently adopt. In essence, it is based on an understanding of the role of head coverings in the ancient world vs. the modern world. In the ancient world head coverings were apparently in vogue in some parts of the Graeco-Roman empire. Some groups expected the men to wear head coverings; others expected women to wear them. Still others felt that such were optional for both men and women. It is not important to determine which group did what. The important thing to note is that the early church adopted a convention already in use in society and gave it a distinctively Christian hue. That Paul could say that no other churches had any other practice may well indicate how easily such a practice could be adopted. This finds parallels with baptism in Israel. The Pharisees did not ask John, “What are you doing?” Instead, they asked, “Why are you doing this?” They understood baptism (even though John’s baptism was apparently the first to be other-baptism rather than self-baptism); what they didn’t understand was John’s authority and what his baptism symbolized. In a similar way, the early church practice of requiring the women to wear a head covering when praying or prophesying6 would not have been viewed as an unusual request. In the cosmopolitan cities of Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece, no one would feel out of place. Head coverings were everywhere. When a woman wore one in the church, she was showing her subordination to her husband, but was not out of place with society. One could easily imagine a woman walking down the street to the worship service with a head covering on without being noticed."

In other words, Paul is appealing to the cultural symbol of head coverings to make a point. Paul says that nature teaches that "a woman's hair is her glory". But if we look at cultures worldwide, that's not always true-some women have short hair in certain cultures. So what did Paul mean by saying that nature teaches "a woman's hair is her glory"? Well, we can infer a few things from the language. Paul doesn't have to argue that a man with long hair has done something disgraceful-he simply assumes his readers know this. So what's his point? Well note the contrast to this idea in verse 6-if a woman cuts her hair short, it's shameful, but if a man does it, it's not. If a man grows out his hair long, it's shameful, but if a woman does it, it is her glory. In other words, there are very clear distinctions between man and woman that need to be maintained. These distinctions can be culturally relative; but nevertheless men and women must strive to be men and women. They cannot confuse roles; and this text prohibits that. So what Paul is deeming shameful is the distortion of gender roles; the confusing of manhood and womanhood.

So what of head coverings? I agree with Wallace in that head coverings were a cultural symbol in the vogue. The justification for head coverings is given in verses 9 and 10. Since man was not made for woman, but woman for man, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority over her head. Why must we take this seriously? Because the angels-who, in Jewish thought, report back to God and petition Him to act upon what they see-are gathering with us in worship.

So what's Paul doing there? He's appealing back to creation-in which a man has authority over his wife (and Paul makes that very point in verse 3). Now I want to emphasize this really quick: having "authority" doesn't equal being a tyrant (interestingly, tyranny is described as part of the curse of Genesis 3, where a man rules over his wife as we are supposed to "rule"-i.e dominate-over sin). The headship of a man over his wife is meant to be a microcosm of the headship of God the Father over God the Son. Both are still equally valuable, but have differing roles (with the Son having a subordinate role to the Father's authority).

Therefore, I affirm the principle being laid out here. Women, when gathering for public worship, are supposed to wear a symbol of authority (i.e a symbol that signifies being under authority) in order to emphasize the creation ordinance of the roles of men and women. The reason people like me (though my brother is inclined to disagree with me) take the symbol to be culturally bound is solely because I don't think the symbol communicates the same thing now as it did back then: namely, the fact that a woman is under the (what ought to be) loving and self-sacrificial authority of the male leadership.

The cultural-relativity aspect cannot be applied to Romans 1 or 1 Cor 6 or 1 Tim 1 for two reasons. For one, the principle in 1 Corinthians 11 is not culturally relative; complementarianism is supposed to be how the genders relate. Two, the other passages are completely about condemning universal sin. There's nothing culturally bound about them; Paul is talking about sins in light of universal human depravity. So when Rachel Held Evans or Matthew Vines or Justin Lee makes that kind of argument, it just doesn't work because the context isn't exactly the same. Those three passages, again, talk about sins in light of human depravity in general-they do not lay out a principle (complementariansim) in light of a cultural practice as 1 Corinthians 11 does.

I want to conclude with two things: a quote from Luke Timothy Johnson, and then a brief comment. Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrre's Johnny:

"The task demands intellectual honesty. I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says, through appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says. But what are we to do with what the text says? We must state our grounds for standing in tension with the clear commands of Scripture, and include in those grounds some basis in Scripture itself. To avoid this task is to put ourselves in the very position that others insist we already occupy—that of liberal despisers of the tradition and of the church’s sacred writings, people who have no care for the shared symbols that define us as Christian. If we see ourselves as liberal, then we must be liberal in the name of the gospel, and not, as so often has been the case, liberal despite the gospel.

I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us. By so doing, we explicitly reject as well the premises of the scriptural statements condemning homosexuality—namely, that it is a vice freely chosen, a symptom of human corruption, and disobedience to God’s created order."

While I do care for homosexuals, and homosexuals who long for a relationship with God, we must take the Bible seriously. We have to be willing to be honest with what Scripture says, and we have to trust God that He alone is the One who can satisfy our souls. He is, in fact, the fountain of all joy. If we don't trust Him to be our joy, and to change our hearts and kill our sin, in what sense do we dare call ourselves Christians? Is that not to take the name of the Lord in vain? 

A Response to a Man I Really Admire: Predestination and the Golden Chain

So, my pastor recently did a supplementary teaching on Romans 8:29, the golden chain of redemption. He argued that when the text speaks of God "foreknowing" people, it only means that God knew beforehand who would have faith and who wouldn't. On that basis, God predestines those who He knows would have faith to eternal life-and thus, predestination isn't based off God's sovereign pleasure, but rather our free will response. According to this interpretation, God's sovereign pleasure IS the salvation of everyone; however, given our free will, we reject God's grace and embrace hell. My pastor is uber respectful, and again, someone I really admire. His presentation is a model of how Christians can disagree with charity. That being said, I must respectfully disagree. 

Reformed view of Predestination 
First, I have to define what people in my camp mean when they speak of predestination. We believe that all of humanity is totally depraved, and thus totally worthy of damnation. There would be no injustice on God's part to damn humanity to hell. The Apostle Paul has this to say: [7] For the mind that is set on the flesh does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. [8] Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
[9] You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. [10] But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. [11] If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. (Romans 8:7-11 ESV)

Romans 1, additionally, speaks of how all people universally rebel against God. Note the contrast between verses 8 and 9; the only people who are not in the flesh are those in the Spirit, and thus, those who belong to Christ (verse 9b). Those who do not have the Spirit of Christ do not belong to God; thus, the implication is that those who do belong to God. In light of the universal rebellion of mankind, God stands over us in judgment. Christ saves us from the holy and just wrath of God (Romans 5:9). So with all of this in mind, what is predestination on the Calvinist view? 

Predestination is the decree of God, made from eternity past, to save a particular people (i.e the elect) and to pass over others and leave them under His judgment, not according to anything good or bad He sees in them, but according to His Sovereign pleasure and hidden purposes alone. It means that God, from eternity, decreed some to eternal life, and some to eternal damnation, not on the basis of anything He saw in them, but according to His will alone. 

Now two preliminary objections will inevitably arise. Doesn't this make God unfair? No, because as we've considered, everyone is worthy of hell. Salvation is of grace alone (God's unmerited favor); hence, God couldn't possibly be unjust for not saving people who deserved His wrath anyway. This, however, doesn't mean the reprobate (those who are destined for hell) are reprobate because they were worse than the elect; I deserve hell infinitely so. God's decree to damn them wasn't based off of anything good or bad He saw in anyone; however, it's rendered just in light of the fact that everyone deserves hell. In other words, God didn't pass over the reprobate because they were worse than me, and they didn't have the character or whatever to believe. He passed over them for reasons I do not have access to, and He saved me for reasons I do not have access to. All I know is that He saved me by utter grace-it had nothing to do with anything good or bad God saw in me, which strips me of any ground for boasting. 

The second objection is this: doesn't this make salvation a coin toss? As my former pastor said, doesn't this mean that God just kinda sorts souls on a shelf, and ships the bad shelf off to hell and the good shelf on to heaven ("I hope I'm not on the bad shelf"!-he continued). No. God is not arbitrary; that God hasn't revealed His reasons to me (and that those reasons aren't based in anything God saw in me) does not at all entail that He doesn't have good reasons, or any reason at all. "The secret things belong to the Lord our God." 

Now to the actual text. 

[28] And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. [29] For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. [30] And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8:28-30 ESV)

The first thing to note is that verses 28 and 29 are connected by "for". In other words, verse 29 is the explanatory basis for verse 28 ("My face is in pain, for my pet monkey punched me in the face"). So what's the link? Well, Paul's trying to ballast the claim that God works all things together for the good of those who love Him. How? Because those who God foreknew (we'll return to that word in a second), He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that he might be the firstborn of many brothers. And then the chain comes in at verse 30. Now, notice something about verse 30; those predestined are called, those called are justified, and those justified are glorified. There's no break in this chain here; the group that's predestined makes it through to glorification. Verse 30 is connected to verse 29 by the "and", which means that it too is part of the explanatory basis for verse 28. So how does verses 29-30 give support to verse 28? We know that God works all things together for good (i.e in this context, in order to conform us to Jesus in our eschatological-i.e end time, when God redeems creation and resurrects us and gives us new, redeemed bodies-glorification), because everyone in Christ is in Christ to the end. Hence, everything in our lives is ultimately being directed to conform us to the end of being like Christ in the eschatological resurrection of the elect.

So then, in order to understand which view of predestination is right, we have to understand what is meant by the word "foreknow". In the OT, whenever it speaks of God "knowing" a nation, it does not mean that God had foreknowledge. That was assumed on the part of the Israelites. Consider this:

[1] Hear this word that the LORD has spoken against you, O people of Israel, against the whole family that I brought up out of the land of Egypt:
[2] “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities. (Amos 3:1-2 ESV)

[5] “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5 ESV)

Also consider the texts that speak of Adam "knowing" His wife. The knowledge here is covenantal. It is an active verb-something God is doing rather than something God has had. In these above examples, it clearly doesn't mean that God had knowledge beforehand of Israel or Jeremiah. Surely, God did (Isaiah 40-55), but that's not the point here. Think about Amos 3:2-God's not saying that Israel was the only nation He had knowledge of. He's speaking about a special choice; Israel was the only nation God specially chose to enter into covenant with. It refers to God's choice with respect to His covenantal (i.e redemptive) purposes-His purposes to make a people for Himself. Likewise, in Jeremiah 1:5, it speaks of God appointing Jeremiah a prophet to the nations before he was born. The knowledge there is again covenantal. It refers to a special choice God makes. When God "foreknows" something as an active verb, it's not talking about passive foreknowledge. The authors are referring to God's special choice-His choice to know the object in a special way. 

Now to be sure,  proginōskō can refer to passive foreknowledge of a thing...but the trouble is it's being used as an active verb here. Let's look at the one other place Paul uses the word (it happens to be used as an active verb here too): " [2] God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? [3] “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” [4] But what is God's reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” [5] So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. [6] But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace."

(Romans 11:2-6 ESV)

In verse 2, it wouldn't make sense to say "God has not rejected his people who he had passive foreknowledge of". The fact that God has passive foreknowledge of Israel has nothing to do with whether God will reject them or not; God had passive foreknowledge of the Assyrians too, but that didn't stop them from devolving into pagan idolatry. In keeping with the OT usage of "know" as an active verb, it makes much more sense to say that God has not rejected the Jewish people that He chose. Why? Because He cannot go back on His promises; those whom he sovereignly chooses to conform to Christ, He will not let go. In fact, this makes perfect sense with the logic of the text. Verses 3-6 denote how God's reply to Elijah was His sovereign preservation of seven thousand who did not bow the knee to Baal. Paul connects that to the present in verse 5-the evidence that God has not backed down on His promises to the Jews is the fact that there's a remnant chosen by grace. This also makes sense with the rest of what Romans 11 has to say, since the text speaks of a time when God will reign back in the ethnically Jewish people en masse. Why? Because He has not rejected His people who He foreknew...i.e those whom He chose to know in a specially way. 

The Logic of the Golden Chain

Now let's turn our attention to the golden chain. Since this is something God is doing, not merely something God has, and since the usage of "foreknowledge" as an active verb normally denotes God's sovereign choice, we must infer that Paul is speaking of God's sovereign choosing of the elect. Once again, this makes perfect sense of the text. How do we know God works all things together for the good of those who love Him? Because (i.e verse 29: "For") those whom God sovereignly chose (i.e predestined), He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. In other words, every bad thing that happens to me is ultimately being worked by God for my good (my ultimate good being conformity to Christ). Since God has sovereignly chosen me, and since His choice entails my final glorification (verse 30-all those called end up glorified), that means that nothing can separate me from the love of Christ. 

Now, consider with me how the logic would be broken if the text was just speaking about God's passive foreknowledge. If salvation was ultimately contingent on my free choice-if the ultimate, decisive factor in my own salvation was a movement of my will-then how do I have any guarantee that I'll be a Christian until the end of my life? There may be something that comes along and sways my will. Paul's logic wouldn't work; if God just predestines those who He foreknows will have faith to be conformed to the Son, then how do I know God is working everything (note: everything-even my own sinfulness, though this is not a license to sin because of Romans 6) for my good? It wouldn't be true that God was working all things for my good, since He wouldn't be working my free will decision to perhaps break in covenant with Him for my good. Also, the logic of the chain wouldn't work; some of those predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son could use their free will to break away from Christ. 

However, if we consider "foreknowing" something as an active verb in the Jewish context of the OT, Paul's argument becomes solid (and this is the most likely reading especially in light of the fact that Paul was a first century Jewish Pharisee). Now, a lot of people confuse this position with "once saved always saved"-by that pithy little phrase, people tend to mean that if you're elect, then you can live like the devil, curse Christ, and still be saved. That's not what election is. Election is the decree of God to save someone from eternity past; He then, in time, regenerates a person's heart and creates faith in them, so that they are justified (i.e counted righteous) in His sight. So if one professes faith in Christ, but the fruit of loving obedience is not evident in their lives, then their profession of faith is false. That doesn't mean we'll be perfect; we stumble and fall. But the evidence of being saved is getting back up, hating sin, and running towards the light. As someone once said to me, "grace is there not so that we can fall, but in case we fall, and to make it so that we fall less and look more like Jesus over time". Thus, perseverance is necessary. So as a Calvinist, how do I know I will fight the fight of faith, and be a Christian by the end of my life? I'm 18 right now...I (Lord-willing) have a long way to go (unless He comes back first). But I believe that my God is exceedingly faithful to a former wretch like me. My newness comes from Christ alone; and my confidence comes from God's love displayed in Christ alone. Hence, I know I'll be a Christian not because of anything in me. If it were up to me, I'd have descended into dark depravity. No, I know I'll be a Christian because of the faithfulness of God. It has nothing to do with me; it has everything to do with a great, merciful King. Since God is faithful, nothing can separate me from the love of Christ. Nothing. 

Dreams and Consciousness

Howdy! I was thinking a lot about Property Dualism. Pretty much, Property Dualism is the belief that consciousness, or the mind (your first person subjectivity) is an emergent property of the brain. It emerges from the underlying grey stuff. However, I'd like to argue that dreams show this idea to be definitively false.

Leibniz Law
I've written this elsewhere on my blog, but I'll re-post it here for convenience.

Who was Leibniz? Well, he's an old dead dude. But he came up with a lot of neat math stuff...you know, Calculus? He was one of the key people in advancing mathematics to the modern place. He was also a kick-butt philosopher. He came up with a very intuitive law called "Leibniz Law" (-_-). It goes like this:

Let A be some entity/property/process. A = whatever placeholder you want it to be.

If A = A, then whatever is true of A will be true of A. Shocked? It goes on.
If A = A, whatever is possibly true of A will be possibly true of A. Shocked yet? Just wait.

Really quick, we need to understand what philosophers mean by "possible worlds". Possible worlds are the way the world could have been, or the way the world may be. They are semantic tools for philosophers to describe possibility. So, for example, if I say "it's possible that in the future, I may buy a dog", I can say that because in my mind, that's a perfectly coherent scenario. That is, there is nothing internally contradictory about the possibility that I may buy a dog sometime in the future. Thus, because this is possible, there is a possible world where I own a dog. Let's make one more application. Suppose I say "it's possible that God exists." That's because I can envision that as a possible scenario in my mind, and there's nothing logically incoherent about that possibility (all attempts to prove God to be logically incoherent have been abject failures). Hence, there is a possible world where God exists. This is the essence of modal logic-the logic of possibilities. So let's apply that Leibniz Law. If A = God, whenever I talk about God, God must be God in all possible worlds (duh). I can't envision any non-God entity and call that God (duh). So here's what that means for Leibniz's Law:

If A = A, then whatever is true of A will be true of A.
If A = A, then whatever is possibly true of A will be possibly true of A.
If A = A, in all possible worlds, A will always be A.

This is intuitive enough. As a side note, if something is true in all possible worlds, it is necessarily true. That is to say that there is no other possible way it could have been. For example, take 1 + 1 = 2. We could have had any symbols we wanted to represent that, but as for the concept itself-one object plus another object equaling a consistent quantity of two objects-there is no other way the world could have been. One object could never have equaled two objects, etc. Back to Leibnuts, suppose you have A and B. If someone claims they are identical, then this is what should follow:

If A = B, whatever is true of A will be true of B
Whatever is possibly true of A will be possibly true of B
In all possible worlds, A = B

The Argument
Alright, now that we've got that silliness out of the way, let's continue. I will define Consciousness as M (for Mind), and Property/Process as P. If the Mind is a Property (If M = P), then whatever is true of M must be true of P. With that in mind (heh), let me put forth this argument:

1.) P cannot exist alone in any possible world.
Justification: You can't have a world of "redness" without their being something red, or "tall" without something being tall
2.) It is possible that idealism is true.
3.) There is a possible world where M is the only thing that actually exists (from 2)
4.) Therefore, there is something true of M that's not true of P (compare 1 and 3)
5.) Therefore, M is not P

This argument is logically valid-4 and 5 follow necessarily if the premises are true. Property dualists will likely dispute 2 and therefore 3. I want to demonstrate that there are possible worlds where consciousness is the only thing that exists: your dreams.

Dreamy Dualism, or Monistic Idealism?
Consider with me a dream. When you're asleep at night, and dreaming sweet dreams of sugar cubes and candy canes and Oprah, you're in an interesting "world" of sorts. Now surely, there are neuro-correlates to dreams that we can find on the brain. There are blood fluctuations and such. However, if you look at the grey matter, the actual content of the dream itself is nowhere to be found. Interesting. In fact, none of the content of your dream actually reduces to the grey matter from which it supposedly emerges. Yet no one would say that the dream doesn't exist, or doesn't have characteristics or qualities (except maybe Daniel Dennett....which goes to show why his views are sorta loony). Correct me if I'm wrong then...but the construct of the dream world then seems to be comprised of...your consciousness. It is a mental construct. 

Pointing out correlates on the brain necessary to have a dream actually won't prove anything, since correlation does not equal identity. Just because brain states and mental states are undeniably correlated says nothing about whether those brain states are mental states. And interestingly, given what we have surveyed about dreams (you won't find a smiling Oprah Winfrey in the grey matter of your brain!), it is clearly true that brain states are not mental states (as I've argued elsewhere). That shoots physicalism in the face. Ouch. I pity that fool. However, that also shoots Property Dualism in the face. (I pity that fool too) Why? Because Property Dualism, if true, would suggest that the mind is a property. But if the mental is a property/process, then how is it that an entire possible world (i.e dreams) can be comprised solely of one's...mind? They clearly are, since dreams don't reduce to grey matter. By describing the grey matter, you only describe the neuro correlates to the dream, not the content of the dream or the dream in and of itself. Yet this fact alone renders Property Dualism a farce. As I've argued, substance dualism (as physicalists and Property Dualists happily agree) is incoherent as well; how is it possible that an immaterial soul/mind, which is supposed to be a fundamentally different substance than matter, can interact with it? Interaction happens only via a shared property-but the interaction problem, in my view, disqualifies substance dualism.

And that leaves Monistic Idealism as the only viable option.