Romans 4 is one of the most hotly debated passages in scripture because it is used as a proof text for different doctrinal points on justification. Protestants most commonly appeal to Romans 4, but as I continue to dive into the imputation vs infusion debate, I will examine the passage from the Catholic perspective.
Imputation vs. Infusion
In my last article, “An Exposition on Infused Grace,” I compared and contrasted the Catholic concept of infusion with the Protestant concept of imputation. To give a quick refresher, I will briefly summarize the two:
In imputation, Christ keeps the law perfectly in our place. On the Cross, God looks at Christ and sees our sin. When He looks at us, He sees Christ’s perfect righteousness. Underneath Christ’s perfect righteousness we still remain unclean in our ontological nature, which is why imputation is often described as a one-time event in the believer’s life. The cleansing happens once by virtue of the Redemption.
The Catholic concept of infusion says that because of Christ’s loving sacrifice on the Cross, God takes the unclean and unjustified sinner and makes him clean in his very nature at the moment of conversion. God does this through the cleansing of Christ’s Blood. God then no longer considers the person as having a record of sin but a clean slate. As we continue to increase in our relationship with God, we grow in charity but continue to sin because of concupiscence. Sin taints our souls like scarlet, but upon repentance, God washes away our sins and makes us clean again.
The Context
Everyone agrees that the simplest reading of Romans 4 is that Paul is talking about justification apart from works. However, it is always good to provide nuance so that the overall scriptural context becomes clearer.
The first verse of the chapter peels back an extra layer of much-needed detail to carry with us throughout the rest of the chapter. In this verse, Paul identifies Abraham as “our forefather”. Paul believed that Abraham was the forefather of both the Jews and the Gentiles. The Jews, however, did not believe that Abraham was the father of the Gentiles. Paul’s intended overall goal was to prove to the Jews that the Gentiles were part of the covenant promise.
The term “law” can have various meanings in the New Testament, but its application in Romans 4 is generally considered to have two interpretations: (1) the Mosaic Law in particular as given to us in Scripture, and (2) the moral code in general that all humans have in their hearts and the degree to which they measure up to it.
Proponents of imputation believe that because we cannot measure up to the law perfectly, Christ does so in our place. While it is true that we cannot measure up to the law, this interpretation of the passage doesn’t make sense.
The Jews already clearly understood that they could not keep the law perfectly or be innocent before God based on merit. Acts 23:1-2 demonstrates this when the Jewish Sanhedrin directs the guard to slap Paul for saying that he lived his life in good conscience before God up to that point. Paul would not rail against the Jews for something they already firmly believed without conviction. However, he did preach to them about something they should have believed, and that is the promise of Abraham.
Genesis 15
The Jews believed that Abraham was exclusively their forefather according to the flesh. Paul’s point in Romans 4 is that the covenant promise extended to the Gentiles from the very beginning and was never based on the Mosaic Law or flesh. It was based on faith. He hammers this point home in verses 9-10 by pointing out that God had counted Abraham as righteous according to his faith before he was circumcised.
Paul also referenced Genesis 15 to prove that the promise of Abraham was that by faith he would become the father of many nations. It was never just Israel who inherited the promise. Romans 4:4 is often used as a proof text against “earning” justification by having a righteous status before God. Although it is true that you cannot earn your justification before God and you cannot have any righteousness outside of Him either, that isn’t the correct interpretation of the verse.
New Testament scholar N.T. Wright points out in his paper, “Paul and the Patriarch”, the correlation of the Greek word misthos (μισθός) as “reward” in Gen 15:1 and “wages” Rom 4:4. He says that Paul’s “reference to Abraham’s ‘reward’ in 4.4 is an allusion to Gen 15:1, where the ‘reward’ is the large family; he is not, then, refuting a view of justification which involves ‘earning’ a righteous status” (Wright, Paul and the Patriarch). Paul is essentially arguing that the promise cannot be a gift if it is by the natural order of the flesh.
The Problem of Logizomai
The Greek word logizomai is translated as “to count” or “to reckon” and is used in scripture to describe a mental calculation or consideration. For instance, in Mark 15:28 the word is used to claim that the prophecy is fulfilled that Jesus was considered a transgressor. Proponents of imputation usually believe that God reckons Christ’s righteousness to the sinner and the sinner’s unworthiness to Christ. This interpretation is problematic for a few reasons.
In scripture, God does not consider anything or anyone as righteous if they don’t have a righteous quality to them. Likewise, He doesn’t consider anyone to be unrighteous who are innocent. Proverbs 17:15 says “He who justifies the wicked and condemns the righteous are both an abomination to the Lord.”
Another reason why this interpretation of logizomai is problematic is that Christ’s righteousness is not what is being reckoned in Romans 4; Abraham’s righteousness is. It’s also worthy to note that Abraham’s righteous quality isn’t being reckoned to anyone else but himself.
There is not a single instance in which logizomai is used for God reckoning someone else’s inherent righteousness to another person.
Psalm 32
Paul’s quotation of Psalm 32 in Romans 4:7-8 reveals something very important to us about justification. It shows that justification is not only limited to a one-time event. Psalm 32 cannot be the first time that King David was justified because God referred to David as a man after his own heart before he was made king (1 Sam 13:14, Acts 13:22).
Romans 4 is well worth a close reading for those who want to understand justification, but make sure you read it with the right Catholic interpretation.
