Matt Salih is a person I use to speak with regarding Calvinism and Justification. I wish to discuss his case:

He cited Matthew 25:

³⁴ “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; ³⁶ naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ ³⁷ Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? ³⁸ And when did we see You as a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? ³⁹ And when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ ⁴⁰ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of Mine, you did it for Me.’

⁴¹ “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, you accursed people, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; ⁴² for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; ⁴³ I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ ⁴⁴ Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or as a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ ⁴⁵ Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for Me, either.’ ⁴⁶ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Matthew 25 doesn’t discuss the issue of justification. Matt avoids the main passages about Sola fide because they undermine his position. The other issue with Matthew 25 is that it doesn’t negate sola fide. The protestant would just deny that a person that doesn’t help Christians in a state of need just isn’t a Christian at all. The reason why he doesn’t care for Christians is that he isn’t a Christian.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/06/matthew-25-and-sola-fide.html

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/05/who-are-brothers-of-matthew-2540.html?m=0

Matt reads off a quote from John Piper regarding “final salvation”. The problem with any such appeal is that the Protestant is merely arguing that justification is by faith alone and not that salvation is by faith alone. So, Matt is trying to unnecessarily give the opponent burdens that he need not bear for the debate. The protestant may take a position of Piper or the opposite position like that of Charles Ryrie, Zane Hodges, Charles Stanley, and R. T. Kendall.

John 15 was the next passage:

15 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. ² Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit. ³ You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. ⁴ Remain in Me, and I in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit of itself but must remain in the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in Me. ⁵ I am the vine, you are the branches; the one who remains in Me, and I in him bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. ⁶ If anyone does not remain in Me, he is thrown away like a branch and dries up; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. ⁷ If you remain in Me, and My words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. ⁸ My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples. ⁹ Just as the Father has loved Me, I also have loved you; remain in My love. ¹⁰ If you keep My commandments, you will remain in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and remain in His love. ¹¹ These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.

The problem with this appeal is that it isn’t a major passage in the Sola fide debate. Justification doesn’t appear as the issue in this passage. So, once again, Matt avoids the significant passages on the topic because they don’t teach what he believes.

The other issue is that the person may suppose that justification requires no works but sanctification does require works. This isn’t contradictory to the idea that one is declared righteous on the basis of faith.

Furthermore, John has already taught sola fide and perseverance of the saints (John 3:16, John 6:29,35-45,65). He wants you to take his soteriological system and anthropology for granted.

In the rebuttal (cross-examination) section of the conversation, Matt said there are many work “paradigms” in the Bible. He denies the “legal” background of the terms used for justification and said we should read them according to some other paradigm. The problem is that he never suggested another paradigm for the background nor did he argue that there was some other sense in which the terms were being used. Jeremiah already mentioned the LXX  evidence for the legal background for justification. Here is a brief explanation of the type of data that Jeremiah was talking about:

 In order to understand the use of the word “justified” (i.e., dikaioō in the original Greek) which was employed by the New Testament writers, we must examine the Old Testament Hebrew Scripture they utilized and cherished. When we do so we clearly see the forensic or legal nature of the terms which the Old Testament used in regards to justification. When such Old Testament texts were translated into the Greek LXX or Septuagint the primitive church used, they were often translated into the dik word group which the New Testament authors also employed when speaking about justification. So, if it turns out the Old Testament speaks of justification as a verdict or a forensic declaration, this supports the position that the New Testament writers, who depended on the Old Testament, likewise did. The following are examples of this: Deuteronomy 25:1 says “If there is a dispute between men and they come into court and the judges decide between them, justifying [Hb. “tsâdaq;” LXX. “dikaios”] the innocent and condemning the guilty” (Deuteronomy 25:1). Notice that justification here is antithetical to condemnation which proves a legal or forensic declaration of acquittal is in view, not someone being “made righteous” as in Romanism. Another example is 1 Kings 8:32: “then hear in heaven and act and judge your servants, condemning the guilty . . . and justify [Hb. “tsâdaq;” LXX. “dikaioō”] the righteous by rewarding him according to his righteousness” (1 Kings 8:32). Here again justification is a judicial verdict since it is antithetical to condemnation. It is not someone being “made righteous,” it is someone being “declared righteous.” We see the same thing in 2 Chronicles 6:23: “hear from heaven and act and judge your servants, repaying the guilty by bringing his conduct on his own head, and justifying [Hb. “tsâdaq;” LXX. “dikaioō”] the righteous by rewarding him according to his righteousness” (2 Chronicles 6:23). Similarly, in Psalms 143:2 we see justification is not “making someone righteous,” but pronouncing or declaring someone to be righteous as a judgement: “And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified [Hb. “tsâdaq;” Lxx. “dikaioō”] (Psalm 143:2). Other Old Testament texts which show the same legal character of justification are Exodus 23:7; Job 32:2; Proverbs 17:5 and Isaiah 5:23, etc. This background needs to be consulted if one is to properly understand the New Testament teaching on justification.

Justification in the New Testament, as it concerns someone passing from a state of condemnation to one of acceptance with God, that is soteriological contexts, consists of a forensic verdict of acquittal based on Christ’s merits. This justification is not infusion of righteousness into the soul making someone righteous. Romans 3:19-20 says, “19Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:19-20). The notion of legal judgement present in this text is seen in the references to men being held accountable, mouth’s being stopped and justification being in God’s sight. Similarly, Galatians 3:11 says: “Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law” (Galatians 3:11). It makes sense to say no one is declared righteous before, or in the sight of God by the law. But it makes no sense to say no one is made righteous before, or in the sight of God by the Law. When someone is before God or in God’s sight and law and sin are involved, He pronounces a judgement or verdict. In Romans 5:16 we read, “. . .the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification” (Romans 5:16). Since condemnation (a legal determination) is the antithesis to justification here, justification is to be seen as a forensic (legal) declaration and not people being made righteous. Romans 8:33-34 says, “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died. . .” (Romans 8:33-34). It’s because someone is justified by God that no one can lay a charge or condemn them (legal language). This is because the legal declaration of acquittal and pronouncement of righteousness, i.e., God’s justification, has taken place instead. In Luke 10:29 a man unsuccessfully tried to justify himself before Christ. This refers to the man declaring himself to be righteous or just, not infusing righteousness into his soul. In Luke 7:29 the people justified God. This of course refers to people declaring God just, not making Him just, which is impossible since God already is just. Now, also in the Greek dik word group is the word “righteousness” (Gk. dikaiosunē). This term also has a forensic character in regards to soteriology or salvation. Although the word does not always refer to justification but can simply refer to personal holiness, it is still important to discuss. Romans 9:30-32: “30What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. . .” (Romans 9:30-32). Leon Morris points out, “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 works of merit. Nevertheless they attained to righteousness, namely the righteousness that is of faith. The Jews who were very anxious to establish themselves as righteous before God failed to do so because they came by way of law works instead of by that of faith, which is the way God has appointed” (Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross: Third Revised Edition, p. 275). In light of all this evidence, when text after text speaks about men being justified (Luke 18:9-14; Romans 3:24-25; 4:4-5; 5:1, 9; 8:30; 10:10; Galatians 3:24; Titus 3:7) or saved/inheriting eternal life (John 3:16, 18; 3:36; 6:40, 47; 20:31; Romans 10:11-13; 5:24; Ephesians 2:5; 8-9; Titus 3:5; 1 John 5:12) in the context of becoming right with God during life, what is clearly in view is a legal declaration of acquittal and righteousness from Him based on the merit of Christ received by faith. This justification is not about someone being made righteous, though, those justified are also progressively sanctified separately (see Ephesians 2:8-10).

http://spirited-tech.com/Council/index.php/2021/01/12/justification-is-by-faith-alone-issues-and-evidence-2/

Matt states he doesn’t see this courtroom imagery that is in Romans 2-3, 8, etc. He says he sees other things like personal relationships and nothing forensic. Just to briefly explain, sin is an issue of God’s Law is just a forensic issue. This is why God is called the “judge of all the earth” (in Gen. 18) and the Son will come back to “judge” us (John 5:18-27). The legal language permeates soteriology from justification to atonement:

In the OT, God is addressed with the legal title “Judge” (Gen 18.25) and acts rightly in that capacity. Moreover, He is not only the Judge; He is also the lawgiver. The heart of OT Judaism was the divine Torah (law) that governed all of life and man’s relationship to God. Leon Morris reckons that of the 220 uses of tôrah in the OT, only 17 are clearly not about God’s law. Of the 127 occurrences of hoˉq (statute), 87 are linked with the LORD; huqqah, another word for statute, is similarly linked in 96 out of 104 cases. Mishpāt, which is linked with the LORD about 180 times, is the usual term for ‘judgment’ and in its participial form is used to refer to God as Judge. It may also mean law. Even the notion of a covenant (berith) is the notion of a legal contract. It is intriguing how OT writers often prefer legal to any other imagery when they are referring to what God does (e.g., Mic 6.1–2; Is 3.13; 41.21). The use of legal categories with respect to God in the OT, says Morris, “is frequent, so frequent indeed that it is plain that it corresponds to something deep-seated in Hebrew thinking. Law and the LORD went together” (Morris 1983, p. 181). In fact, it would be difficult to find a religion more wedded to legal categories than OT Judaism.

William Lane Craig, The Atonement: pg. 20-21. http://spirited-tech.com/Council/index.php/2019/11/21/before-the-judge/

Matt states the mistake in Romans 4 is to do the works of the Law to earn justification. Matt suggests that this leaves open doing different kinds of works to be justified. Matt says that we can be justified by works because Rom. 2 states this.

The issue that arises in this position is that it assumes that we are still not obliged to do “works of the Law”. I think the Law still carries some moral authority over Christians. Where does Matt see that as being revoked? Secondly, the issue is Matt is ignoring the point Paul is making. Paul isn’t arguing against merely the idea the works of the Law can justify us, but rather that the basis has historically always been faith and anything else is impermissible. Abraham couldn’t even have done “works of the Law” because he was prior to the Law. So, clearly, works in Romans 4 has a wider meaning. We already know it has wider meaning from Romans 4:4-5 because Paul gives a more general meaning of it in his argument:

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:

4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and restraint and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? ⁵ But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, ⁶ who will repay each person according to his deeds: ⁷ to those who by perseverance in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, He will give eternal life; ⁸ but to those who are self-serving and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, He will give wrath and indignation. ⁹ There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of mankind who does evil, for the Jew first and also for the Greek, ¹⁰ but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who does what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. ¹¹ For there is no partiality with God.

There are two responses that Protestants give. They will either say this is hypothetical obedience. Nobody can choose to never sin (except Christ) that is what separates most from Pelagianism. Is Matt endorsing Pelagianism? This contradicts Gal. 3:19-26 that states justification was never meant to come by the Law.

The other response takes it to be that those that have faith can have the Law fulfilled through them (Rom 8). I won’t get into this interpretation of Romans 2 here. I recommend looking here:

http://spirited-tech.com/Council/index.php/2018/07/18/the-law-and-the-new-testament-2/

Matt appeals to James 2 but that was handled by Jeremiah Nortier in the debate. I recommend these resources on James 2:

http://spirited-tech.com/Council/index.php/2017/08/18/paul-and-james-on-justification/

Jeremiah Nortier was asked several questions that are relevant and I’d like to look at some of them:

The first question during the Q&A was this:

Jeremiah why say faith alone if works qualify faith as true or false faith? If works enter at all even to qualify then faith isn’t alone

The closest thing I can think of is that of condemnation with an execution. The condemnation (or conviction) is prior to the deed of execution. It grounds the execution. But by the logic of the questioner we should just have executions. This ignores the conceptual distinctions that exists between these things and how they are employed by the Biblical writers.

Jeremiah: can you exegete Rom 6:3-7 inc. v. 7 where water baptism is linked to dikaiow (justification) in the Greek as well as the instrumental means of being united “in Christ”?

I asked Steve Hays the same question years ago. Here was his response:

Scholars dispute how to render Rom 6:7. Some think it means “set free” from sin, but based on Paul’s customary usage, others think it means “justified” from sin.

Contextually, “set free” makes sense, but that runs the risk of importing the sense of the context into the sense of the verb. If it has a “transformative” nuance in this verse, that would be exceptional.

We also need to distinguish between words and concepts. Even if Paul’s usage is occasionally fluid, his concept of justification is forensic.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-syntax-guide.html

Further Suggestion:

Lutheranism