I watched a debate between Matt Salih vs Jeremiah Nortier on the issue of Sola Fide. I thought it was as one-sided as any debate I’ve ever seen and I thought to share my thoughts on the debate in an article:

http://spirited-tech.com/Council/index.php/2021/01/20/sola-fide-matt-salih-vs-jeremiah-nortier/

Matt Salih decided to respond to my article on the topic in a video.

1. Definition of Sin

Matt tries to rebut one of my argument by arguing that sin isn’t to be looked at merely as disobeying God’s law, but also as “missing the mark”. He thinks this because one of the words for sin in the New Testament is the Greek word hamartia. This was originally a term that was used by archers. The idea is that a person is wrong because they fail to do that which they know is good. We find this in James 4:17 “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”

The problem with this line of argument is that it really isn’t relevant to my argument. Matt concedes some sins are at least legal issues and therefore how does he suppose those matters are adjudicated? Furthermore, to use the Biblical metaphor, the mark men are to aim for just is God’s law. Whether it be the Law in the Old and New Testaments or the Law found in nature. Thus his objection has dissipated. We should notice that the New Testament writers didn’t give up the notion that sin and law are tied together (1 John 3:4).

2. Verb or Noun?

He argues that the word “declared righteous” has other usages. He cites several scriptures for this. The problem is that this was already recognized in my original article. I already stated the word can be used in different ways, but the way Paul uses it while discussing the doctrine of justification is forensic. I believe this was discussed when dikaioō in Romans 6:7 was mentioned. Showing that the term (Dikaiosýnē, dikaios, dikaioō) can be used in a more general sense for doing righteous acts is consistent with the notion that the term can be used in a judicial sense.

Matt also argues that the term couldn’t mean that one is “declared righteous” or be a verdict of one’s righteousness because the word is used as a verb. The problem is that one rendering a verdict is an action and is hardly inconsistent with the notion I’m arguing for. That’s like supposing when a judge renders one innocent of a crime that judge has done nothing, therefore the person must go back to jail.

Furthermore, he undermines his own point by citing cases where the word is a noun (Judges 5:11). I spoke to my friends Bryan and Chris about the issue as well. They are more familiar with the Greek than I am. They mentioned that nouns and verbs actually have more fluidity than Matt recognizes. Bryan said:

There isn’t as strict of a delineation between verbs and nouns in Greek as there is in English. That either begs the question, or it misunderstands that nouns can be verbal, even in English.

He begins to quote various scriptures and the first one was this:

Exodus 9:27

Then Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron, and said to them, “I have sinned this time; the LORD is the righteous one, and I and my people are the wicked ones.

The thing we should notice is that this isn’t proof of Matt’s position. This isn’t talking about God being made righteous. A transformative sense of the word doesn’t affect my position. The other issue is that he ended up going to another passage that proves my view. Here Matt makes a silly mistake in distinguishing the wicked from the guilty. It would only take a moment’s reflection to understand that wicked people are just those that are guilty of wickedness. So, he creates a false dilemma with incoherent results. The reason this is in favor of my view is that this is lawcourt language stating that Yahweh is the righteous one (declaring Yahweh to be righteous). Yahweh is contrasted from the guilty Pharoh and his people. They are guilty of keeping the Jews in bondage. Once again, Matt ignores the context to reach his conclusion. You don’t have to take my word for it either:

The word indicates ‘to miss the mark’ or ‘to go wrong’, and is the language of the lawcourt. Pharaoh is admitting that he has made a mistake (miscalculation?), but he is not being portrayed as truly repentant: though he admits his sin, the story shows that he still kept on sinning. ‘This time’—and, by implication, not on earlier occasions—shows that he is trying to retain some semblance of dignity despite his admission and climbdown. But even so he has moved. There is no longer any contemptuous dismissal of the LORD. Indeed he admits not only that LORD exists but that he is in the right in the matter. This is certainly a change for the better. ‘In the right’ is literally ‘righteous’. However, the NKJV translation “The LORD is righteous” is misleading. Pharaoh is not talking about the attributes of God and making some general admission. He is focused on his specific situation, and making as narrow a concession as he can. Even so, his analysis of the situation as a judicial confrontation between himself and his people on the one hand and the LORD on the other is absolutely accurate.

 

Mackay, J. L. (2001). Exodus (p. 175). Fearn, Ross-shire, Great Britain: Mentor.

 

For the third time, pharaoh promises amends. The terminology is that of the lawcourt: YHWH is the innocent party, and pharaoh and his people are the guilty parties. Our understanding of the meaning of the biblical term ‘justification’ derives largely from this Old Testament background: God as it were ‘put us in the right’, guilty though we are.

 

Cole, R. A. (1973). Exodus: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 2, p. 105). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

The next verse he cites is Exodus 18:25 and it doesn’t seem to be relevant to our discussion. It is good evidence that the term can denote “being upright”. Those were the kinds of men Israel should look for to be leaders. The next passage has the same basic principle. In Deut. 25:15, God warns against deceiving people in scams to take their goods. This isn’t relevant to the issue we are talking about. He states that the condemnation against wrong business practices has nothing to do with legality. The problem is he is reading these verses from the Law of Moses. He even recognizes it and says it isn’t so to fit his unbiblical worldview.

1 Sam 2:2

“There is no one holy like the Lord;
    there is no one besides you;
    there is no Rock like our God.

It doesn’t mean that the Lord is made holy like no one else. It just means that nothing is holy like the Lord. This passage again has nothing to do with the debate at hand. He goes 6 verses later to mention that the just and righteous people help the poor, keep their vows, and etc, That is consistent with my view and Matt continues to provide no important evidence regarding the discussion at hand.

Isaiah 42:21

The Lord was pleased for His righteousness’ sake
To make the Law great and glorious.

The Lord was pleased, for the sake of his vindication,
    that he should magnify his Law and make it glorious.

These are from two different translations (NASB and ISV). I want to point out that Matt ignores a very important assumption of the prophets. The understanding that God is a God of Law. This shows the close relationship that I was arguing about earlier and in the previous article. God is inherently righteous and this idea is not in doubt. The issue is that we can declare God righteous because that is what he is. This doesn’t mean God was made righteous either. The text seems to fit with the forensic notion that God is vindicated himself and his Law to the wicked Israelites that are now in exile.

All the nations have gathered together
So that the peoples may be assembled.
Who among them can declare this
And proclaim to us the former things?
Let them present their witnesses so that they may be justified,
Or let them hear and say, “It is true.”

Matt accidentally stumbled on another proof of my position. God tells his opponents to have their day in court. The false gods are on trial and he demands of them to tell of the past and future. It is so that the false gods would be vindicated, but rather the gods receive condemnation because they are unable to do such.

Right is the legal use of ‘righteous’, meaning ‘are in the right/ vindicated’. So that others may hear is ‘and let them hear’ –  the president gestures to the jury or those in the courtroom who would register the evidence and agree the verdict.

 

Motyer, J. Alec. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (Kindle Locations 9627-9628). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.

He even tries to take his case down to Isaiah 43:26.

Meet Me in court, let’s argue our case together;
State your cause, so that you may be proved right.

Matt thinks that there is a big difference between being “declared right” and being “proven right”. The idea of a verdict vindicating a person of innocence is the Protestant idea of justification. This time he cannot pretend not to see the courtroom imagery behind these words in this instance. Will he concede the word can carry legal meaning? The court doesn’t make one innocent, they declare one innocent, exonerated, right, pardoned, acquitted, etc. You’re innocent in virtue of not being guilty. He’s said that the “courtroom” imagery isn’t there but it literally states that this case is in court. Secondly, only God can blot out their sins and they are in his court. God being judge appears to be an important idea to the Biblical writers but not to Matt.

Here he cites two Psa 4:5, 7:17 and this falls under passages that use these words in a different context but he states that the word must be used here the same way everywhere else. This is obviously the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer.

 

• Illegitimate totality transfer: assumes that all the uses that occur at a given time apply in any given instance;

 

He cites a few more passages that I don’t have the interest to debate with him about. The constant false dichotomy he has set up between being moral or ethical with being Lawful is unbiblical and unwise, It’s an ad hoc distinction that is only used to save his position.

He cites Psa 9:8

But the Lord sits as King forever;
He has established His throne for judgment,
⁸ And He will judge the world in righteousness;

I just wanted to point out the fact that he cited another divine Judge passage, ironically. I’ll ignore Psa 11:7, 15:1-2 because it is the same mistake in the prior verses. I want to agree with this idea that God is just.

For the Lord is righteous, He loves righteousness;
The upright will see His face.

Lord, who may reside in Your tent?
Who may settle on Your holy hill?
² One who walks with integrity, practices righteousness,
And speaks truth in his heart.

Remember these passages later because they will turnaround on him later.

Psa 143:11

For the sake of Your name, Lord, revive me.
In Your righteousness bring my soul out of trouble.

This chapter seems familiar. I wonder if it was ever mentioned prior to this:

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).

3. God isn’t merely the Judge:

Matt argues that the theme of God being the judge of all the earth isn’t as important as I think it is. God in the ministry of Jesus is mainly recognized by the name “The Father”. The best response is simply this, so what! God is still judging whether Matt likes it or not. God throughout the OT has many names. Does that undermine the name Father because God is called more things than Father in the OT? Does Matt know about the White Throne Judgment? Is that merely a minor thing? Is Christ Second Coming a minor thing? Is John 5:17-27 not important? Is Matt Biblically literate? Let’s notice that Romans 8 does provide the courtroom image. You have this about the eschatological judgment. I have argued that in the past:

http://spirited-tech.com/Council/index.php/2019/02/12/leighton-flowers-on-romans-8/

Dr. Thomas Schreiner notes:

In Paul the forensic, law-court, meaning of the word is evident. For instance, we read in Rom 8:33, “Who can bring an accusation against God’s elect? God is the One who justifies.” Paul considers here the final day, the judgment day, when God will assess the life of every human being. The verb “justifies” here clearly means “declares righteous,” for there is a contrast between bringing a charge (enkalesei) and condemning (katakrinōn, 8:34) and justifying. Obviously, “bring an accusation” and “condemn” don’t mean “make wicked,” for it would be terribly unjust for God to make someone wicked on the day of judgment! It follows, then, that “justify” doesn’t mean “make righteous” but “declare righteous.” We see the same phenomenon in 2:13, “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified” (ESV). The doers of the law aren’t made righteous but “declared to be righteous” by God on the last day by virtue of their works.

 

Thomas R. Schreiner. Faith Alone—The Doctrine of Justification: What the Reformers Taught…and Why It Still Matters (The Five Solas Series) (Kindle Locations 3553-3560). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

4. God in the Prophets:

Matt argues that God’s relationship with OT Israel is like a marriage and not as a covenant. The problem with this foolish notion is that marriage actually is a covenant. There is nothing contradictory between personal, ethical, and covenantal. Lastly, the reason the Jews were unfaithful to God (which is what sparks his usage of them being his wives) is that they were unfaithful to the Covenant. That is how they ended up in exile in the first place. The curses of the covenant fell upon them.

5. Justice and Mercy:

Matt maintains that God is merciful even if God arbitrarily forgives sins. Why does God have to punish all sins? Well, if God can arbitrarily forgive sins, then he can forgive all sins without reason. So, then the cross becomes unnecessary in Matt’s view. If he would’ve read his bible he would notice that there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22). This entails either the sin falls upon a sacrifice or fall on the guilty party. Those verses I referred back to are now relevant. It is those that are upright that see his face. Who are those who are upright? Those that follow God’s commands. That has nothing to do with feudalism.

6. Joseph:

Matthew 1:19

And her husband Joseph, since he was a righteous man and did not want to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.

Matt argues that this is an example of arbitrary mercy being looked at as a just thing to do. In his interpretation, God isn’t serious about sexual sin and prefers that we merely give mercy. Say a man rapes your daughter and the rapist is apprehended. Matt’s view is that if you were to simply forgive him and set him free from jail that would be the just thing to do. So, it is hard to believe that Matt has the audacity to defend a view with such entailments.

I think the NIV actually gets the idea correct.

Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

Joseph being faithful to the Law of God sought out a way they could be divorced in private and spare her from public shaming. His righteous character is from loving obedience to God’s law and not in spite of it.

Because he was a righteous man, Joseph therefore could not in conscience marry Mary, who was now thought to be unfaithful. And because such a marriage would have been a tacit admission of his own guilt and also because he was unwilling to expose her to the disgrace of public divorce, Joseph therefore chose a quieter way, permitted by the law itself. The full rigor of the law might have led to Mary’s stoning, though that was rarely carried out in the first century. Still, a public divorce was possible, though Joseph was apparently unwilling to expose Mary to such shame. The law also allowed for private divorce before two witnesses (Nu 5: 11– 31 interpreted as in m.   Soṭah 1: 1– 5; cf. David Hill, “A Note on Matthew i. 19,” ExpTim 76 [1964– 65]: 133– 34; A.   Tosato, “Joseph, Being a Just Man (Mt 1: 19),” CBQ 41 [1979]: 547– 51). That was what Joseph purposed. It would leave both his righteousness (his conformity to the law) and his compassion intact.

 

Carson, D. A.; Carson, D. A.. Matthew (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 4427-4433). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.