Looks Good, Until We Check Context

Dr. James White writes:

Earlier today I retweeted Ligon Duncan’s recommendation of Dr. Needham’s fine little book of daily readings from early church fathers. Well, (Roman Catholic Apologist) Patrick Madrid follows me on Twitter (as I follow him), and he replied that he surely hopes people will read the early Fathers! I replied with a quotation from Gregory of Nyssa on sola scriptura:

“..we make the Holy Scriptures the canon and the rule of every dogma; we of necessity look upon that, and receive alone that which may be made conformable to the intention of those writings.” (On the Soul and Resurrection).

He replied with the graphic I am posting in this article (above). Looks pretty good, doesn’t it? As soon as I saw it I was struck once again by the fact that our Roman Catholic apologist friends really seem content to simply repeat the same arguments, even when they’ve been dealt with…for decades. You see, I gave that very quotation in the book ‘Sola Scriptura: the Protestant Position on the Bible’, first published in 1995—22 years ago. Here is what I wrote:

Surely here we have the Roman position, do we not? Basil here posits an extrabiblical tradition that would fit quite nicely with Trent, would, it not? We see again the importance of looking at all the data, for both the context and the greater scope of Basils teaching contradict such a conclusion. First, we note the continuation of his words, which are often not included in the citation:

For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the hucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice?

No matter how we might view Basil’s beliefs, one thing is certain: the matters that he lists as being addressed by tradition are not the matters that Rome would have us to believe comprise its oral tradition. Basil is talking about traditions with reference to practices and piety.

Ironically Rome does not believe Basil is correct in his claims in this passage. Does Rome say we must face to the East at prayer? Does Rome insist upon triune baptism after the Eastern mode? Yet these are the practices that Basil defines as being derived from tradition. What is more, other statements from this same father fly in the face of the Roman claims, for example, when addressing truly important doctrinal truths, such as the very nature of God, Basil did not appeal to some nebulous tradition. How could he, especially when he encountered others who claimed that their traditional beliefs should be held as sacred? Note his words to Eustathius the physician:

Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.

This mis-use of Basil has been refuted by the mere reference to the immediate context in my own published works for 22 years….yet Patrick Madrid is still quoting the same text! Well, not much has changed, that’s for sure! So while the graphic and the a-contextual quote looks real good, just a little homework once again exposes the fact that Rome’s use of patristic sources is, well, quite predictable.

Discernment Conference

Equip Conference, November 10-12, 2017 held at Grace Bible in Redwood City, CA (pastored by Steve Converse) with guest speakers Justin Peters and Costi Hinn.

Justin Peters – Session 1 – Discernment

Costi Hinn – Session 2 – Testimony

Costi Hinn – Session 3 – Matthew 10

Justin Peters – Session 4 – Do Not Hinder Them

Justin Peters – Session 5 – Catholic Doctrine – Reformation

Justin Peters – Session 6 – Expository Preaching

Interaction – The Reformation and Rome

Pastor Rick Phillips recounts his recent interaction about the Protestant Reformation with local Roman Catholic scholars in Greenville, SC (original source here):

Probably the most interesting Reformation celebration that I had the privilege of participating in last month took place in a Roman Catholic Church. The Center for Evangelical Catholicism here in Greenville, SC graciously invited me to join with two other Protestants and three Roman Catholic scholars to discuss the Reformation. I was grateful for the warmth of my reception and for the valuable interaction.

Perhaps the most interesting part of this event was the panel discussion, in which the host priest asked a number of insightful questions. For instance, he asked us to consider how things might have been different if the Roman Catholic establishment had been more patient and accommodating with Martin Luther. The idea was that Leo X (nobody’s favorite pope) handled Luther with such clumsy arrogance that he provoked the great schism that resulted. Might there have been a Lutheran order within the Roman church, he wondered, if the pope was more sophisticated and skillful?

My answer–which provoked a fair amount of unhappiness–was that it was inconceivable that the movement of the Protestant Reformation should have accommodated Rome simply because of the irreconcilable stances towards the Bible. Christians who adhered to sola scriptura – the authority of Scripture alone – could never endure a papacy that demanded that its tradition stood beside (and in practice above) the plain meaning of Scripture. Moreover, by study of the Bible, the Protestants came to the conclusion that the papacy was an utterly illegitimate and usurping office. In fact, wherever the Bible was embraced as supreme, the denunciation of the pope soon followed, a situation quite unlikely to permit a Lutheran movement inside the Roman tent. Furthermore, Roman Catholicism was just as opposed to the authority of Scripture as the Reformers were opposed to the papacy. It was for this reason that Rome so vigorously suppressed the spread of the Bible, going so far as to burn at the stake those who made it available to the common people.

As you can imagine, the warmth of my reception began to chill during this discourse. Especially my claim that Rome had suppressed the spread of Scripture was denounced as a false and tired canard! The host priest protested: “Why, Rome has done more for Bible translation than any other Christian body! Only in England was Bible translation suppressed, and that was done by the secular authority and not the church!”

This claim incited me to go back and study the evidence for Rome’s suppression of Scripture. To say the least, it is extensive! Consider the following:

Pope Gregory VII: forbade access of common people to the Bible in 1079, since it would “be so misunderstood by people of limited intelligence as to lead them into error.”

Pope Innocent III: compared Bible teaching in church to casting “pearls before swine” (1199).

The Council of Toulouse (France, 1229): suppressed the Albigensians and forbade the laity to read vernacular translations of the Bible.

The Second Council of Tarragon (Spain, 1234) declared, “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over. . . that they may be burned.”

In response to the labors of John Wyclif, the English Parliament (under Roman Catholic influence) banned the translation of Scripture into English, unless approved by the church (1408).

The Council of Constance (Germany/ Bohemia, 1415) condemned John Hus and the writings of Wyclif because of their doctrine of Scripture and subsequent teachings. Hus answerd: “If anyone can instruct me by the sacred Scriptures. . . , I am willing to follow him.” He was burned at the stake.

Archbishop Berthold of Mainz threatened to excommunicate anyone who translated the Bible (1486).

Pope Pius IV expressed the conviction that Bible reading did the common people more harm than good (1564).

It is true that in many cases, the papacy suppressed Scripture because it was being used to teach against the church. But this is exactly the point the Reformers argued: Rome would not allow the Scripture to speak with authority and for that reason suppressed it.

Wyclif wrote: “where the Bible and the Church do not agree, we must obey the Bible, and, where conscience and human authority are in conflict, we must follow conscience.”

For this doctrine and its further implications, his body was exhumed and burned, his ashes scattered in a nearby river, and his Bible translation banned.

So much for the Protestant “canard” regarding the Roman Catholic attitude to Bible translation, teaching, and distribution!

The record shows that if there was a single conviction that motivated and guided the Protestant Reformation, it was the authority of Scripture alone to speak for God in matters of faith and life. On this vital matter, the great John Wyclif and his martyr-disciple John Hus spoke with all the clarity that would burst forth through Martin Luther and others in the 16th century.

Wyclif did not live to see a widespread Reformation, but died under harassment and scorn. Yet by wonderful providences, his writings spread far away to Bohemia where John Hus advocated them with zeal and power. Hus, too, did not live to see a Reformation, but died in solitary disgrace amidst the flames of a scornful church. Yet his influence endured, through the spread of Scripture, so that Martin Luther exclaimed, “We are all Hussites!”

The Protestant Reformation, which we have been celebrating these past weeks, was above all a Reformation of and by the Word of God. What compelling evidence Wyclif, Hus, and Luther gave to Isaiah’s claim that God’s Word will not go forth in vain but shall succeed by God’s power (Isa. 55:11)! It is for this reason that accommodation with Rome would have been unthinkable to Luther and his followers, since sola scriptura compelled them to stand against false teaching with the Word of truth. Their courageous stance, blessed by God’s mighty aid, reminds us that we also will never send forth God’s Word in vain. If we will stand within the secular church of America, and yes, of evangelicalism, and hold forth the Word of God, he will not fail to bless it with the saving and reforming power our generation so greatly needs.

Can Roman Catholicism be Considered Christianity?

Article: Reformation 500: Can Roman Catholicism be Considered Christianity? by Eric Davis (original source here)

It’s that time of year again when we remember the Protestant Reformation. But this year, it’s really something special: 500 years have passed since the greatest movement of God in church history next to the birth of the church at Pentecost.

But was the Reformation really necessary? Were the Reformers merely a pack of spiritual naysayers looking to rain on Rome’s innocent parade? Were they not looking to take their ball and mitt to start their own game?

The Reformers were not moved by preferences to seek and start another denomination. They were moved by Scripture to break from something that could not be considered Christian. Five centuries have not improved Rome’s doctrine. The need for her reform could not be greater.

Tragically, several reasons remain why Roman Catholicism still is not Christian. At this 500th year anniversary, it’s worth taking a thorough look at ten doctrines which render Rome outside of Christ. Many of these are sufficient on their own.

1. Rome’s teaching on justification differs from biblical Christianity.
The issue of justification pertains to the most important question facing humanity: how can unrighteous people stand righteous before a righteous and holy God? It’s the question of questions; the crux of the human race. Answer this correctly, and all is well. Answer it otherwise, and face eternal condemnation.

What does Rome teach on the issue?

From the Council of Trent, 6th session, Canon 30:

If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporary punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.

Put another way, if you believe that, by faith alone in Christ alone, all of your sin—past, present, future—is completely forgiven, with no guilt or punishment from God remaining, with the result that you stand satisfactorily righteous before God, then you are damned.

However, Scripture teaches precisely what Rome condemns:
“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (Rom. 3:28 ).

“Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1 ).

Right standing with God is a gift granted on the basis of faith alone in Jesus Christ. His life really was that righteous. His death really that propitiatory. His resurrection really that vindicating. Sinners stand permanently righteous before holy God as a gift of his grace, not works, and by faith alone in Jesus Christ, not grace-infused works. To assume that our works could contribute to a fraction of our justification is nothing short of monstrous pride.

While addressing the works-based gospel of the Judaizers several centuries prior to the Reformation, the apostle declared that a gospel which differs from that of Scripture is a damning system (Gal. 1:8-9 ). Consequently, Rome’s teaching on justification itself renders it something other than Christianity.

2. Rome’s teaching on the papacy differs from biblical Christianity.
Rome asserts that the pope (derived from a Latin word for “father”) is a position of succession from the apostle Peter. The title refers to the Bishop of Rome exclusively as the universal bishop. Other titles for the pope include “Vicar of Christ,” “Pontiff,” “Holy Father,” and “His Holiness.” He is considered the head of the Church, who possesses power to pull from the treasury of merit to grant indulgences. When he speaks ex cathedra, he is considered to speak infallibly. For a time, there were three simultaneous popes and the papal seat was in Avignon, France. Continue reading

Justification According to Rome

This excerpt is adapted from Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism by R.C. Sproul.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is always at risk of distortion. It became distorted in the centuries leading up to the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. It became distorted at innumerable other points of church history, and it is often distorted today. This is why Martin Luther said the gospel must be defended in every generation. It is the center point of attack by the forces of evil. They know that if they can get rid of the gospel, they can get rid of Christianity.

There are two sides to the gospel, the good news of the New Testament: an objective side and a subjective side. The objective content of the gospel is the person and work of Jesus—who He is and what He accomplished in His life. The subjective side is the question of how the benefits of Christ’s work are appropriated to the believer. There the doctrine of justification comes to the fore.

Many issues were involved in the Reformation, but the core matter, the material issue of the Reformation, was the gospel, especially the doctrine of justification. There was no great disagreement between the Roman Catholic Church authorities and the Protestant Reformers about the objective side. All the parties agreed that Jesus was divine, the Son of God and of the Virgin Mary, and that He lived a life of perfect obedience, died on the cross in an atoning death, and was raised from the grave. The battle was over the second part of the gospel, the subjective side, the question of how the benefits of Christ are applied to the believer.

The Reformers believed and taught that we are justified by faith alone. Faith, they said, is the sole instrumental cause for our justification. By this they meant that we receive all the benefits of Jesus’ work through putting our trust in Him alone.

The Roman communion also taught that faith is a necessary condition for salvation. At the seminal Council of Trent (1545–1563), which formulated Rome’s response to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic authorities declared that faith affords three things: the initium, the fundamentum, and the radix. That is, faith is the beginning of justification, the foundation for justification, and the root of justification. But Rome held that a person can have true faith and still not be justified, because there was much more to the Roman system.

In reality, the Roman view of the gospel, as expressed at Trent, was that justification is accomplished through the sacraments. Initially, the recipient must accept and cooperate in baptism, by which he receives justifying grace. He retains that grace until he commits a mortal sin. Mortal sin is called “mortal” because it kills the grace of justification. The sinner then must be justified a second time. That happens through the sacrament of penance, which the Council of Trent defined as “a second plank” of justification for those who have made shipwreck of their souls.

The fundamental difference was this. Trent said that God does not justify anyone until real righteousness inheres within the person. In other words, God does not declare a person righteous unless he or she is righteous. So, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, justification depends on a person’s sanctification. By contrast, the Reformers said justification is based on the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus. The only ground by which a person can be saved is Jesus’ righteousness, which is reckoned to him when he believes.

There were radically different views of salvation. They could not be reconciled. One of them was the gospel. One of them was not. Thus, what was at stake in the Reformation was the gospel of Jesus Christ. Though the Council of Trent made many fine affirmations of traditional truths of the Christian faith, it declared justification by faith alone to be anathema, ignoring many plain teachings of Scripture, such as Romans 3:28: “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”

On Rome’s Claims

Chris Arnzen (host of the popular Iron Sharpens Iron podcast) writes:

It is truly tiresome to continue hearing over and over and over again the Roman Catholic regurgitation of the claim that they “gave us the Scriptures”, and therefore, we who are heirs of the Protestant Reformation have no right to tell them how those Scriptures are to be interpreted. While I totally reject that claim as being utterly false and historically inaccurate, even if one were to concede that Rome “gave us” the Scriptures, even this would not prove that Rome has not twisted and abandoned much vital truth that God breathed into its pages.

In the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapter 3 verses 1 and 2, he informs us that the Jews were entrusted with the very Oracles of God. Does that truth, therefore, draw any Christian to the conclusion that the Jewish leaders of Paul’s day or today have exclusive rights to interpret the Hebrew Scriptures? Did not most of Israel’s leaders condemn Jesus Christ as a false messiah and cry out for His death? Do not even Roman Catholics agree that those very Jews entrusted with the Oracles of God developed unbiblical, rabbinical traditions that often trumped Biblical commands and precepts?

And isn’t it interesting that even though the Apostle Paul clearly reminds us that the Jews were entrusted with the Oracles of God, nowhere in their recorded history did they ever view the Apocryphal or Deuterocanonical Books as a part of their Canon?

Even though their beloved celebration of Chanukah is derived from those books, and the 9-branched Chanukah Menorah has become a chief symbol for the religion of the Jews, they still have never elevated those books to Canonical status. It is fascinating to know that even Jerome, from whom the Church of Rome received the Latin Vulgate, personally opposed the inclusion of those books into the Old Testament Canon, and only relunctantly included them after receiving strict orders to do so from his pope. Rome’s apologists better start developing compelling arguments for the case they are trying to make if they desire to be taken seriously.

And in conclusion, how ironic is it that a church that claims it GAVE us the Scriptures prevented common people from possessing those Scriptures themselves for centuries, and that it took the courage of brave men to wrench those Scriptures out from Rome’s tight clutches, under the threat of a gruesomely tortuous death, to truly GIVE those Scriptures to those outside Rome’s clergy, translated into languages that could finally be read by multitudes in their own native tongue.

Why I am not a Roman Catholic

Article by Michael Horton, the J. Gresham Machen professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido, California), host of the White Horse Inn, national radio broadcast, and editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine. He is the author of many books, including The Gospel-Driven Life, Christless Christianity, The Christian Faith, Calvin on the Christian Life, and Core Christianity: Finding Yourself in God’s Story. (original source here)

John Calvin felt the sting of the Devil’s taunt to Luther, “Are you alone wise among men?” We are certain of the gospel because it is so clearly revealed in Scripture—in contrast with the teachers of Rome.

I do not dream, however, of a clarity of faith which never errs in discriminating between truth and falsehood, is never deceived, nor do I figure to myself an arrogance which looks down as from a height on the whole human race, waits for no man’s judgment, and makes no distinction between learned and unlearned.

Indeed, it is better to suspend judgment than to rashly criticize and raise dissent. “I only contend that . . . the truth of the word of God is so clear and certain that it cannot be overthrown by either men or angels.” [1]

The Reformed have no controversy at all with the true Catholic church, Calvin contends. [2] “You know, Sadoleto,” he daringly presses, “that our agreement with antiquity is far closer than yours” and that we are only trying to “renew that ancient form of the church” that has been “distorted by illiterate men” and “was afterwards flagitiously mangled and almost destroyed by the Roman Pontiff and his faction.” [3]

Every aspect of the church’s ministry—its doctrine, the sacraments, ceremonies, and discipline—had been profaned by Rome. “Will you obtrude upon me, for the Church, a body which furiously persecutes everything sanctioned by our religion, both as delivered by the oracles of God and embodied in the writings of the Holy Fathers, and approved by ancient Councils?” [4]

Even Calvin’s humanist sympathies were tested by the evangelical emphasis. In many ways, the Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus (1466–1536) was a founding father of both the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. However, behind Erasmus stands the broader influence of the Brethren of the Common Life, also known as the devotio moderna (modern devotion). This is especially worth mentioning because I think contemporary evangelical spirituality bears more in common with this movement than with the Reformation.
Founded in the fourteenth century by Gerard Groote, the Brethren represent a mystical-pietist reform effort. Among their distinguished alumni were cardinals and a pope, as well as Erasmus, Luther, Bullinger, Anabaptist leaders like Balthasar Hubmaier and Hans Denck, and the founder of the Jesuits, Ignatius of Loyola. Everything turned on “the imitation of Christ,” which was the title of the devotional bestseller written by Brethren member Thomas à Kempis.

However, what set the Reformers apart was that they challenged the doctrine of the medieval church. For the most part, the Brethren were not interested in church doctrine and ritual, and they were generally inclined toward more optimistic views of free will and justification as inner transformation.

As he approached the fork in the road, Calvin declared, “I am a pupil of Luther’s.” Addressing Emperor Charles V, he said, “God roused Luther and the others, who carried the torch ahead, in order to recover the way of salvation; and by whose service our churches were founded and established.” [5]

Also like Luther, Calvin thought of justification not as merely one doctrine among many, but as the heart of the dispute with Rome. Of this doctrine he said,

“This is the main hinge on which religion turns . . . . For unless you first of all grasp what your relationship to God is, and the nature of his judgment concerning you, you have neither a foundation on which to establish your salvation nor one on which to build piety toward God.” [6]

All of the other abuses—pilgrimages, merits, satisfactions, penances, purgatory, tyranny, superstitions, and idolatry—flow from this fatal fountain of denying justification.

Notes
Calvin, “Reply by John Calvin to Cardinal Sadoleto’s Letter,” in Selected Works of John Calvin, 1:54.
2. 1:37.
3. 1:37.
4. 1:38–39.
5. Calvin, “The Necessity of Reforming the Church,” in Selected Works of John Calvin, 1:125.
6. Calvin, Institutes 3.11.1.

Is Justification Forensic?

Article by Turretinfan: Is Justification Forensic?

Some opponents of reformation theology attempt to deny that the term justification can be used in the context of declaration of righteousness, as opposed to infusion of righteousness. For those folks, the passages that contrast justification with condemnation should help. Surely none of these people will think that condemnation is the infusion of unrighteousness. Rather, they will recognize that condemnation is a judicial declaration of unrighteousness.

By contrast, therefore, it can be seen that justification is a declaration of righteousness. We see this several times in Scripture, both in the English of the KJV, as well as in the Clementine Latin Vulgate, so our Roman Catholic opponents have no room to complain:

1 Kings 8:32
(KJV) Then hear thou in heaven, and do, and judge thy servants, condemning the wicked, to bring his way upon his head; and justifying the righteous, to give him according to his righteousness.
(CLV) tu exaudies in cælo : et facies, et judicabis servos tuos, condemnans impium, et reddens viam suam super caput ejus, justificansque justum, et retribuens ei secundum justitiam suam.
(LXX) καὶ σὺ εἰσακούσει ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ποιήσεις καὶ κρινεῖς τὸν λαόν σου Ισραηλ ἀνομηθῆναι ἄνομον δοῦναι τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ εἰς κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ δικαιῶσαι δίκαιον δοῦναι αὐτῷ κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ.

Job 9:20
(KJV) If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.
(CLV) Si justificare me voluero, os meum condemnabit me ; si innocentem ostendero, pravum me comprobabit.
(LXX) ἐὰν γὰρ ὦ δίκαιος, τὸ στόμα μου ἀσεβήσει· ἐάν τε ὦ ἄμεμπτος, σκολιὸς ἀποβήσομαι.

Proverbs 17:15
(KJV) He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.
(CLV) Qui justificat impium, et qui condemnat justum, abominabilis est uterque apud Deum.
(LXX) ὃς δίκαιον κρίνει τὸν ἄδικον, ἄδικον δὲ τὸν δίκαιον, ἀκάθαρτος καὶ βδελυκτὸς παρὰ θεῷ.

Matthew 12:37
(KJV) For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
(CLV) Ex verbis enim tuis justificaberis et ex verbis tuis condemnaberis.
(NA28) ἐκ γὰρ τῶν λόγων σου δικαιωθήσῃ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν λόγων σου καταδικασθήσῃ.

Romans 5:16
(KJV) And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
(CLV) Et non sicut per unum peccatum, ita et donum. Nam judicium quidem ex uno in condemnationem : gratia autem ex multis delictis in justificationem.
(NA28) καὶ οὐχ ὡς δι’ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος τὸ δώρημα· τὸ μὲν γὰρ κρίμα ἐξ ἑνὸς εἰς κατάκριμα, τὸ δὲ χάρισμα ἐκ πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων εἰς δικαίωμα.

Romans 5:18
(KJV) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
(CLV) Igitur sicut per unius delictum in omnes homines in condemnationem : sic et per unius justitiam in omnes homines in justificationem vitæ.
(NA28) Ἄρα οὖν ὡς δι’ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα, οὕτως καὶ δι’ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς·