December 5, 2025
It is essential to consider both verses 16 and 17 of Galatians chapter 2 in understanding the purpose of this article. We will consider what Paul meant by justification, faith, and works of the law. Most importantly, we will address the implications for evangelical Christian theology today. Have we turned Christ into a minister of sin?
16. “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
17. “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.” Galatians 2:16-17, KJV, emphasis added.
Let us consider verse 17 first. Paul is defending justification by faith against Judaizing critics who insisted on returning to the Mosaic law; the verse is a rhetorical objection. Paul answers to show that Christ’s teaching does not promote sin or lawlessness by not requiring that Gentiles live by the ceremonial Mosaic laws, including circumcision. But does Evangelical Christian theology today actually contradict what Paul was declaring? Have we, as evangelicals, made Christ a minister of sin? Let us consider various interpretations.
1. Early Church Fathers and their interpretation:
St. John Chrysostom (4th century)
Chrysostom, in his *Homily on Galatians*, directly addresses Paul’s rhetorical question:
“For if, when believing in Christ, and seeking justification through Him, we are still found sinners, it would follow that Christ is the minister of sin, which it is impious to even utter; hence he adds, ‘God forbid.’”
But isn’t this precisely what contemporary evangelicals teach? Big Eva almost entirely teaches that Christians live in constant sin (we are still found sinners) and are still saved and justified on our way to heaven. If that is true (that we Christians are still found sinners), then isn’t Christ a minister of sin? Christ, according to their false teaching, saves us in our sins, not from them, in direct opposition to many passages, such as Matthew 1:21 and this one in Galatians.
St. Augustine of Hippo (4th–5th century)
Augustine, in *On the Spirit and the Letter*, writes:
“The Apostle rejects with detestation the thought that Christ should be supposed a minister of sin; for He it is that justifies the ungodly, not that they may remain in their sins, but that they may be made new creatures.”
This may be one of the few times I actually agree with Augustine. Will wonders never cease! Augustine declares, “not that they may remain in their sins, but that they may be made new creatures.”
“To say that the grace of Christ encourages sin is to contradict the Apostle, who cries, ‘God forbid,’ and teaches that by grace the Law is fulfilled in those who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.”
Another spot-on comment from Augustine. He correctly states “that by grace the law is fulfilled in those who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit”. I agree with him completely. How about you?
This early version of Augustine got it right. However, in his controversy with Pelagius and his return to his pagan upbringing, Augustine changed dramatically. He went from believing that we are all born with free will to believing that we are born with a totally depraved will (a non-free, free will). More on this as we proceed.
Have you ever noticed that those who quote Augustine seem to use his quotes subjectively? Many dismiss his early statements in favor of his later position. Some people change their minds for the better, and others for the worse. Augustine changed for the worse, much worse.
I will now demonstrate that, later in his life, Augustine contradicted his earlier Christian beliefs and taught the exact opposite of what the above quotes state. And it can’t be denied that Augustine’s followers (Calvinists) taught and believed (and still believe today) that all Christians sin in thought, word, and deed every day. Even so, they are going to heaven. If that doesn’t make Christ a minister of sin, then what does?
- In his commentary on Galatians 2:17, Augustine insists Christ is not a minister of sin, because justification delivers the believer from sin rather than leaving them in it.
- Yet in other places, especially in his later anti-Pelagian writings, Augustine teaches something that sounds like believers continue to sin every day, even the most righteous. And this is precisely what five-point Calvinists believe today, as do many other Christians.
A recap
- Augustine’s quote on Galatians 2:17 (affirming justification means NOT remaining in sin or the forsaking of sin.)
- Augustine’s earlier view before the Pelagian controversy
- Augustine’s later view (daily sin, concupiscence as sin, etc.)
- A few documented quotations from Augustine showing both sides
Augustine on Galatians 2:17
“The Apostle rejects the thought that Christ would be a minister of sin, for in that He justifies the ungodly, it is not that they should remain in their sins, but that they should be freed from them.”
This represents what many scholars call Augustine’s “earlier” moral-transformational reading of justification. This was his view before 412 AD and before the Pelagian controversy. Augustine taught that a baptized Christian is truly freed from sin.
- Sin no longer has dominion.
- Christians can live without sin for periods, by grace, and should strive for it. Sin is the exception and not the rule.
- He often speaks of believers “walking in newness of life” with fundamental moral transformation.
Example quotations:
Augustine, Homilies on 1 John 1.6 (early period)
“When the Apostle says ‘He who is born of God does not sin,’ he speaks of one who does not persist in sin… such a one lives righteously by the grace of God.”
Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter (early on)
“Grace is given that the law may be fulfilled, not violated.
Grace does not merely forgive sins, but makes us keepers of the law.”
Both of these additional quotes are great, and I agree with Augustine in both cases. Too bad almost no Christian today believes either quote.
Augustine, On Continence (early on)
“By God’s grace, we are empowered to overcome sin and live chastely.”
Another great quote by Augustine.
These quotes align with the pre-Augustinian church Fathers and with the interpretation that Christ frees us from sin’s power, not merely declares us righteous in a legal sense.
Augustine’s Later View (after ca. 412, the anti-Pelagian shift)
During the Pelagian controversy (after 412), Augustine’s thoughts changed dramatically. He now teaches:
- All Christians, even the best, sin daily,
- and every movement of concupiscence (see below for a definition of this word) is itself sin.
- Man has a non-free, free will.
- No one is without sin until glorification.
- Believers remain in a state of continual moral failure.
This is the older Augustine, whose ideas later influenced Calvin, Luther, and the Reformers. Calvinists love the following quotes.
Quotations showing this shift:
Augustine, Against Julian 6.22.“The saints in this life are not without sin, for daily they say, ‘Forgive us our trespasses.’”
Augustine, Retractations 1.19. “I once thought a man could live without sin, but I learned later that this is true only of Christ.”
Augustine, On Nature and Grace 71. “Even the regenerate… have sin in every good work, for there remains concupiscence which itself is sin.”
Augustine, Enchiridion 64. “No man living is without sin, however holy his life may seem.”
All of the quotes contradict what Augustine once believed. Was it a change for the better or the worse? None of the earlier church fathers believed what he started to peddle. I unquestionably do not believe it. It makes no sense, is unreasonable, and most assuredly unbiblical.
Augustine’s doctrine of concupiscence is one of the central pillars of his later theology. And it is also the central point at which he diverges from the earlier Greek-speaking Fathers and from his earlier writings.
Below is a clear explanation of what Augustine meant, how his view developed, and why it matters for justification, sin, and Christian life.
What Augustine Meant by “Concupiscence.”
Augustine used the Latin word concupiscentia to describe the inherited disordered desire that remains in every human being after the Fall of Adam (Original Sin and its consequences).
Key ideas in Augustine’s mature view (mature meaning later in his life, not necessarily his wisest and most godly opinion):
- It is not just a strong desire. Concupiscence is not merely physical temptation or lust; it is a fault or disease in human nature. Today, we refer to it as Original Sin and the inheritance of a sinful nature. We are born sinners who can do nothing good. This is the T in T.U.L.I.P.
- It is the result of Adam’s sin. Because of Adam’s fall, Augustine taught that all humans inherit a corrupt nature that is:
- disordered
- weakened
- inclined toward sin. But it is more than being slightly inclined. It is totally depraved and totally unable to do anything good.
- It remains in the baptized Christian. Even after baptism, concupiscence stays in the believer. Baptism removes guilt, but concupiscence remains a wound that causes ongoing sin. Calvinists and other Christians today believe exactly this or something very close to it.
- It causes Christians to sin daily. This is why Augustine later taught Christians inevitably: “sin at least daily” (Enchiridion 64)
- It is transmitted through sexual reproduction. This controversial claim is one of the sharpest differences between Augustine and the Eastern Fathers. Augustine believed:
- concupiscence passes from parents to children
- Therefore, even infants inherit guilt and corruption. (The Eastern Christian church rejected this strongly.)
Augustine’s Earlier View vs. Later View
Early Augustine (before ~396):
- Believed in true freedom of the will
- Emphasized human responsibility
- Thought Christians could genuinely avoid sin through grace
- Did not yet teach inherited guilt
Later Augustine (after ~412):
- Will is enslaved to sin unless liberated by special grace
- Christians still sin daily because concupiscence remains
- Baptism removes guilt but not concupiscence
- Justification is forgiveness plus gradual healing, not complete renewal in this life
- Develops near-Calvinist ideas about predestination
This shift is precisely what scholars like Dr. Ali Bonner and Dr. Kenneth M. Wilson document in detail.
What Makes Augustine’s View Unique?
Compared to the earlier Fathers (and to the Eastern Orthodox Church), Augustine’s doctrine goes much further:
A. Augustine teaches that concupiscence is itself sinful, even without acting on it. That makes natural desires sinful, which is absurd, like most of Augustine’s later doctrines. It makes temptation sinful because we are tempted by our desires to violate the law of God to gratify our desires and lusts. This is why even unwanted, resisted desires count as “sin” in Augustine’s later theology.
B. Eastern Fathers teach the opposite
They see concupiscence as:
- a weakness
- a tendency
- a result of mortality
…but not sin itself.
C. Augustine ties concupiscence to justification.
Because it remains in believers, he concludes:
- Christians must sin daily
- Justification is not complete in this life
- The Christian is always partly disordered internally
This leads him to reject the idea that a Christian could ever reach a condition of not sinning. In other words, Christians sin in thought, word, and deed every single day. And this is precisely what the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches, and many evangelical Christians believe.
Why This Matters for Galatians 2:16-17
You have noticed the tension in Augustine’s statement, “Christ does not make men remain in sin.” Yet Augustine also teaches:
- believers sin daily
- concupiscence cannot be removed
- Christians cannot stop sinning
This creates a theological tension, and I believe that it makes Christ a minister of sin. Christ saves us “in” our unrepentant ongoing sin and not from the commission of sin.
The early Augustine and the early Fathers
→ Christ enables people to stop sinning
→ Baptism cleanses and empowers
→ Grace restores moral freedom and teaches us to stop sinning
The late Augustine
→ Christ forgives, but believers still sin daily
→ Concupiscence remains until death
→ Transformation is real but always incomplete (Christians may sin a bit less but never put it out of our lives until we die, and then God does it for us.)
When Augustine interprets Galatians 2:17 to mean that Christ does not encourage sin, that is consistent with his early view—but his later anthropology (the inevitability of sin) complicates and directly contradicts that interpretation. It is also directly opposed to what the earlier Fathers believed and what the Eastern Christian Church believed.
This creates a real tension. It is precisely the tension that:
- Dr. Ali Bonner identifies that when arguing, Augustine constructed a new theology of inherited guilt and inevitable sin.
- Dr. Kenneth Wilson highlights that when he says Augustine shifted from traditional free-will theology to one where believers cannot avoid sin.
We now turn to consider other Christian interpretations:
2) Contemporary Calvinist interpretation
Contemporary Reformed/Calvinist readings treat the verse as Paul answering the charge that justification by Christ alone would undermine morality. Calvinists stress that justification is by imputed righteousness and that the gospel does not promote sin. Christ and his gospel secure true obedience and holiness. Many Reformed commentators note Paul’s rhetorical force: to claim Christ is a ‘minister of sin’ is blasphemous and absurd; the real danger is returning to the law, which would expose human transgression. This is how ChatGPT responded.
Reformed interpreters maintain that Paul is answering the charge that justification by faith alone leads to moral license. Calvin writes: “Paul repels the blasphemy that Christ is the minister of sin; for the doctrine of free justification does not loosen the reins to sin, but rather binds us to new obedience.”
Modern Calvinist commentators emphasize that imputed righteousness inevitably leads to sanctification; therefore, accusing Christ of promoting sin misunderstands both justification and the renewing work of the Holy Spirit.
That all sounds somewhat reasonable, but it is not what many Calvinists actually teach. See my article on my website, seekgodintruth.com, Understanding Calvinism-WCF. That article is focused on the Westminster Confession of Faith. In that confession, Calvinism states that born-again Christians sin in thought, word, and deed every day. If that is not making Christ a minister of sin, then what is? Supposedly, the Reformed tradition doctrine “does not promote sin; Christ and his gospel secure true obedience and holiness.” If they actually believed that, which they do not, then their Confession of Faith is false. Which is it?
The key emphasis for the Calvinist is that justification by faith results in sanctification. But what does that really mean? If Christians never stop sinning daily according to Augustinian Calvinism, then what kind of sanctification are we talking about? Calvinism claims that grace does not nullify moral responsibility. But in their system, it actually does for election secures salvation despite the truth that Christians never stop sinning. And in five-point Calvinism, God decrees every act, both good and evil. How does that not nullify moral responsibility? The sophistry of Calvinism works on many but not all Christians.
Sources: John Calvin commentary on Galatians; Reformed commentaries (e.g., Hodge/Ligonier material).
3) Arminian / Wesleyan interpretation
Wesleyan-Arminian interpreters (following John Wesley and the Arminian tradition) also reject the suggestion that Christ promotes sin. They affirm justification by faith while stressing that justifying faith is accompanied by an imparted, progressive righteousness (holiness) by God’s prevenient and sanctifying grace. Thus, Galatians 2:17 is read as Paul denying that faith in Christ removes the obligation to live righteously; Christ’s grace transforms and enables the believer to resist sin, according to ChatGPT.
Again, that all sounds reasonable except for the fact that they believe that practical righteousness is progressive, which itself makes Christ a minister of sin. They actually believe that Christ cleans us up, but that clean up takes a lifetime, and is never fully accomplished until we die. This position is not much better than Calvinism, but it is better, just not the truth according to the Bible.
The key emphasis is that faith produces both imputed and imparted righteousness; grace is enabling (prevenient) and resists licentious interpretations, according to ChatGPT. I do not believe this is accurate. Their interpretation is also licentious, just like the Reformed tradition. What is progressive sanctification but giving up sin slowly over time? That is not what the Bible teaches. And while believers reluctantly give up their sins over the course of their lives, but never fully, they are still saved, just as in Calvinism.
Sources: John Wesley’s notes on Galatians; Wesleyan/Arminian theology summaries.
4) Broad Evangelical interpretation
Many contemporary evangelical commentators treat the verse similarly to the Reformed tradition: Paul answers an objection that the doctrine of justification by faith makes Christ a promoter of sin. Evangelical writers typically stress pastoral application—Christ’s justification is meant to produce gratitude, ethical transformation, and a life united to Christ (‘crucified with Christ’), according to ChatGPT.
Evangelical interpreters largely follow the Reformational reading: the gospel does not encourage sin but destroys its power. Common evangelical commentary themes include:
• justification produces gratitude and obedience, not lawlessness;
• union with Christ (‘I am crucified with Christ’) means death to sin and new life;
• misunderstanding grace as license is precisely what Paul corrects by saying, ‘God forbid.’
But like both Reformed and Arminian theology, they teach imputed righteousness and gradual sanctification that is never complete, where sin reigns in the life of the believer for the rest of their lives. And like the Reformed, sinning Christians are eternally secure. Eternal Security/perseverance is a doctrine that does, in fact, make Christ a minister of sin.
And their idea that justification is a verdict of not guilty also serves as an incentive to sin freely, because, once not guilty, always not guilty is what they believe. That doctrine also makes Christ a minister of sin. Is there any other way to look at this honestly?
The key emphasis is that the gospel calls Christians to holiness, not to license; union with Christ issues in spiritual renewal and practical obedience. But the call to holiness is partial, as is obedience. Almost no evangelical believes that Christians must stop all sinning in this life. They are taught that it is impossible and is the fanaticism of a heretic. Therefore, they too make Christ a minister of sin.
Sources: Evangelical commentaries (e.g., The Gospel Coalition, Enduring Word, Bible Study Tools).
5) Eastern Orthodox interpretation
Eastern Orthodox readings (exemplified by St. John Chrysostom and contemporary Orthodox commentators) understand Galatians 2:17 in the context of Paul’s opposition to Judaizers. They read Paul’s denial as rejecting the claim that turning from the Law to Christ means moral slackness; instead, Paul stresses union with Christ (“I am crucified with Christ”) and theosis—participation in Christ—as the ground for true life and transformation, according to ChatGPT.
Eastern Orthodox teaching emphasizes union with Christ (theosis). As Chrysostom and others taught, the issue is not whether Christ promotes sin—He frees from it. Modern Orthodox explanations note:
“Christ does not make men sinners; He heals them. To accuse Him as minister of sin is to misunderstand salvation as merely legal. Salvation is participation in His life, and His life makes men righteous.”
Orthodox theology, therefore, stresses that Paul is condemning the idea that leaving the Mosaic Law leads to moral corruption; instead, entrance into life in Christ produces transformation.
This is much closer to what the Bible teaches. The key emphasis is that salvation is relational and transformational (union/theosis), and the gospel does not make Christ a minister of sin; rather, it frees and sanctifies. Christians are made holy and righteous.
Sources: St. John Chrysostom, Orthodox Church in America explanatory material; Ancient Faith and Orthodox commentaries.
Summary
Across traditions, the standard reply to the objection in Galatians 2:17 is emphatic: ‘God forbid’ — the idea that Christ, through His teachings, promotes sin is rejected. But the truth is that they do make Christ the minister of sin even as they say they reject that idea. Almost all Christian traditions teach that genuine Christians can live in unrepentant sin more or less all their lives and still go to heaven.
Selected web sources consulted (for further reading)
Galatians 2:17 — King James Version (BibleGateway).
Homily on Galatians — St. John Chrysostom (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers / New Advent).
Calvin commentary on Galatians — CCEL/Calvin’s commentaries.
John Wesley’s notes on Galatians — BibleHub / Wesley.
Evangelical commentaries — The Gospel Coalition, Enduring Word, Bible Study Tools.
We will now consider the meaning of justification.
Justification
Many Christians have been taught that justification is the verdict of not guilty. Still others believe that justification is the pardon of the guilty. Which is it? And why is this important? I wrote an entire chapter on this subject in my book, When Lies Become Truth, Guilty or Not Guilty. It can be found on my website, seekgodintruth.com.
1. ‘Not Guilty’ Verdict vs. ‘Pardoned Guilty’ – The Two Forensic Models
A. The ‘Not Guilty’ Verdict (Calvinist/Reformed Model)
• Justification is God’s legal verdict that the believer is “not guilty” because Christ’s righteousness and obedience are imputed to them. After all, God requires absolute perfection, and only God is perfect; consequently, God credits the elect (and only the elect) with His perfection.
• The believer is treated as if they had perfectly obeyed the law, because Christ’s obedience is counted as theirs.
• This does not mean the believer has no sin, only that the legal verdict removes all guilt judicially and implies that even future sins are already forgiven and we are declared not guilty.
It also implies that believers are eternally secure even if they do not repent of their sins. Christ takes the believer’s guilt; the believer receives Christ’s righteousness. The PSA model of the atonement reflects their theology well, but it reflects the Word of God very poorly.
B. The ‘Pardoned of the Guilty’ Declaration (Patristic/Eastern/Arminian Model)
• God declares the believer “forgiven,” meaning the person was indeed guilty, but is released from penalty based on meeting the conditions of mercy.
• This model emphasizes mercy rather than a legal verdict: God cancels the debt, grants pardon, and begins healing if the conditions are met.
• The believer is truly made righteous over time through cooperation with God’s grace.
• The Fathers frequently emphasize justification as both “pardon” and “transformation”, not as a strict legal acquittal or declaration of not guilty.
The divide is not whether God forgives sins; everyone agrees He does. The divide is whether justification means “you were guilty, but God pardons you and begins healing” (Fathers/Eastern/Arminian) or “God legally declares you not guilty because Christ’s righteousness replaces your sin and guilt” (Reformed). Another issue with their understanding is that the believer becomes righteous “over time”. That implies that believers stop sinning slowly over the course of their lives, but never entirely stop sinning until they die and go to heaven. Doesn’t this idea make Christ a minister of sin just like the Reformed concept?
2. Expanded Patristic Witness on Justification (Pre-Augustine)
- Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.18.7):
“He took our sins upon Himself, and gave His own righteousness to us, in order that we, having received grace, might be justified by Him.” - Irenaeus (Against Heresies 5.17.3):
“It is the Lord who grants forgiveness of sins, and who heals the inner man, restoring him to friendship with God.” - Origen (Commentary on Romans 3.9.1):
“Justification is the making righteous of one who, from unrighteous, becomes righteous. God justifies the sinner by healing the soul, not merely by a sentence.” - Origen (Homilies on Luke 17):
“When God justifies, He changes the sinner into a just man, removing sin and filling him with the Spirit.” - Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus 1.6):
“Christ our Instructor justifies by forgiving past sins and teaching virtue, that we may be righteous in deed as well as name.” - Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 7.10):
“The justified man is he who has been forgiven and instructed, restored by the grace of the Lord.” - John Chrysostom (Homilies on Galatians, 2):
“To be justified is not only to be freed from punishment, but to receive the Spirit and become a friend of God.” - John Chrysostom (Homilies on Romans 7):
“God does not merely declare righteous but makes righteous, for the power of Christ works in us.” - Cyprian of Carthage (Epistle 1.3):
“By the mercy of God, sins are washed away, righteousness is renewed, and the believer is restored to the hope of life.” - Athanasius (On the Incarnation 9):
“He became man that we might become righteous, freeing us from condemnation and renewing our nature through grace.” - Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit 15):
“The Spirit justifies by cleansing and illuminating the soul, for justification is the removal of sin and the restoration of holiness.” - The Biblical truth of a number of these quotes is evident to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
3. Augustine’s Understanding of Justification
Augustine, in his early life, affirms many patristic themes, especially transformation, but in his later life, he changed his views, and he adds key emphases that shape Western theology:
• Absolute dependence on grace due to human bondage to sin. (Irresistible Grace)
• Justification includes forgiveness and inner renewal, but begins with God’s sovereign pardon.
• Grace precedes any movement of the will (anti-Pelagian).
• Righteousness is infused by God, not merely declared.
4. Tradition-by-Tradition Interpretation of Galatians 2:16–17
Eastern Orthodox
Justification = forgiveness + healing + participation in the divine life. It is not a legal verdict of not guilty for past and future sins, but the beginning of theosis.
Calvinist/Reformed
Justification = legal verdict of ‘not guilty,’ based solely on Christ’s imputed righteousness. This verdict applies to past and future sins not yet committed.
Arminian/Wesleyan
Justification = pardon of sins + new birth. God forgives the guilty and begins to transform them. Righteousness is not imputed in the strong Reformed sense.
Evangelicals (General)
Evangelicals variously adopt either the Reformed forensic model or the Wesleyan pardon-and-renewal model. A few reject both the Reformed and Arminian views and adopt a view closer to that of the Eastern Orthodox.
5. Conclusion: Galatians 2:16–17 in Historical Perspective
The early Fathers consistently held a ‘pardon + transformation’ model. Augustine placed strong emphasis on the priority of grace, specifically irresistible grace. The Reformers shifted to a courtroom model centered on imputed righteousness. The East retained the medicinal model of healing and union with God. Understanding these strands clarifies how different Christian traditions interpret Paul’s teaching that justification is by the faith of Jesus Christ and not by the works of the Law.
Galatians 2:16–17 – Expanded Analysis with Bonner & Wilson
Integrated summary with Ali Bonner and Kenneth M. Wilson’s perspectives.
1. Gal 2:16–17 Summary
Paul denies justification by works; emphasizes faith in Christ and rejects the idea that Christ promotes sin.
2. Patristic + Modern Scholarship (Bonner)
Ali Bonner argues that ‘Pelagianism’ was essentially a construct shaped by Augustine’s polemics. She maintains that earlier Christian tradition emphasized moral freedom, human responsibility, and cooperative grace rather than inherited guilt.
3. Kenneth M. Wilson on Augustine
Kenneth Wilson argues that Augustine shifted from traditional early Christian free will toward a doctrine of ‘non-free free will.’ Augustine increasingly taught that humanity is bound unless grace liberates. Wilson states that Augustine’s later theology differs from that of the earlier Fathers. The earlier quotes verify this assertion.
4. Short Public Quotes
Bonner: ‘Pelagianism as commonly conceived is largely a later construct.’
Wilson: ‘Augustine shifted markedly from the free-choice tradition.’
5. Integrated Interpretation
Galatians 2:16–17 aligns more naturally with earlier cooperative models: justification as pardon plus transformation. Reformed tradition emphasizes a ‘not-guilty verdict.’ Patristic and Eastern traditions emphasize ‘guilty but pardoned and healed.’
I’ve aimed for clarity about the three primary loci of debate in the 16th verse: (1) what Paul means by “works of the law,” (2) what he means by “justified,” and (3) the relation between faith and works. The appendix gives more detail, if you are interested.
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Galatians 2:16, KJV.
Summary of the 16th verse
Paul insists that being “right with God” (justified) is not achieved by “works of the law” (i.e., relying on intermittent observance of the Mosaic law as the ground of saving status) but by faith in Jesus Christ. The verse opposes reliance on law-observance as a means of earning or establishing salvation because the Jews did not observe the law. Paul affirms that faith in Christ is the means by which God justifies sinners. But why? Sinners, those who break the law, can’t look to the law to justify or excuse their lawbreaking. The function of the law is to condemn lawbreaking and lawbreakers. Only the mercy of God can help sinners because the law rightfully condemns lawbreakers.
Never forget that those who keep the law have nothing to worry about, for the law doesn’t condemn those who observe the law, only lawbreakers. As scripture says, the law is not a threat to the lawful.
But what kind of faith is Paul talking about? Is it the faithless kind typically taught by today’s evangelicals? Or is it a faith that works by love? Is the faith that saves, the faith that yields good works, and that obeys the laws of God? Is it the kind of faith that turns lawbreakers into lawkeepers?
If these passages are interpreted to mean that Christians are not required to obey the moral laws of God, then that interpretation is false. And with all false interpretations of these and other similar passages, Christ is made a minister of sin, whether or not they intend that. With these false ideas, Christ justifies and saves even those Christians who refuse to stop their rebellion against God and walk in holiness and righteousness. That is the very definition of Christ being made a minister of sin.
We know from Matthew 1:21 that Christ came to earth to save us from, not in, our sins. Any doctrine that saves us in our sins makes Christ and His mission/purpose a ministry of sin. How can it be understood in any other way?
Imputed righteousness, imputed obedience, total depravity, total inability, irresistible grace, unconditional election, perseverance or eternal security, and limited atonement all make Christ a minister of sin. And Christ is not a minister of sin but the death of sin. Christ never stated or suggested that sin should be given up slowly over time. Christ consistently stipulated that sin must stop now, not someday in the future when people feel like giving it up. To the women caught in the very act of adultery, He said, Go and sin no more. That is what He is saying to us right now, Go and sin no more. Anything less than that would make Him a minister of sin.
Appendix
1. Early Church Fathers (before Augustine) general pattern and emphases. ChatGPT comments with my edits.
Overall orientation applicable to the Church Fathers. The Fathers (1st–4th centuries) did not speak in exactly the later, polished categories of “forensic imputation” vs. “participation.” Their typical emphases: union with Christ, repentance, sacramental life, and the transforming goal of salvation. They frequently opposed attempts to rely upon Mosaic observance (or any external ritualism) as the ground of salvation (for sinners), and they insisted that faith united to Christ and God’s mercy are decisive. They did not believe the kind of faith that remains disobedient to God is a saving faith.
On “works of the law.” Many patristic writers understood Paul as attacking a confidence in external observances or in any human attempt to earn God’s favor by law-keeping. They contrasted Christ’s work (atonement, resurrection, new life) with a merely external, formal obedience that leaves the heart unchanged. Once the law has been violated, salvation is by definition a work of grace.
On “justified.” The Fathers tended to combine forensic and participatory language. They affirmed forgiveness (a juridical element) but emphasized healing, renewal, and participation in Christ (later labeled by Eastern writers as theosis). For them, justification often implied both pardon and fundamental transformation. Pardon is not the same as a verdict of not guilty, as many evangelicals today teach.
On faith and works. The Fathers rarely set faith and works in strict opposition to one another. That means that they, for the most part, understood that faith and works go together. There is no saving faith without good works. Faith without works is dead. Saving faith was the living principle that, when genuine, produced repentance and holy living. Many Fathers would say that faith without visible change was suspect, while also insisting that the salvation of sinners is ultimately God’s gift rather than human merit. But they also understood that to receive the mercy of God, the conditions of confession and forsaking of sin must be present.
2. Augustine (354–430). key emphases
Augustine, later in his life, systematized doctrines of sin, grace, and salvation that heavily shaped later Western theology, especially Reformed/Calvinism. And not every Christian believes this change was for the better. The following was written based on his late teachings not his earlier beliefs.
On human inability & grace. Augustine taught that the fall seriously damaged human volition (original sin) so that humans cannot achieve salvation without God’s initiating, enabling grace. He emphasized the necessity of divine grace for faith itself. This is total depravity and total inability, the T in TULIP and Irresistible Grace, the I in TULIP.
On “works of the law.” Augustine reads Paul as denying any human ability to secure justification by one’s own works or by law-observance. This includes moral works if they are understood as meriting initial standing before God.
On “justified.” Augustine held a robust understanding of justification as a work of God, involving forgiveness, incorporation into Christ, and an inner renewal effected by grace. Yet, Christians were still in bondage to sinful living, which refutes the idea of inner renewal. In the later Western technical language, Augustine’s view provided foundations for a more forensic reading (God declares and effects righteousness), though he did not deny that regeneration and sanctification follow. But he actually rejected these things, even though He said both. How then does one explain that Augustine’s inner renewal comment and his belief that regeneration and sanctification follow the new birth? At the same time, he clearly taught that Christians sin in thought, word, and deed every day. That is the old man and not the new man. The old man was not renewed, regenerated, or sanctified.
On faith and works. For Augustine, faith itself is a gift of grace; good works flow from, and are sustained by, grace. Works do not ground justification; they are the fruit and evidence of God’s saving work. But that, too, contradicts Augustine’s belief that Christians sin daily in thought, word, and deed. Because Augustine was on both sides of the issue about sin in the life of a Christian, it is easy to be confused and to find support for both positions. But his later position is what he died believing and is what has polluted Christian theology ever since.
Net result applied to Galatians 2:16: Augustine would stress that Paul opposes any scheme that makes law-observance the ground of justification for sinners. Justification is grounded in God’s gracious action made available in Christ and appropriated by faith, a faith which itself is divinely given and decreed by God, who picks winners and losers.
3. Eastern Orthodox tradition
The Orthodox theological grammar emphasizes theosis (deification, participation in the divine life) and synergy (cooperation between God’s grace and human response). Orthodox theology resists reducing salvation to a single forensic transaction; it gives pride of place to healing, transformation, and union with Christ mediated by the Church’s sacraments and life.
On “works of the law.” The Orthodox read Paul as opposing reliance on external observance and on the law as a status marker (i.e., thinking that keeping Mosaic markers places one within God’s favor). They do not teach that moral obedience is unimportant; instead, they stress that obedience must flow from union with Christ. And if it doesn’t, then is it genuine faith? No.
On “justified.” “Justification” in Orthodox usage is usually described in non-purely-forensic terms: it includes being put right before God. Still, it is primarily seen as the beginning of fundamental inward transformation and participation in divine life. The juridical language is accepted to an extent, unlike in the West, but it is not the dominant conceptual frame.
On faith and works. Orthodox theology insists on the practical inseparability of faith and works. Faith is the living relationship with Christ that necessarily bears repentance from sin and works of charity and holiness. But Orthodox teachers also insist that the initial possibility of response is the result of God’s gracious character. God has always been disposed to exercise mercy if the conditions of repentance from sin and faith in Christ are met.
Net result applied to Galatians 2:16: The Orthodox read Paul as rejecting legal merit as in Calvinism, affirming faith in Christ as the means of entry into the life of salvation, while insisting that that faith expresses itself in a transformed life lived in the Church’s sacramental and ascetical context.
4. Calvinist / Reformed interpretation
Reformed theology is characterized by an emphasis on forensic imputation and monergistic salvation (God alone decrees both initial and final justification). Key slogans include sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), and emphasis on Christ’s active and passive obedience being counted to believers. In other words, Christ obeyed the law for us.
On “works of the law.” Reformed interpreters typically understand Paul as condemning any attempt by sinners to earn justification through human performance, whether ceremonial, ritual, or moral. “Works of the law” here contrasts with the imputed righteousness of Christ received by faith. Explain? This is their idea of imputed obedience and imputed righteousness. Christ is our substitute even when it comes to obedience because we are born sinners with a sinful nature that will be with us until we die.
On the word “justified.” Justification is primarily a declarative forensic act (we are declared not guilty, which is much different than sinners being declared pardoned despite their guilt) in the Reformed tradition: God counts the believer righteous because of Christ’s righteousness, and obedience is imputed to them through faith. This is not to deny that sanctification follows; rather, the ground of our right standing is Christ’s work, not our works. They believe that God is sovereign (exhaustive, meticulous, and effectual decrees) over whatsoever comes to pass. God chooses who will be saved and who will be lost.
On faith and works. Faith is the instrument by which the believer receives the imputed righteousness of Christ. Good works are its inevitable fruit and evidence (but a believer may have no good works or fruit and still be saved, because Christians sin in thought, word, and deed daily), but they do not contribute to the ground or merit of justification.
Net result applied to Galatians 2:16: Reformed readings of Paul treat the verse as a clear statement that “works of the law” cannot affect justification; only God’s counted righteousness through faith in Christ can. Reformed scholars emphasize imputation and the objective, once-for-all character of Christ’s righteousness as the basis for justification.
5. Arminian interpretation
Arminian theology emphasizes human responsibility and prevenient grace (grace that enables human response). It affirms justification by faith while insisting that human willing response plays a genuine role (enabled by grace given to everyone).
On “works of the law.” Arminians also understand Paul as rejecting attempts by sinners to earn salvation through law-keeping. Like other traditions, they oppose a works-merit understanding of justification.
On “justified.” Arminians generally affirm justification by faith and often accept forensic language, but they stress that faith itself is a human response empowered by prevenient grace. Many Arminians allow a close relation between initial justification and the ongoing life of obedience, though they stop short of making works the ground of justification.
On faith and works. Faith is the means of receiving justification; good works are the fruit of a living faith and necessary evidence of genuine belief. Arminians emphasize human cooperation (synergy) in salvation, but they do not deny that grace is foundational.
Net result applied to Galatians 2:16: Arminian readings will say Paul is opposing the idea that law-observance earns justification; justification is by faith, which itself is enabled by God’s grace, but that genuine faith will inevitably show itself in repentance and works. Yet they, too, believe that Christians continue to sin throughout their lives, more or less, until they die.
6. Other evangelical perspectives (overview of common positions)
There is diversity inside evangelicalism. Evangelicals today are not monolithic. Two important internal debates shape readings of Galatians 2:16:
- Forensic / imputation-oriented evangelicals often align with Reformed categories: emphasis on justification as a forensic decree, faith as an instrument, and works as evidence (not the ground).
- “Lordship” vs “Free Grace” debates, some conservative evangelicals insist that saving faith must include present surrender and obedience to Christ (the “Lordship” emphasis) and therefore see works/repentance tightly bound to saving faith; others (often labeled “Free Grace”) emphasize assent/trust in Christ as sufficient for justification, allowing a broader understanding of how much present evidence and obedience is required.
On “works of the law.” Most evangelicals (broadly) agree that Paul opposes reliance on law observance as the basis of salvation. Differences concern the extent to which subsequent obedience is visibly necessary to show saving faith.
On “justified.” Many evangelicals adopt the forensic language of the Reformation, but many also adopt a pastoral sensitivity to the necessity of transformed living. Thus, Galatians 2:16 is often used to underscore the grace of Christ alone for salvation while insisting that genuine trust will be accompanied by life change, including obedience.
Comparative, focused answers to the three core questions in the verse:
1) What are “works of the law”?
- Common emphases across traditions: The phrase often denotes reliance on law-observance as the ground or means of obtaining God’s favor. In context, this frequently includes Jewish identity markers (circumcision, dietary/ceremonial observances) and any attempt to earn covenant-status by one’s performance.
- Differences: Some read the phrase narrowly (ceremonial / covenant-identity markers); others read it more broadly to include any human attempt to merit justification (including moral works when conceived as meritorious).
2) What does “justified” mean here?
- Forensic (Reformed/most Protestant evangelicals): A legal declaration by God imputed to the believer because of Christ’s righteousness. Not guilty for past and future sins.
- Participatory (Eastern/Patristic tones): Being put right before God in a way that includes actual healing and union with Christ, forgiveness, plus transformation. Pardon of the guilty.
- Augustinian synthesis (Western patristic → medieval): Strong emphasis on divine act of making righteous (with forensic coloring), but always tied to a process of renewal by grace.
3) How do faith and works relate to justification?
- Shared convictions: All major traditions represented agree that human works do not earn justification for sinners, and that faith is central.
- Dividing emphases: The dispute is about whether faith is primarily an instrument by which forensic imputation happens (Reformed), or whether justification is best described in participatory/therapeutic terms (Orthodox), or whether faith is a grace-enabled human response that intrinsically entails a life of cooperative obedience (Arminian/synergistic perspectives). Evangelicals vary: most reject works-merit but argue over how strictly works must demonstrate saving faith.
Pastoral and interpretive takeaways (practical)
- Paul’s polemical aim: In Galatians, Paul is fighting a specific error, the notion that adopting certain law-marks or performing the law earns covenant standing. The practical pastoral point is to keep Christ central as the means of salvation.
- Avoid two mistaken extremes: (a) minimizing the need for moral transformation, and (b) treating Paul as denying the ongoing importance of holy living. Paul condemns merit by law, not obedience as the fruit of faith.
- Sober unity: Across traditions, there is broad agreement that Christ, not the law, is the ground of our justification; the differences lie in the theological framing (forensic vs participatory; monergism vs synergy) and in pastoral emphasis.
Suggested primary and secondary reading (brief, valid starting points)
Augustine. Part 3
Is Christ a Minister of Sin?
Galatians 2:16-17
December 5, 2025
It is essential to consider both verses 16 and 17 of Galatians chapter 2 in understanding the purpose of this article. We will consider what Paul meant by justification, faith, and works of the law. Most importantly, we will address the implications for evangelical Christian theology today. Have we turned Christ into a minister of sin?
16. “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
17. “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.” Galatians 2:16-17, KJV, emphasis added.
Let us consider verse 17 first. Paul is defending justification by faith against Judaizing critics who insisted on returning to the Mosaic law; the verse is a rhetorical objection. Paul answers to show that Christ’s teaching does not promote sin or lawlessness by not requiring that Gentiles live by the ceremonial Mosaic laws, including circumcision. But does Evangelical Christian theology today actually contradict what Paul was declaring? Have we, as evangelicals, made Christ a minister of sin? Let us consider various interpretations.
1. Early Church Fathers and their interpretation:
St. John Chrysostom (4th century)
Chrysostom, in his *Homily on Galatians*, directly addresses Paul’s rhetorical question:
“For if, when believing in Christ, and seeking justification through Him, we are still found sinners, it would follow that Christ is the minister of sin, which it is impious to even utter; hence he adds, ‘God forbid.’”
But isn’t this precisely what contemporary evangelicals teach? Big Eva almost entirely teaches that Christians live in constant sin (we are still found sinners) and are still saved and justified on our way to heaven. If that is true (that we Christians are still found sinners), then isn’t Christ a minister of sin? Christ, according to their false teaching, saves us in our sins, not from them, in direct opposition to many passages, such as Matthew 1:21 and this one in Galatians.
St. Augustine of Hippo (4th–5th century)
Augustine, in *On the Spirit and the Letter*, writes:
“The Apostle rejects with detestation the thought that Christ should be supposed a minister of sin; for He it is that justifies the ungodly, not that they may remain in their sins, but that they may be made new creatures.”
This may be one of the few times I actually agree with Augustine. Will wonders never cease! Augustine declares, “not that they may remain in their sins, but that they may be made new creatures.”
“To say that the grace of Christ encourages sin is to contradict the Apostle, who cries, ‘God forbid,’ and teaches that by grace the Law is fulfilled in those who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.”
Another spot-on comment from Augustine. He correctly states “that by grace the law is fulfilled in those who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit”. I agree with him completely. How about you?
This early version of Augustine got it right. However, in his controversy with Pelagius and his return to his pagan upbringing, Augustine changed dramatically. He went from believing that we are all born with free will to believing that we are born with a totally depraved will (a non-free, free will). More on this as we proceed.
Have you ever noticed that those who quote Augustine seem to use his quotes subjectively? Many dismiss his early statements in favor of his later position. Some people change their minds for the better, and others for the worse. Augustine changed for the worse, much worse.
I will now demonstrate that, later in his life, Augustine contradicted his earlier Christian beliefs and taught the exact opposite of what the above quotes state. And it can’t be denied that Augustine’s followers (Calvinists) taught and believed (and still believe today) that all Christians sin in thought, word, and deed every day. Even so, they are going to heaven. If that doesn’t make Christ a minister of sin, then what does?
- In his commentary on Galatians 2:17, Augustine insists Christ is not a minister of sin, because justification delivers the believer from sin rather than leaving them in it.
- Yet in other places, especially in his later anti-Pelagian writings, Augustine teaches something that sounds like believers continue to sin every day, even the most righteous. And this is precisely what five-point Calvinists believe today, as do many other Christians.
A recap
- Augustine’s quote on Galatians 2:17 (affirming justification means NOT remaining in sin or the forsaking of sin.)
- Augustine’s earlier view before the Pelagian controversy
- Augustine’s later view (daily sin, concupiscence as sin, etc.)
- A few documented quotations from Augustine showing both sides
Augustine on Galatians 2:17
“The Apostle rejects the thought that Christ would be a minister of sin, for in that He justifies the ungodly, it is not that they should remain in their sins, but that they should be freed from them.”
This represents what many scholars call Augustine’s “earlier” moral-transformational reading of justification. This was his view before 412 AD and before the Pelagian controversy. Augustine taught that a baptized Christian is truly freed from sin.
- Sin no longer has dominion.
- Christians can live without sin for periods, by grace, and should strive for it. Sin is the exception and not the rule.
- He often speaks of believers “walking in newness of life” with fundamental moral transformation.
Example quotations:
Augustine, Homilies on 1 John 1.6 (early period)
“When the Apostle says ‘He who is born of God does not sin,’ he speaks of one who does not persist in sin… such a one lives righteously by the grace of God.”
Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter (early on)
“Grace is given that the law may be fulfilled, not violated.
Grace does not merely forgive sins, but makes us keepers of the law.”
Both of these additional quotes are great, and I agree with Augustine in both cases. Too bad almost no Christian today believes either quote.
Augustine, On Continence (early on)
“By God’s grace, we are empowered to overcome sin and live chastely.”
Another great quote by Augustine.
These quotes align with the pre-Augustinian church Fathers and with the interpretation that Christ frees us from sin’s power, not merely declares us righteous in a legal sense.
Augustine’s Later View (after ca. 412, the anti-Pelagian shift)
During the Pelagian controversy (after 412), Augustine’s thoughts changed dramatically. He now teaches:
- All Christians, even the best, sin daily,
- and every movement of concupiscence (see below for a definition of this word) is itself sin.
- Man has a non-free, free will.
- No one is without sin until glorification.
- Believers remain in a state of continual moral failure.
This is the older Augustine, whose ideas later influenced Calvin, Luther, and the Reformers. Calvinists love the following quotes.
Quotations showing this shift:
Augustine, Against Julian 6.22.“The saints in this life are not without sin, for daily they say, ‘Forgive us our trespasses.’”
Augustine, Retractations 1.19. “I once thought a man could live without sin, but I learned later that this is true only of Christ.”
Augustine, On Nature and Grace 71. “Even the regenerate… have sin in every good work, for there remains concupiscence which itself is sin.”
Augustine, Enchiridion 64. “No man living is without sin, however holy his life may seem.”
All of the quotes contradict what Augustine once believed. Was it a change for the better or the worse? None of the earlier church fathers believed what he started to peddle. I unquestionably do not believe it. It makes no sense, is unreasonable, and most assuredly unbiblical.
Augustine’s doctrine of concupiscence is one of the central pillars of his later theology. And it is also the central point at which he diverges from the earlier Greek-speaking Fathers and from his earlier writings.
Below is a clear explanation of what Augustine meant, how his view developed, and why it matters for justification, sin, and Christian life.
What Augustine Meant by “Concupiscence.”
Augustine used the Latin word concupiscentia to describe the inherited disordered desire that remains in every human being after the Fall of Adam (Original Sin and its consequences).
Key ideas in Augustine’s mature view (mature meaning later in his life, not necessarily his wisest and most godly opinion):
- It is not just a strong desire. Concupiscence is not merely physical temptation or lust; it is a fault or disease in human nature. Today, we refer to it as Original Sin and the inheritance of a sinful nature. We are born sinners who can do nothing good. This is the T in T.U.L.I.P.
- It is the result of Adam’s sin. Because of Adam’s fall, Augustine taught that all humans inherit a corrupt nature that is:
- disordered
- weakened
- inclined toward sin. But it is more than being slightly inclined. It is totally depraved and totally unable to do anything good.
- It remains in the baptized Christian. Even after baptism, concupiscence stays in the believer. Baptism removes guilt, but concupiscence remains a wound that causes ongoing sin. Calvinists and other Christians today believe exactly this or something very close to it.
- It causes Christians to sin daily. This is why Augustine later taught Christians inevitably: “sin at least daily” (Enchiridion 64)
- It is transmitted through sexual reproduction. This controversial claim is one of the sharpest differences between Augustine and the Eastern Fathers. Augustine believed:
- concupiscence passes from parents to children
- Therefore, even infants inherit guilt and corruption. (The Eastern Christian church rejected this strongly.)
Augustine’s Earlier View vs. Later View
Early Augustine (before ~396):
- Believed in true freedom of the will
- Emphasized human responsibility
- Thought Christians could genuinely avoid sin through grace
- Did not yet teach inherited guilt
Later Augustine (after ~412):
- Will is enslaved to sin unless liberated by special grace
- Christians still sin daily because concupiscence remains
- Baptism removes guilt but not concupiscence
- Justification is forgiveness plus gradual healing, not complete renewal in this life
- Develops near-Calvinist ideas about predestination
This shift is precisely what scholars like Dr. Ali Bonner and Dr. Kenneth M. Wilson document in detail.
What Makes Augustine’s View Unique?
Compared to the earlier Fathers (and to the Eastern Orthodox Church), Augustine’s doctrine goes much further:
A. Augustine teaches that concupiscence is itself sinful, even without acting on it. That makes natural desires sinful, which is absurd, like most of Augustine’s later doctrines. It makes temptation sinful because we are tempted by our desires to violate the law of God to gratify our desires and lusts. This is why even unwanted, resisted desires count as “sin” in Augustine’s later theology.
B. Eastern Fathers teach the opposite
They see concupiscence as:
- a weakness
- a tendency
- a result of mortality
…but not sin itself.
C. Augustine ties concupiscence to justification.
Because it remains in believers, he concludes:
- Christians must sin daily
- Justification is not complete in this life
- The Christian is always partly disordered internally
This leads him to reject the idea that a Christian could ever reach a condition of not sinning. In other words, Christians sin in thought, word, and deed every single day. And this is precisely what the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches, and many evangelical Christians believe.
Why This Matters for Galatians 2:16-17
You have noticed the tension in Augustine’s statement, “Christ does not make men remain in sin.” Yet Augustine also teaches:
- believers sin daily
- concupiscence cannot be removed
- Christians cannot stop sinning
This creates a theological tension, and I believe that it makes Christ a minister of sin. Christ saves us “in” our unrepentant ongoing sin and not from the commission of sin.
The early Augustine and the early Fathers
→ Christ enables people to stop sinning
→ Baptism cleanses and empowers
→ Grace restores moral freedom and teaches us to stop sinning
The late Augustine
→ Christ forgives, but believers still sin daily
→ Concupiscence remains until death
→ Transformation is real but always incomplete (Christians may sin a bit less but never put it out of our lives until we die, and then God does it for us.)
When Augustine interprets Galatians 2:17 to mean that Christ does not encourage sin, that is consistent with his early view—but his later anthropology (the inevitability of sin) complicates and directly contradicts that interpretation. It is also directly opposed to what the earlier Fathers believed and what the Eastern Christian Church believed.
This creates a real tension. It is precisely the tension that:
- Dr. Ali Bonner identifies that when arguing, Augustine constructed a new theology of inherited guilt and inevitable sin.
- Dr. Kenneth Wilson highlights that when he says Augustine shifted from traditional free-will theology to one where believers cannot avoid sin.
We now turn to consider other Christian interpretations:
2) Contemporary Calvinist interpretation
Contemporary Reformed/Calvinist readings treat the verse as Paul answering the charge that justification by Christ alone would undermine morality. Calvinists stress that justification is by imputed righteousness and that the gospel does not promote sin. Christ and his gospel secure true obedience and holiness. Many Reformed commentators note Paul’s rhetorical force: to claim Christ is a ‘minister of sin’ is blasphemous and absurd; the real danger is returning to the law, which would expose human transgression. This is how ChatGPT responded.
Reformed interpreters maintain that Paul is answering the charge that justification by faith alone leads to moral license. Calvin writes: “Paul repels the blasphemy that Christ is the minister of sin; for the doctrine of free justification does not loosen the reins to sin, but rather binds us to new obedience.”
Modern Calvinist commentators emphasize that imputed righteousness inevitably leads to sanctification; therefore, accusing Christ of promoting sin misunderstands both justification and the renewing work of the Holy Spirit.
That all sounds somewhat reasonable, but it is not what many Calvinists actually teach. See my article on my website, seekgodintruth.com, Understanding Calvinism-WCF. That article is focused on the Westminster Confession of Faith. In that confession, Calvinism states that born-again Christians sin in thought, word, and deed every day. If that is not making Christ a minister of sin, then what is? Supposedly, the Reformed tradition doctrine “does not promote sin; Christ and his gospel secure true obedience and holiness.” If they actually believed that, which they do not, then their Confession of Faith is false. Which is it?
The key emphasis for the Calvinist is that justification by faith results in sanctification. But what does that really mean? If Christians never stop sinning daily according to Augustinian Calvinism, then what kind of sanctification are we talking about? Calvinism claims that grace does not nullify moral responsibility. But in their system, it actually does for election secures salvation despite the truth that Christians never stop sinning. And in five-point Calvinism, God decrees every act, both good and evil. How does that not nullify moral responsibility? The sophistry of Calvinism works on many but not all Christians.
Sources: John Calvin commentary on Galatians; Reformed commentaries (e.g., Hodge/Ligonier material).
3) Arminian / Wesleyan interpretation
Wesleyan-Arminian interpreters (following John Wesley and the Arminian tradition) also reject the suggestion that Christ promotes sin. They affirm justification by faith while stressing that justifying faith is accompanied by an imparted, progressive righteousness (holiness) by God’s prevenient and sanctifying grace. Thus, Galatians 2:17 is read as Paul denying that faith in Christ removes the obligation to live righteously; Christ’s grace transforms and enables the believer to resist sin, according to ChatGPT.
Again, that all sounds reasonable except for the fact that they believe that practical righteousness is progressive, which itself makes Christ a minister of sin. They actually believe that Christ cleans us up, but that clean up takes a lifetime, and is never fully accomplished until we die. This position is not much better than Calvinism, but it is better, just not the truth according to the Bible.
The key emphasis is that faith produces both imputed and imparted righteousness; grace is enabling (prevenient) and resists licentious interpretations, according to ChatGPT. I do not believe this is accurate. Their interpretation is also licentious, just like the Reformed tradition. What is progressive sanctification but giving up sin slowly over time? That is not what the Bible teaches. And while believers reluctantly give up their sins over the course of their lives, but never fully, they are still saved, just as in Calvinism.
Sources: John Wesley’s notes on Galatians; Wesleyan/Arminian theology summaries.
4) Broad Evangelical interpretation
Many contemporary evangelical commentators treat the verse similarly to the Reformed tradition: Paul answers an objection that the doctrine of justification by faith makes Christ a promoter of sin. Evangelical writers typically stress pastoral application—Christ’s justification is meant to produce gratitude, ethical transformation, and a life united to Christ (‘crucified with Christ’), according to ChatGPT.
Evangelical interpreters largely follow the Reformational reading: the gospel does not encourage sin but destroys its power. Common evangelical commentary themes include:
• justification produces gratitude and obedience, not lawlessness;
• union with Christ (‘I am crucified with Christ’) means death to sin and new life;
• misunderstanding grace as license is precisely what Paul corrects by saying, ‘God forbid.’
But like both Reformed and Arminian theology, they teach imputed righteousness and gradual sanctification that is never complete, where sin reigns in the life of the believer for the rest of their lives. And like the Reformed, sinning Christians are eternally secure. Eternal Security/perseverance is a doctrine that does, in fact, make Christ a minister of sin.
And their idea that justification is a verdict of not guilty also serves as an incentive to sin freely, because, once not guilty, always not guilty is what they believe. That doctrine also makes Christ a minister of sin. Is there any other way to look at this honestly?
The key emphasis is that the gospel calls Christians to holiness, not to license; union with Christ issues in spiritual renewal and practical obedience. But the call to holiness is partial, as is obedience. Almost no evangelical believes that Christians must stop all sinning in this life. They are taught that it is impossible and is the fanaticism of a heretic. Therefore, they too make Christ a minister of sin.
Sources: Evangelical commentaries (e.g., The Gospel Coalition, Enduring Word, Bible Study Tools).
5) Eastern Orthodox interpretation
Eastern Orthodox readings (exemplified by St. John Chrysostom and contemporary Orthodox commentators) understand Galatians 2:17 in the context of Paul’s opposition to Judaizers. They read Paul’s denial as rejecting the claim that turning from the Law to Christ means moral slackness; instead, Paul stresses union with Christ (“I am crucified with Christ”) and theosis—participation in Christ—as the ground for true life and transformation, according to ChatGPT.
Eastern Orthodox teaching emphasizes union with Christ (theosis). As Chrysostom and others taught, the issue is not whether Christ promotes sin—He frees from it. Modern Orthodox explanations note:
“Christ does not make men sinners; He heals them. To accuse Him as minister of sin is to misunderstand salvation as merely legal. Salvation is participation in His life, and His life makes men righteous.”
Orthodox theology, therefore, stresses that Paul is condemning the idea that leaving the Mosaic Law leads to moral corruption; instead, entrance into life in Christ produces transformation.
This is much closer to what the Bible teaches. The key emphasis is that salvation is relational and transformational (union/theosis), and the gospel does not make Christ a minister of sin; rather, it frees and sanctifies. Christians are made holy and righteous.
Sources: St. John Chrysostom, Orthodox Church in America explanatory material; Ancient Faith and Orthodox commentaries.
Summary
Across traditions, the standard reply to the objection in Galatians 2:17 is emphatic: ‘God forbid’ — the idea that Christ, through His teachings, promotes sin is rejected. But the truth is that they do make Christ the minister of sin even as they say they reject that idea. Almost all Christian traditions teach that genuine Christians can live in unrepentant sin more or less all their lives and still go to heaven.
Selected web sources consulted (for further reading)
Galatians 2:17 — King James Version (BibleGateway).
Homily on Galatians — St. John Chrysostom (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers / New Advent).
Calvin commentary on Galatians — CCEL/Calvin’s commentaries.
John Wesley’s notes on Galatians — BibleHub / Wesley.
Evangelical commentaries — The Gospel Coalition, Enduring Word, Bible Study Tools.
We will now consider the meaning of justification.
Justification
Many Christians have been taught that justification is the verdict of not guilty. Still others believe that justification is the pardon of the guilty. Which is it? And why is this important? I wrote an entire chapter on this subject in my book, When Lies Become Truth, Guilty or Not Guilty. It can be found on my website, seekgodintruth.com.
1. ‘Not Guilty’ Verdict vs. ‘Pardoned Guilty’ – The Two Forensic Models
A. The ‘Not Guilty’ Verdict (Calvinist/Reformed Model)
• Justification is God’s legal verdict that the believer is “not guilty” because Christ’s righteousness and obedience are imputed to them. After all, God requires absolute perfection, and only God is perfect; consequently, God credits the elect (and only the elect) with His perfection.
• The believer is treated as if they had perfectly obeyed the law, because Christ’s obedience is counted as theirs.
• This does not mean the believer has no sin, only that the legal verdict removes all guilt judicially and implies that even future sins are already forgiven and we are declared not guilty.
It also implies that believers are eternally secure even if they do not repent of their sins. Christ takes the believer’s guilt; the believer receives Christ’s righteousness. The PSA model of the atonement reflects their theology well, but it reflects the Word of God very poorly.
B. The ‘Pardoned of the Guilty’ Declaration (Patristic/Eastern/Arminian Model)
• God declares the believer “forgiven,” meaning the person was indeed guilty, but is released from penalty based on meeting the conditions of mercy.
• This model emphasizes mercy rather than a legal verdict: God cancels the debt, grants pardon, and begins healing if the conditions are met.
• The believer is truly made righteous over time through cooperation with God’s grace.
• The Fathers frequently emphasize justification as both “pardon” and “transformation”, not as a strict legal acquittal or declaration of not guilty.
The divide is not whether God forgives sins; everyone agrees He does. The divide is whether justification means “you were guilty, but God pardons you and begins healing” (Fathers/Eastern/Arminian) or “God legally declares you not guilty because Christ’s righteousness replaces your sin and guilt” (Reformed). Another issue with their understanding is that the believer becomes righteous “over time”. That implies that believers stop sinning slowly over the course of their lives, but never entirely stop sinning until they die and go to heaven. Doesn’t this idea make Christ a minister of sin just like the Reformed concept?
2. Expanded Patristic Witness on Justification (Pre-Augustine)
- Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.18.7):
“He took our sins upon Himself, and gave His own righteousness to us, in order that we, having received grace, might be justified by Him.” - Irenaeus (Against Heresies 5.17.3):
“It is the Lord who grants forgiveness of sins, and who heals the inner man, restoring him to friendship with God.” - Origen (Commentary on Romans 3.9.1):
“Justification is the making righteous of one who, from unrighteous, becomes righteous. God justifies the sinner by healing the soul, not merely by a sentence.” - Origen (Homilies on Luke 17):
“When God justifies, He changes the sinner into a just man, removing sin and filling him with the Spirit.” - Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus 1.6):
“Christ our Instructor justifies by forgiving past sins and teaching virtue, that we may be righteous in deed as well as name.” - Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 7.10):
“The justified man is he who has been forgiven and instructed, restored by the grace of the Lord.” - John Chrysostom (Homilies on Galatians, 2):
“To be justified is not only to be freed from punishment, but to receive the Spirit and become a friend of God.” - John Chrysostom (Homilies on Romans 7):
“God does not merely declare righteous but makes righteous, for the power of Christ works in us.” - Cyprian of Carthage (Epistle 1.3):
“By the mercy of God, sins are washed away, righteousness is renewed, and the believer is restored to the hope of life.” - Athanasius (On the Incarnation 9):
“He became man that we might become righteous, freeing us from condemnation and renewing our nature through grace.” - Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit 15):
“The Spirit justifies by cleansing and illuminating the soul, for justification is the removal of sin and the restoration of holiness.” - The Biblical truth of a number of these quotes is evident to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
3. Augustine’s Understanding of Justification
Augustine, in his early life, affirms many patristic themes, especially transformation, but in his later life, he changed his views, and he adds key emphases that shape Western theology:
• Absolute dependence on grace due to human bondage to sin. (Irresistible Grace)
• Justification includes forgiveness and inner renewal, but begins with God’s sovereign pardon.
• Grace precedes any movement of the will (anti-Pelagian).
• Righteousness is infused by God, not merely declared.
4. Tradition-by-Tradition Interpretation of Galatians 2:16–17
Eastern Orthodox
Justification = forgiveness + healing + participation in the divine life. It is not a legal verdict of not guilty for past and future sins, but the beginning of theosis.
Calvinist/Reformed
Justification = legal verdict of ‘not guilty,’ based solely on Christ’s imputed righteousness. This verdict applies to past and future sins not yet committed.
Arminian/Wesleyan
Justification = pardon of sins + new birth. God forgives the guilty and begins to transform them. Righteousness is not imputed in the strong Reformed sense.
Evangelicals (General)
Evangelicals variously adopt either the Reformed forensic model or the Wesleyan pardon-and-renewal model. A few reject both the Reformed and Arminian views and adopt a view closer to that of the Eastern Orthodox.
5. Conclusion: Galatians 2:16–17 in Historical Perspective
The early Fathers consistently held a ‘pardon + transformation’ model. Augustine placed strong emphasis on the priority of grace, specifically irresistible grace. The Reformers shifted to a courtroom model centered on imputed righteousness. The East retained the medicinal model of healing and union with God. Understanding these strands clarifies how different Christian traditions interpret Paul’s teaching that justification is by the faith of Jesus Christ and not by the works of the Law.
Galatians 2:16–17 – Expanded Analysis with Bonner & Wilson
Integrated summary with Ali Bonner and Kenneth M. Wilson’s perspectives.
1. Gal 2:16–17 Summary
Paul denies justification by works; emphasizes faith in Christ and rejects the idea that Christ promotes sin.
2. Patristic + Modern Scholarship (Bonner)
Ali Bonner argues that ‘Pelagianism’ was essentially a construct shaped by Augustine’s polemics. She maintains that earlier Christian tradition emphasized moral freedom, human responsibility, and cooperative grace rather than inherited guilt.
3. Kenneth M. Wilson on Augustine
Kenneth Wilson argues that Augustine shifted from traditional early Christian free will toward a doctrine of ‘non-free free will.’ Augustine increasingly taught that humanity is bound unless grace liberates. Wilson states that Augustine’s later theology differs from that of the earlier Fathers. The earlier quotes verify this assertion.
4. Short Public Quotes
Bonner: ‘Pelagianism as commonly conceived is largely a later construct.’
Wilson: ‘Augustine shifted markedly from the free-choice tradition.’
5. Integrated Interpretation
Galatians 2:16–17 aligns more naturally with earlier cooperative models: justification as pardon plus transformation. Reformed tradition emphasizes a ‘not-guilty verdict.’ Patristic and Eastern traditions emphasize ‘guilty but pardoned and healed.’
I’ve aimed for clarity about the three primary loci of debate in the 16th verse: (1) what Paul means by “works of the law,” (2) what he means by “justified,” and (3) the relation between faith and works. The appendix gives more detail, if you are interested.
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Galatians 2:16, KJV.
Summary of the 16th verse
Paul insists that being “right with God” (justified) is not achieved by “works of the law” (i.e., relying on intermittent observance of the Mosaic law as the ground of saving status) but by faith in Jesus Christ. The verse opposes reliance on law-observance as a means of earning or establishing salvation because the Jews did not observe the law. Paul affirms that faith in Christ is the means by which God justifies sinners. But why? Sinners, those who break the law, can’t look to the law to justify or excuse their lawbreaking. The function of the law is to condemn lawbreaking and lawbreakers. Only the mercy of God can help sinners because the law rightfully condemns lawbreakers.
Never forget that those who keep the law have nothing to worry about, for the law doesn’t condemn those who observe the law, only lawbreakers. As scripture says, the law is not a threat to the lawful.
But what kind of faith is Paul talking about? Is it the faithless kind typically taught by today’s evangelicals? Or is it a faith that works by love? Is the faith that saves, the faith that yields good works, and that obeys the laws of God? Is it the kind of faith that turns lawbreakers into lawkeepers?
If these passages are interpreted to mean that Christians are not required to obey the moral laws of God, then that interpretation is false. And with all false interpretations of these and other similar passages, Christ is made a minister of sin, whether or not they intend that. With these false ideas, Christ justifies and saves even those Christians who refuse to stop their rebellion against God and walk in holiness and righteousness. That is the very definition of Christ being made a minister of sin.
We know from Matthew 1:21 that Christ came to earth to save us from, not in, our sins. Any doctrine that saves us in our sins makes Christ and His mission/purpose a ministry of sin. How can it be understood in any other way?
Imputed righteousness, imputed obedience, total depravity, total inability, irresistible grace, unconditional election, perseverance or eternal security, and limited atonement all make Christ a minister of sin. And Christ is not a minister of sin but the death of sin. Christ never stated or suggested that sin should be given up slowly over time. Christ consistently stipulated that sin must stop now, not someday in the future when people feel like giving it up. To the women caught in the very act of adultery, He said, Go and sin no more. That is what He is saying to us right now, Go and sin no more. Anything less than that would make Him a minister of sin.
Appendix
1. Early Church Fathers (before Augustine) general pattern and emphases. ChatGPT comments with my edits.
Overall orientation applicable to the Church Fathers. The Fathers (1st–4th centuries) did not speak in exactly the later, polished categories of “forensic imputation” vs. “participation.” Their typical emphases: union with Christ, repentance, sacramental life, and the transforming goal of salvation. They frequently opposed attempts to rely upon Mosaic observance (or any external ritualism) as the ground of salvation (for sinners), and they insisted that faith united to Christ and God’s mercy are decisive. They did not believe the kind of faith that remains disobedient to God is a saving faith.
On “works of the law.” Many patristic writers understood Paul as attacking a confidence in external observances or in any human attempt to earn God’s favor by law-keeping. They contrasted Christ’s work (atonement, resurrection, new life) with a merely external, formal obedience that leaves the heart unchanged. Once the law has been violated, salvation is by definition a work of grace.
On “justified.” The Fathers tended to combine forensic and participatory language. They affirmed forgiveness (a juridical element) but emphasized healing, renewal, and participation in Christ (later labeled by Eastern writers as theosis). For them, justification often implied both pardon and fundamental transformation. Pardon is not the same as a verdict of not guilty, as many evangelicals today teach.
On faith and works. The Fathers rarely set faith and works in strict opposition to one another. That means that they, for the most part, understood that faith and works go together. There is no saving faith without good works. Faith without works is dead. Saving faith was the living principle that, when genuine, produced repentance and holy living. Many Fathers would say that faith without visible change was suspect, while also insisting that the salvation of sinners is ultimately God’s gift rather than human merit. But they also understood that to receive the mercy of God, the conditions of confession and forsaking of sin must be present.
2. Augustine (354–430). key emphases
Augustine, later in his life, systematized doctrines of sin, grace, and salvation that heavily shaped later Western theology, especially Reformed/Calvinism. And not every Christian believes this change was for the better. The following was written based on his late teachings not his earlier beliefs.
On human inability & grace. Augustine taught that the fall seriously damaged human volition (original sin) so that humans cannot achieve salvation without God’s initiating, enabling grace. He emphasized the necessity of divine grace for faith itself. This is total depravity and total inability, the T in TULIP and Irresistible Grace, the I in TULIP.
On “works of the law.” Augustine reads Paul as denying any human ability to secure justification by one’s own works or by law-observance. This includes moral works if they are understood as meriting initial standing before God.
On “justified.” Augustine held a robust understanding of justification as a work of God, involving forgiveness, incorporation into Christ, and an inner renewal effected by grace. Yet, Christians were still in bondage to sinful living, which refutes the idea of inner renewal. In the later Western technical language, Augustine’s view provided foundations for a more forensic reading (God declares and effects righteousness), though he did not deny that regeneration and sanctification follow. But he actually rejected these things, even though He said both. How then does one explain that Augustine’s inner renewal comment and his belief that regeneration and sanctification follow the new birth? At the same time, he clearly taught that Christians sin in thought, word, and deed every day. That is the old man and not the new man. The old man was not renewed, regenerated, or sanctified.
On faith and works. For Augustine, faith itself is a gift of grace; good works flow from, and are sustained by, grace. Works do not ground justification; they are the fruit and evidence of God’s saving work. But that, too, contradicts Augustine’s belief that Christians sin daily in thought, word, and deed. Because Augustine was on both sides of the issue about sin in the life of a Christian, it is easy to be confused and to find support for both positions. But his later position is what he died believing and is what has polluted Christian theology ever since.
Net result applied to Galatians 2:16: Augustine would stress that Paul opposes any scheme that makes law-observance the ground of justification for sinners. Justification is grounded in God’s gracious action made available in Christ and appropriated by faith, a faith which itself is divinely given and decreed by God, who picks winners and losers.
3. Eastern Orthodox tradition
The Orthodox theological grammar emphasizes theosis (deification, participation in the divine life) and synergy (cooperation between God’s grace and human response). Orthodox theology resists reducing salvation to a single forensic transaction; it gives pride of place to healing, transformation, and union with Christ mediated by the Church’s sacraments and life.
On “works of the law.” The Orthodox read Paul as opposing reliance on external observance and on the law as a status marker (i.e., thinking that keeping Mosaic markers places one within God’s favor). They do not teach that moral obedience is unimportant; instead, they stress that obedience must flow from union with Christ. And if it doesn’t, then is it genuine faith? No.
On “justified.” “Justification” in Orthodox usage is usually described in non-purely-forensic terms: it includes being put right before God. Still, it is primarily seen as the beginning of fundamental inward transformation and participation in divine life. The juridical language is accepted to an extent, unlike in the West, but it is not the dominant conceptual frame.
On faith and works. Orthodox theology insists on the practical inseparability of faith and works. Faith is the living relationship with Christ that necessarily bears repentance from sin and works of charity and holiness. But Orthodox teachers also insist that the initial possibility of response is the result of God’s gracious character. God has always been disposed to exercise mercy if the conditions of repentance from sin and faith in Christ are met.
Net result applied to Galatians 2:16: The Orthodox read Paul as rejecting legal merit as in Calvinism, affirming faith in Christ as the means of entry into the life of salvation, while insisting that that faith expresses itself in a transformed life lived in the Church’s sacramental and ascetical context.
4. Calvinist / Reformed interpretation
Reformed theology is characterized by an emphasis on forensic imputation and monergistic salvation (God alone decrees both initial and final justification). Key slogans include sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), and emphasis on Christ’s active and passive obedience being counted to believers. In other words, Christ obeyed the law for us.
On “works of the law.” Reformed interpreters typically understand Paul as condemning any attempt by sinners to earn justification through human performance, whether ceremonial, ritual, or moral. “Works of the law” here contrasts with the imputed righteousness of Christ received by faith. Explain? This is their idea of imputed obedience and imputed righteousness. Christ is our substitute even when it comes to obedience because we are born sinners with a sinful nature that will be with us until we die.
On the word “justified.” Justification is primarily a declarative forensic act (we are declared not guilty, which is much different than sinners being declared pardoned despite their guilt) in the Reformed tradition: God counts the believer righteous because of Christ’s righteousness, and obedience is imputed to them through faith. This is not to deny that sanctification follows; rather, the ground of our right standing is Christ’s work, not our works. They believe that God is sovereign (exhaustive, meticulous, and effectual decrees) over whatsoever comes to pass. God chooses who will be saved and who will be lost.
On faith and works. Faith is the instrument by which the believer receives the imputed righteousness of Christ. Good works are its inevitable fruit and evidence (but a believer may have no good works or fruit and still be saved, because Christians sin in thought, word, and deed daily), but they do not contribute to the ground or merit of justification.
Net result applied to Galatians 2:16: Reformed readings of Paul treat the verse as a clear statement that “works of the law” cannot affect justification; only God’s counted righteousness through faith in Christ can. Reformed scholars emphasize imputation and the objective, once-for-all character of Christ’s righteousness as the basis for justification.
5. Arminian interpretation
Arminian theology emphasizes human responsibility and prevenient grace (grace that enables human response). It affirms justification by faith while insisting that human willing response plays a genuine role (enabled by grace given to everyone).
On “works of the law.” Arminians also understand Paul as rejecting attempts by sinners to earn salvation through law-keeping. Like other traditions, they oppose a works-merit understanding of justification.
On “justified.” Arminians generally affirm justification by faith and often accept forensic language, but they stress that faith itself is a human response empowered by prevenient grace. Many Arminians allow a close relation between initial justification and the ongoing life of obedience, though they stop short of making works the ground of justification.
On faith and works. Faith is the means of receiving justification; good works are the fruit of a living faith and necessary evidence of genuine belief. Arminians emphasize human cooperation (synergy) in salvation, but they do not deny that grace is foundational.
Net result applied to Galatians 2:16: Arminian readings will say Paul is opposing the idea that law-observance earns justification; justification is by faith, which itself is enabled by God’s grace, but that genuine faith will inevitably show itself in repentance and works. Yet they, too, believe that Christians continue to sin throughout their lives, more or less, until they die.
6. Other evangelical perspectives (overview of common positions)
There is diversity inside evangelicalism. Evangelicals today are not monolithic. Two important internal debates shape readings of Galatians 2:16:
- Forensic / imputation-oriented evangelicals often align with Reformed categories: emphasis on justification as a forensic decree, faith as an instrument, and works as evidence (not the ground).
- “Lordship” vs “Free Grace” debates, some conservative evangelicals insist that saving faith must include present surrender and obedience to Christ (the “Lordship” emphasis) and therefore see works/repentance tightly bound to saving faith; others (often labeled “Free Grace”) emphasize assent/trust in Christ as sufficient for justification, allowing a broader understanding of how much present evidence and obedience is required.
On “works of the law.” Most evangelicals (broadly) agree that Paul opposes reliance on law observance as the basis of salvation. Differences concern the extent to which subsequent obedience is visibly necessary to show saving faith.
On “justified.” Many evangelicals adopt the forensic language of the Reformation, but many also adopt a pastoral sensitivity to the necessity of transformed living. Thus, Galatians 2:16 is often used to underscore the grace of Christ alone for salvation while insisting that genuine trust will be accompanied by life change, including obedience.
Comparative, focused answers to the three core questions in the verse:
1) What are “works of the law”?
- Common emphases across traditions: The phrase often denotes reliance on law-observance as the ground or means of obtaining God’s favor. In context, this frequently includes Jewish identity markers (circumcision, dietary/ceremonial observances) and any attempt to earn covenant-status by one’s performance.
- Differences: Some read the phrase narrowly (ceremonial / covenant-identity markers); others read it more broadly to include any human attempt to merit justification (including moral works when conceived as meritorious).
2) What does “justified” mean here?
- Forensic (Reformed/most Protestant evangelicals): A legal declaration by God imputed to the believer because of Christ’s righteousness. Not guilty for past and future sins.
- Participatory (Eastern/Patristic tones): Being put right before God in a way that includes actual healing and union with Christ, forgiveness, plus transformation. Pardon of the guilty.
- Augustinian synthesis (Western patristic → medieval): Strong emphasis on divine act of making righteous (with forensic coloring), but always tied to a process of renewal by grace.
3) How do faith and works relate to justification?
- Shared convictions: All major traditions represented agree that human works do not earn justification for sinners, and that faith is central.
- Dividing emphases: The dispute is about whether faith is primarily an instrument by which forensic imputation happens (Reformed), or whether justification is best described in participatory/therapeutic terms (Orthodox), or whether faith is a grace-enabled human response that intrinsically entails a life of cooperative obedience (Arminian/synergistic perspectives). Evangelicals vary: most reject works-merit but argue over how strictly works must demonstrate saving faith.
Pastoral and interpretive takeaways (practical)
- Paul’s polemical aim: In Galatians, Paul is fighting a specific error, the notion that adopting certain law-marks or performing the law earns covenant standing. The practical pastoral point is to keep Christ central as the means of salvation.
- Avoid two mistaken extremes: (a) minimizing the need for moral transformation, and (b) treating Paul as denying the ongoing importance of holy living. Paul condemns merit by law, not obedience as the fruit of faith.
- Sober unity: Across traditions, there is broad agreement that Christ, not the law, is the ground of our justification; the differences lie in the theological framing (forensic vs participatory; monergism vs synergy) and in pastoral emphasis.
Suggested primary and secondary reading (brief, valid starting points)
- Primary: Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (read with commentary).
- Patristic: selections from Chrysostom, Augustine (later), Irenaeus, and other Fathers when studying reception history.
- Augustine: On Grace and Free Will; anti-Pelagian writings for context on grace and human inability.
- Reformed: Calvin’s Institutes (on justification).
- Arminian/Wesleyan: works by Jacobus Arminius and John Wesley’s sermons on salvation and faith.
- Orthodox: writings on theosis by Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, and modern Orthodox theologians on salvation as union with God.
