A man’s theology is the most significant contemplation he can entertain. Simplified and nominal Christianity is an emergent dilemma fueled by thoughtless and doctrine-less Christians. Whereas grace is not coercively imputed on the right-minded, it certainly results in both a transformation and renewal of the mind (Romans 12:1-2). Therefore, the uncontrollable reaction of saving grace and its transformed affectation of the heart must also be the renewal of mind – totally consumed by God. Doctrine has an integral place at the study desk of every Christian, for it is a fragment of such soteriological renewal (Prov. 3:13-14; 10:13; Hos. 4:6; 2 Pet. 1:3). The negation of doctrinal study naturally prepares one to entertain thoughts about God that are not worthy of Him, which is the essence of idolatry.
However, doctrine is not a personal soteriological tool, but a descriptive device to ascribe to our experience of God’s attributes. Yes, the draw of grace and the gift of faith is permitted to, and usually does, come upon a heart that can not define, label, or categorize what it is experiencing. Specifically worded, doctrine does not pursue dogmatics as to functionalize a religion, but to clarify a gospel. Therefore, doctrine is utilized best when it designates the essentials; and Christianity is “in its essence”, and fundamental distinction, “a gospel.” Hence, what doctrines pronounce and demystify the gospel?
The answer must be found in the doctrine that manifests the greatest religious discrepancy to Christianity, while featuring the person of Jesus Christ. In the broadest sense, the principle of control – generating or manufacturing a means to appease or become the divine – purposely constructs all of man-made religiosity. Conversely, the gospel proclaims a God who acted on behalf on His children, providing the way that they could not manufacture. It is in light of such dissimilarity that the doctrine of justification ought be noted as “unique to Christianity” and “the heart of the gospel.” Therefore, such declarations regarding the doctrine of justification propound the stated need for the doctrine to be unfolded and searched out in relation to the gospel.
The primary source of research will be the Bible with emphasis on Paul’s letter to the Romans and other Pauline epistles. The method will begin with establishing a basic definition of the doctrine to aid and clarify the rest of the study, and gradually move deeper into its full biblical exposure. Before proceeding, one must rightfully resolve that the Bible is not an end within itself. Scripture is a means to an end, and the end is to know God and His workings, which culminate in the person of Jesus Christ. When a student seeks to understand justification, he or she should not end with understanding the doctrine, but conclude with seeing God more clearly and worshiping Him more truly.
Justification can be defined as the imputed righteousness of God unto the one who puts faith in Jesus Christ. The terminology and implications of such a definition has been thoroughly written on, discussed, and argued by scholars. A broad categorization that may elucidate some intentions of debate is that Roman Catholic scholarship generally believes justification to include moral regeneration, where Protestantism commonly attests that it does not. This regenerative implication regarding the imputation of righteousness looks to be the sought balance in most scholastic debates.
Firstly, one ought to analyze scriptural verbiage in reference to justification in hopes to uncover the extent and quality of God’s imputed righteousness. The Bible uses multiple words to designate justification – most of which share the stem δίκαιο.
The Greek in the active voice δικαιουν describes the perspective of God and His action, and is translated ‘to justify’ (cf. Romans 3:26, 30; 4:5; 8:30, 33; Galatians 3:8). Cranfield asserts that in the book of Romans, and other Pauline epistles, δικαιουν “means simply” to “acquit” or “confer a righteous status on”. Further, he supports his determined meaning by claiming it is “surely forced upon… by the linguistic evidence” and is firmly cohesive to the “structure of Paul’s argument in Romans.” Nonetheless, the debate lingers in “some scholars” suggesting, “justification is forgiveness, nothing but forgiveness”. However, this casts justification as a remission, rather than a bestowal. Justification must be active, not passive. For, when one only recites the pardon of God, consequently the glorious and hopeful imputation of righteousness is neglected. This inaccuracy would distort the Christian life into an external observance from God – a mere reversal in His attitude – rather than an internal radiance of righteousness inherited from the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Yet, a distinction must be unfolded. Kung recites, “God’s declaration of justice is… at the same time and in the same act a making just.” C.K. Barrett rebuttals, in that “to justify” cannot designate righteousness conferred “in an ethical sense – ‘to make virtuous’”. Biblical cohesiveness does not illustrate such an example where justified men are perfectly righteous. Moreover, the grammar points to a meaning of ‘treating’ or ‘counting’ one as righteous. To be righteous is not the same as to be ‘virtuous’, but it is to be ‘right’ before God. Regarding the language, justification renders God treating unrighteous men as if they were indeed righteous.
The passive voice in the Greek (δικαιου‘sthai’) translated ‘to be justified’, has some different occurrences but generally depicts “the acceptance that is extended to or withheld from humans in the judgment… and final judgment” (cf. Romans 2:13; 3:20, 24, 28; Galatians 2:16-17; 3:11, 24). Theology is a process of distinctions and data cataloging. The clarifying distinction of justification can be broadly asserted as functionally eschatological; its most valued profit is on the day of the Lord and his final judgment. Justification’s intended purpose manifests itself fully when man stands before God to give an account of his righteousness. There and then, God declares the one with faith in Jesus Christ as blameless. God’s righteousness “is manifested in the ‘present time’ only by an anticipation of the ‘last time’”. Yet, looking forward towards that glorified moment has present function and connotations for the justified. Those hopeful practicalities are left to the categorizations and doctrines of sanctification and reconciliation. Simply, justification is truly eschatological with present-time sanctifying and reconciling reverberations. However, this drawn distinction can be dangerous, because sanctification and justification “are not to be separated”. Just as theology must separate and divide, so it must also propagate biblical unity. It is impossible for sanctification to be attained without being justified; and justification would remain incomplete, and “rend Christ asunder” without sanctification.
The abundant phrase of chapter four of Romans (appearing eleven times) ‘to reckon as righteousness’ λογίζεσθα εἰς δικαιοσύνη, focuses on the recognition of righteousness in God’s final judgment (cf. Romans 4:3-5; Galatians 3:6; Genesis 15:6), and δικαίωσις depicts the “process and result of justification carried out by God” (cf. Romans 4:25; 5:18). Dunn notes in his research that λογίζεται “was a ‘technical term’ in commercial dealings”, which suggests “an analogy from the business world” and therefore λογίζεσθαι certainly meant “a reckoning of payment for work done”. Schreiner would agree, but importantly add that it is a payment “that is not inherent to him or her”.
Moreover, in summation, Paul speaks of the righteousness of God with a two-fold principle of ‘power’ and ‘gift’. He makes certain that God’s action and man’s reception are both noted.
The basis of justification can be studied in three sequential items: the initiative of God the Father, the principle of righteousness, and the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
A. The Initiative of God the Father
First, the righteousness of those with faith (Romans 1:17) is certainly a gift of God; for, it is God’s gospel (Romans 1:1). The full and initiatory righteousness of man comes from the action of God. To argue otherwise “involves an isolating of the gift from the Giver… that it is individualistic”. The root of justification firstly concerns God’s action as the provider of grace (Romans 5:16; Titus 3:7). For whom God has justified, He has also called. Whom God has called, He has also predestined. Whom God has predestined, He also foreknew (Romans 8:30). God is undoubtedly at work long before the response of the man. Stott agrees, “the saving initiative from beginning to end belongs to God the Father,” and claims this truth to be “fundamental to the gospel”.
B. The Principle of Righteousness
Second, flowing from the first pillar is the concept of righteousness. God is notably righteous, and He demonstrates it by saving His people. Therein, justification’s rationale begins with the idea of righteousness, for it is because of and for righteousness that God justifies a man. The anthropological perspective of salvation “requires” that man “be found righteous before God”. It is easy to attend to the thought that God justifies man for the sake of the man, but God does not act but for Himself – that man can share in it by the grace of God. Further, God must be righteous to justify his people, and their conferred righteousness is the very core of their salvation. Righteousness directs every motion of justification. However, man is stricken with a predicament: how can a righteous God justify unrighteous people? Since righteousness governs justification, and no man is righteous (Romans 3:10-18), justification appears to be functionless.
C. The Redemptive Work of Jesus Christ
Notwithstanding the impossibility, divine intervention provides redemption. Yes, and thirdly, the cross of Jesus Christ answers how it is possible for a righteous God to justify unrighteous people without compromising His nature. Justification apart from the cross of Christ would be “unjustified, immoral, and therefore impossible.” Paul makes it clear one chapter later in Romans – justification is by Christ’s blood, sacrifice and act of righteousness (Romans 5:9,18). Humanity “pays nothing to receive God’s righteousness (Rom. 3:24). The freedom of justification, however, involves a cost on God’s part, for it was…accomplished in Christ”. Pausing, in Romans 4:25, Paul states that Christ was “raised for our justification”, and this has generated some debate among scholars. The decisive clarification is whether the sole crucifixion and blood of Christ or resurrection accomplished justification. Thomas R. Schreiner splendidly provides a launch-point to the matter adhering to the context of the passage:
“Nowhere does Paul say that Abraham believed in the resurrection of Jesus. The element of continuity is that both believed in the God who resurrects the dead and in a God who could fulfill his promises.”
However, the true folly is in the manner of questioning. One ought not draw a needless and harmful separation between the cross of Christ and His resurrection. Certainly, that was not Paul’s intention, since he indicates repeatedly throughout his ministry and epistles that Christ’s blood was indeed the charge of deliverance (cf. Acts 20:28; Ephesians 1:7; with 1 Corinthians 6:20, 7:23). It was not as if Paul sought to portray the crucifixion and resurrection “as effecting quite separate results” and therefore, “the distinction… is purely rhetorical.” Subsequently, James D.G. Dunn superlatively expresses the positive and actual intention of Paul in his mention of the resurrection in regards to justification.
“The link between justification and Jesus’ resurrection… further underscores its point – that the justifying grace of God is all of a piece with his creative, life-giving power…Faith knows it is accepted precisely because its acceptance is the same effective power which raised Jesus and which will also give life to these mortal bodies (Rom. 8:11) in the final reckoning.”
The doctrinal construct of Justification, its definition and guiding principles, have presented the requisite; now, one must study the means of its acquirement. As previously noted, one must always consider and keep human responsibility within its proper framework. It is best deemed ‘responsive’, and that is the least controversial balance to assert.
A. The Negative Means: Not By Works
Foremost, it would be beneficial to expose Scripture’s insight into man’s misguided strains to be justified. Simply, the apostle Paul makes point of eradicating the idea of justification ‘by works’ (cf. Romans 3:28; 3:20; 4:2, 5; Galatians 3:8, 11; 2:16; 5:4; 1 Corinthians 4:4). However, controversy has arisen through the apostle’s statements in Romans 2:6-10, whereby he contends that God will ‘render to each person according to their deeds” and provide glory, honor, peace, and eternal life to those who preserve ‘in doing good’. Yet, this is not a single biblical instance, for the same wording is used elsewhere (cf. Psalm 62:12; Proverbs 24:12). Even Jesus claims that God ‘will repay every man according to their doing’ (Matthew 16:27). Further, in fact, Paul instructs the necessity of works upon entrance into the kingdom (cf. Romans 2:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Galatians 5:21). Therefore, the only reconcilement of these surfaced contradicting means is the proposal of Paul’s intentions as hypothetical. Yes, “Eternal life would be given if one did good works and kept the law perfectly, but no one does the requisite good works.” However, the truth to be observed is the principle by which Paul submits justification to. There is certainly a need for righteousness for one to be justified, and if one could accomplish this need through the law, God would rightly reward them. Austerely noted, Paul’s hypothetical comments regarding works resourcing justification are purposed in revealing God’s standard of righteous judgment – the basis of justification. Further, the law was strictly purposed as a tutor, leading one to be justified by faith (cf. Galatians 3:24; Romans 3:20). Works, and the law, could not suffice human depravity, so Christ accomplished what the obedience to the law could not (Acts 13:39). In fact, “justification can only happen without such works…‘they must be counted as dung because of Christ’” (Philippians 3:8).
B. The Positive Means: By Faith
Paul never truly wavers in his assertion that the means of justification is indeed by faith (cf. Romans 3:28, 30; 4:5; 5:1; Galatians 2:16; 3:8). Even excluding Pauline thought, Jesus teaches the principle of justification sola fide (Luke 18:14). The popular method of faith has been carried on in Christian tradition as a three-step sequence: knowledge, belief, and trust. All three elements must exist, and follow its former element. For, one cannot believe what they do not know, and one cannot trust what they do not believe; consequently, the sequence is vital. However, Faith is an interesting action for God to have chosen for the process of justification. Why faith, and not hope, joy, or love? The remarkable revelation of faith as the greatest of all virtues testifies to the necessity of man’s dependence, whereas man’s supreme good can only be found in surrendering to God’s goodness.
1) The Terminology of Faith
If one could give a one-word summation of faith as to simplify its concept, one should submit dependence. Humility, trust, and the like are gloriously true descriptions as well, and soak the pages of Scripture, but dependence exacts an encompassing connotation that may provide better cultural clarity. Culture, more so the Christian culture, has framed trust and humility around virtuous and emotive limitations. The ethic is only reserved for the frame of mind and easily subject to change. One can trust one for a moment, and then once again reserve to self-sufficiency. However, dependence is inescapable, and is internally as well as externally prevalent. It describes a sovereign law and force one must rightly and graciously abide by – e.g., clay in the hands of the potter (cf. Isaiah 29:16; 45:9; 64:8; Jeremiah 18:6; Romans 9:21) or sheep under the provision of the shepherd (cf. Psalm 79:13; 95:7; 100:3; Isaiah 40:11; Ezekiel 34:31). The clay must not merely trust or humble itself before the potter, and the sheep must not merely trust or humble itself before the shepherd; they must depend on him. Man cannot live without faith. He cannot be independent of it. Anything effectuated outside of faith is sin (Romans 14:23). Yes, one cannot live without faith because only unrighteousness is left outside of it; and death is its wages. ‘The just shall live by faith’ (Romans 1:17) – only righteousness can live, and only faith can be its means.
Conclusively, faith pronounced as dependence provides this celebrated need for God in principles underscored in the modernized connoted verbiage of trust and humility. This is not to say that characterizing faith as humility and trust is wrong – certainly not, for these are biblical terms as well – rather the interest here is what ought to be communicated to our current culture. You should not merely trust or humble yourself before God because Christians tell you to, but you must, out of necessity, depend on God – have faith – for it is the only means of salvation. Calling for dependence drives it up to the head, incorporating both trust and humility (as both are necessary predecessors to dependence), and motions the unbeliever beyond momentary shifts. The church is not calling unbelievers to merely adapt their preferences or adhere to a creed. The church is calling for the clay to submit to the potter, the sheep to submit to the shepherd.
2) The Merit of Faith
Beyond the single-worded idea of faith illustrated best in ‘dependence’, scholars seek to clarify the great distinction between ‘works’ and ‘faith’. One resolution to the dissimilarity is through the principle of ‘reliance’; e.g., in Romans 4:3 where Abraham is rewarded because of his object of faith: God. The blatant division is best described to there being “nothing meritorious about faith.” One must not supplement the merit of works for another from of merit, faith. “Faith is not a human possibility” and is only presented to man “as a gift from outside himself.” Justification is not a bargain between God and man, where God resources the cross, and man resources the faith. The grace of God “is non-contributory”. God does not scavenge the earth for men of faith; He graciously makes men of faith. The justification of God is not contingent upon the valuation of a man’s faith, but rather the value of a man’s object of faith – Jesus Christ. The great need of faith is to accentuate our inability and necessity of dependence, while glorying in the ability and sufficiency of Christ. Therefore, sola fide simply means sola Christus. However, man’s responsibility is not quelled, because his faith, once received, has a function to embrace God’s grace. God empowers receptivity, and that is the principle’s purposely-established perspective; He does not nullify it. It is impossible for God to nullify it, for it is necessary to the human perspective and function concerning cause and effect analysis.
The consequences of justification were difficult to withhold in previous sections – as the doctrinal definition naturally leads one to insert glimpses of its effects. One important reiteration is that of justification’s true eschatological effect. On the day of the Lord, God will declare those who have faith to be righteous, and spare them His wrath. However, this section will seek to explicate Scripture’s abundantly noted blessings in regards to justification, in accordance with the flow of Paul’s epistle to the Romans.
A. Romans 5-8
In attempts to neglect mere listing and monotonous bible references, this study will work through Paul’s sequence regarding the blessings of justification. Romans 5-8 produce several results of justification, while being broadly structured by the theme of hope. Here, one will move beyond justification’s eschatological sense, and depict how justification assets sanctification and reconciliation. Therein, Paul sets out to depict the “the moral renewal of believers” as to substantiate that “the promised inheritance is no illusion.”
1) Romans 5
Firstly noted, justification by faith results in delighted peace with God. Mentioned are not merely the emotions of peace or alleviated mind, but a position of peace with God. One can now stand in grace exulting in the hope of the glory of God. Yet, even one can glory in that which, according to a worldly perspective, is nonsense. The justified can view their citizenship in heaven, and cast the world’s trials as true joy. Paul is inspiring the one who is justified by revealing their need for hope. This truth will not disappoint, therefore, preserve Christ follower. Simply, hope permeates the heart of the one declared righteous by God, because one day they will stand in the glory of God. Amazingly, Paul methodologically accomplishes his inspiration by depicting the superiority of justification over condemnation through the figures of Jesus and Adam. He closes the chapter with a declaration of the reign of grace unto eternal life. Grace reigns through the righteousness of the just, and permits them to be with Christ for eternity.
2) Romans 6-7
Chapter six of Romans radiates with a promise of new life. The just are now equipped with God’s grace to triumph carnal indulgence in pursuit of their sanctification. For they have died to sin, and this death has led them towards freedom. Ultimately, the just embark upon a sanctifying process of Christ-like imitation to be used by the one who has justified them. Further encompassing, Paul concludes chapter six by noting the intended benefit of justification results in sanctification, and later, the glorious outcome of the gift of eternal life in Jesus Christ. The apostle continues in chapter seven to describe and contrast the destructiveness of sin and the holiness of the law, and is purposed in providing a rationale to the next section of the chapter regarding those who are justified. Now, another exposed result of justification is the ever-present battle between flesh and spirit. The magnificent struggle, however, results in the justified man thrusting his inescapable inadequacy fully on the sufficiency of the grace of God found in the redemption of Christ Jesus.
3) Romans 8
The last section working as a conduit for the hope of the justified one is found in chapter eight of Romans. With this chapter’s prominent themes of victory and joy, Paul begins by pronouncing the justified as free from condemnation. Moreover, justification results in spiritual living, whereby the very spirit of God indwells the heart on the one in Christ. Yes, even one is bestowed with the unparalleled title as an adopted Son of God – that return to the ultimate position of victorious peace, which inspires satisfying hope. The later part of chapter eight functions well in the flow to the next section, and will be evaluated there.
One must think it unattainable to lose their justification; for, it is the very thing Paul is encouraging throughout his depiction of the effects of justification in chapters five through eight of Romans. The one who is justified harbors a hope of glory, and hope does not disappoint. Therefore, the apostle culminates the results of justification by emphasizing its permanency in the hands of God. He constructs his conclusion with two lists joined with interruptive explanatory connotations.
A. God’s Hand
The first list is found in Romans 8:29-30, where the apostle notes the causation and completion of justification. The ones who were justified were first foreknown, then predestined, called, and justified. For the one in Christ, the completion of their justification is performed in their glorification. This is the unconditionally noted progression, and it is rich with divine dependability.
B. The Weight of God’s Approval
Before exciting his reader with his final listing of hope, Paul describes the weight of the approval of God. No man can stand against the justified, for God alone is his judge, and Christ intercedes on his behalf. The just are forever and all victorious, more than conquers, because Jesus Christ is their object of faith.
C. The Inseparability of God and His Children
Concluding, Paul celebrates the inseparability between God’s love and the one declared righteous in his final listing. The apostle gradually notes the frailty of earthly of foes, e.g., tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, sword, and moves further into the frailty of metaphysical and spiritual opposition, e.g., death, life, angels, principalities, time, powers, height, depth, or any created thing. The immutability and transcendence of God leaves Him impenetrable to the things that wish to devour His plan and the ones He declares righteous through the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
VII. TIME FACTORS
A relevant, yet well agreed on consideration, is that of whether justification is gradual or seemingly instantaneous. In analyzing the scriptural data, one will not find a progression in reference to justification. However, the gradualist view could easily adapt into a result of justification, i.e., sanctification. It simply does not compute, that the declaration of God’s righteousness upon a man would occur in steps. There are certainly several states that a man must come to, i.e., humility and the observance of his ungodliness, but that is not in reference to the declaration of justification, but rather its assumed basis. Conclusively, for one to adhere to a gradual process of justification simply resolves that he or she succumbs to a different definition of the Bible’s representation of the doctrine.
 John R.W. Stott, The Message of Romans: God’s Good News for the World (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2001), 118.
 Ibid., 118.
 The definition at this point in the study is premature and unproved, but it allows the reader to grasp some idea of what the study is seeking to substantiate.
 C.E.B. Cranfield, (intl Critical Commentary), vol. 1 of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary On the Epistle to the Romans (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 95.
 Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 95.
 Stott, Romans, 110.
 Charles Hodge, Romans (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1994), 78. C.H. Hodge elucidates the dissimilarity of forgiveness and justification by wittily exposing the converse between condemnation and justification. “To condemn is not merely to punish, but to declare the accused guilty or worthy of punishment; and justification is not merely to remit that punishment, but to declare the punishment cannot be justly inflicted… Pardon and Justification therefore are essentially distinct”
 Stott, Romans, 111. John R.W. Stott, in The Message of Romans, reveals this quote for the purposes of contrast and correction. He cites: Kung, Hans, Justification: The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection (1957; ET, Burnes and Oates, 1964).
 C. K. Barrett, Epistle to the Romans, (The Black’s New Testament Commentary), Revised ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2011), 71.
 Barrett, Epistle to the Romans, 71. Barrett explains the grammatical reasoning behind his definition of justification: “It is often pointed out that when the Greek verbal suffix in question (-οω) is attached to adjectives denoting moral qualities the meaning is sometimes not ‘to make…’ but ‘to count…’, or ‘to treat as…’. From this observation is drawn to most popular modern interpretation of the Pauline verb ‘to justify’ and the Pauline doctrine of justification. The verb means ‘to count, or treat as, righteous’.”
 Peter Stuhlmacher, Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: a Challenge to the New Perspective (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2001), 20. Stuhlmacher further mentions how ‘the passive dikaiousthai also occurs once for the acknowledgment that sinners must pay the just God in the final judgment (cf. Rom. 3:5 with Ps. 51:4).’ Most of the proposed Greek voice analysis stems from Stuhlmacher’s research.
 Barrett, Epistle to the Romans, 71.
 Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 95.
 John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, (tr. By R. Mackenzie, Edinburgh, 1961.) 121.
 Stuhlmacher, Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification, 20.
 James D. G. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary: Volume 38a, Romans 1-8 (Downers Grove, Ill.: Thomas Nelson, 1988), 241.
 Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1998), 215.
 Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 99.
 Stott, Romans, 111. Further study on the importance of this truth will be unraveled in a later section regarding the ‘means’ of justification.
 Barrett, Epistle to the Romans, 30.
 Stott, Romans, 112.
 Schreiner, Romans, 190.
 Ibid.,242. “The resurrection inaugurates the new world promised to Abraham.” See Schreiner’s note on how Christ’s resurrection was most importantly the demonstration of God’s fulfillment of his covenant promises to his people, hence Paul’s implication in chapter four of Romans. (Pgs. 39-45)
 Dunn, Romans 1-8, 241.
 Ibid., 241
 Schreiner, Romans, 114.
 Wilhelm Pauck, ed., Luther: Lectures On Romans (Library of Christian Classics (paperback Westminster)) (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1961), 103.
 F.F. Bruce, “Justification by Faith in the Non-Pauline Writings of the New Testament,” The Evangelical Quarterly 24.2 (1952): 68.Bruce undergoes the task of exposing Christ’s depiction of justification by faith in parable of Luke 18. “There is no express mention of faith in this parable; but if the word is not there, the thing itself is. For where is justifying faith more evident than in the trustful and repentant attitude of mind which, completely divested of self-satisfaction and self-reliance, eagerly seeks and gratefully accepts that pardoning mercy which is the free gift of God’s grace?”
 Barrett, Epistle to the Romans, 70.
 Schreiner, Romans, 215. Schreiner’s reliance principle is simplified: “‘Working’ is the result of one’s own capability, but ‘believing’ relies on another…working involves doing, while the genius of belief is receiving.”
 Stott, Romans, 117.
 Barrett, Epistle to the Romans, 77.
 Stott, Romans, 117.
 A serious Biblical student will easily note that the theme of Romans is emphatic of the righteousness of God (Rom. 1:16-17) – a Greek synonym and the basis of justification. Therefore, Paul’s flow of thought and progression is paradigmatic for explicating the doctrine of Justification.
 Schreiner, Romans, 249.