-A blogger who goes by the name of Catholic Nick wrote an article titled Another Gold Nugget in Romans 4:6 (Against Faith Alone), where he interacts with comments made by John Piper on the meaning of "counted righteous" as found in Romans 4. This article is not so much a commentary on Mr. Piper's Desiring God ministry, but rather serves as an analysis of Nick's claims (which are quoted as follows) regarding this passage from Romans:

          "First, Piper has not been consistent with the parallelism of the passage: 4:6 Blessing to whom God credits righteousness apart from works, 4:7 Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and 4:8 Blessed is he whom the Lord will not reckon his sin. Notice that the parallel is not of “iniquities” and “sin” corresponding to “apart from works,” as Piper hurriedly assumed, but rather the “crediting of righteousness” corresponds to “iniquities forgiven” and “not crediting sin.” In other words, Paul is saying that to “credit righteousness” is synonymous with “not crediting sin. Thus, there is no actual correspondence between “apart from works” and “sinner” here."

          First of all, it is somewhat foolish to try to use one passage of Scripture to refute a doctrine so profoundly and clearly enforced by that same text. Nick's argument is not accurate. Romans 4:6 is explicitly speaking of those, "to whom God counts righteousness apart from works". That is the direct quotation of that verse. There is no way those can be separated.

          It is true that the crediting of Christ's righteousness corresponds to our iniquities being forgiven. That is double imputation. Our sins are credited to Christ and His righteousness is credited to us. The Reformation Study Bible has this footnote:

          "4:6–8 That Paul’s exegesis of Gen. 15:6 is correct is confirmed by an appeal to David’s words in Ps. 32:1, 2. Blessedness (fellowship with God together with all its accompaniments, and salvation) is not earned, but is the effect of the gift of forgiveness. It is by Christ’s work, not ours, that we are justified. Any merit of our own, even the good that redeemed people do by the tower of the Holy Spirit, is excluded."

          "Second, consider that Piper shows there is just as much of a parallel between 4:5 and 4:6 as there is between 4:6 and 3:28. Here Piper shows that “justified by faith apart from works of the law” (3:28) is to be understood synonymously with “credits righteousness apart from works” (4:6). Thus, the “ungodly” is one who is “apart from works of the law.” Realizing this, it is even less reasonable to say “apart from works of the law” is a synonym for “sinner” in general (for example, being uncircumcised does not make one a sinner in general)."

          This paragraph does not follow at all. We can agree with the first part of what is being said, "“justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (3:28) is to be understood synonymously with “credits righteousness apart from works” (4:6)." That part of the argument makes perfect sense. However, Nick follows that with, "Thus, the “ungodly” is one who is “apart from works of the Law.” Realizing this, it is even less reasonable to say “apart from works of the Law” is a synonym for “sinner” in general (for example, being uncircumcised does not make one a sinner in general)." It is difficult to see where the Catholic draws this conclusion from. It is not connected to nor logically flows from the first part of that paragraph.

          "The only fitting explanation is that “ungodly” is a slang (or even pejorative) way of speaking of a Gentile, who is by definition someone who lacks works of the law. Note this parallel found in Galatians 2:15-16. And not only is this the only consistent way to interpret that parallel, it's the only way to make sense of Paul's earlier statements regarding Abraham."

          This, again, does not seem to fit at all as a logical flow. Moreover, how somebody can draw a distinction between an ungodly person and a sinner is far beyond me. If the ungodly are without good works (which means they are lawless), then that means they are a sinner in need of having faith accounted to them as righteousness, just like Abraham.

          Nick ignores the language of sin and the need for the covering of it in the passage itself. Also, formulating a sharp distinction between having the Law and actually being a sinner is not legitimate because without the Law a person cannot be certain as to what what is sinful verses what is not. Nick seems to be implying that Gentiles are not actually sinners; the Apostle Paul is simply occupying the term as a word without any meaning other than "someone who does not have the Law of Moses". Paul's use of the language of sin and iniquity in Romans 4 is rendered myopic and superfluous. A commentor on Catholic Nick's article made these insightful remarks:

          "The relationship between "works of the law" and "sin" is vitally important. It is your contention that "works" here merely represents the ceremonial aspect such as the circumcision and kosher foods or sabbath keeping. But Paul already refuted this in Romans 3:20. "For no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin." The relationship between "works of law" and "sin" has been so forged in Pauline thought that to be found not having the "works of the law" is to fall short of the glory of God thereby unrighteous and ungodly."

          The very reason one might be able to boast before God is precisely because of the absence of sin and the keeping of the Law, as opposed to Gentiles who do not have the Law and sin. In summary, this apologist for the Church of Rome has turned Romans 4:5-8 right on its head.