Another term that we Christians toss about like it's nothing is this wonderful word, "justification". There, we said it. Now it's all clear, right? Not at all.
First, the term is pretty easy to define. Any dictionary will likely tell you that it means something like "The condition or fact of being justified." "Thanks. So 'justification' means 'being justified'. That's clear as mud." Okay, okay, it's pretty easy. It's simply being right. In Christianese, it is specifically being right in God's eyes. Or, in moral terms, being just in God's eyes. (Thus, "justification".) We're all actually pretty clear on this. However, how this occurs (and the standard use of the term includes its method) seems to be unclear.
To the Universalist, justification is a singular event that occurred at the Cross and affects all human beings for all time. Because "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2), quite clearly all have been made just in God's eyes ... end of story. Universalists cannot account, however, for the almost omnipresent warnings regarding faith and damnation. That's not what I mean when I use the term.
To the Roman Catholic theologians, justification is a process whereby people cooperate with God and, in time, become genuinely right with God. It starts with faith, then on to repentance -- genuine sorrow for sin. Next comes baptism (whereby the stain of Original Sin is removed). From there you move to the continual, repeated steps of obedience, repentance, and correction with the aim to arrive at perfect obedience, but with the remedy of repentance to keep moving when you don't obey perfectly. Justification is a cooperation between God and Man. That is, Roman Catholic theology requires the act of human will to be just. Now, rarely (if ever) does perfect justification actually occur in this life. Thus the need for Purgatory. (Get it? "Purge-atory".) Everyone (nearly everyone) needs to have some vestiges (or, perhaps, a lot) of sin purged before they can actually be allowed into heaven -- "justified" -- because, you see, in Roman Catholic theology, "justification" is something that is actually arrived at by the justified -- something that is a product of either performance or payment. And, in truth, this concept fits within the definition of "justification".
The alternative concept of "justification" comes from Luther and other Reformers. To be quite clear, they derive their position not from personal views, but from Scripture. And their view -- the "Protestant" view -- has been around for several hundred years since it was recovered from the Scriptures, so in many non-Catholic circles, it has become obscured ... again. So now it can be a hazy concept ... again. Just what is meant, then, by "justification" when I (or others like me) use the term? Justification is a divine act where God declares the sinner to be innocent of sin. It is what is called "forensic justification" in that it is a divine declaration as opposed to the Roman Catholic process. Some use the term "imputed righteousness". The concept is found, for instance, in Genesis when Abraham "believed the LORD, and He counted it to him as righteousness" (Gen 15:6). "Counted", "reckoned", that's the idea. Not "earned" or "attained". Paul uses this passage in Romans 4 in his argument for justification apart from works. "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" (Rom 4:4-5). Thus, this condition of being right in God's eyes is not a product of synergism -- the work of God and the person working together to actually become wholly perfect. It is the product of divine fiat. Christ took our sin so that we could receive His righteousness ... not our own.
Justification, then, is a single event. It occurs when a person places their faith -- their sole confidence -- in the Gospel, the payment of Christ on our behalf. When we believe God, it is reckoned to us as righteousness. That's justification.
2 comments:
Stan,
What would be an answer to this?
But to make matters even more problematic for Protestants, of those 11 'forensic' verses just mentioned, even these don't bode well for their understanding. For example:
Matthew 12:37, 1 Corinthians 4:4, and (arguably) Romans 8:33, are speaking of the final judgement, not something that takes place at the moment of conversion.
Romans 3:4 (Psalm 51:4) and (arguably) Psalm 19:9 are speaking of God being justified, thus it cannot mean "declare righteous by a judge," for no judge is above God. So despite being in a forensic context, "justify" here can really only mean vindicate. (I wrote about this earlier this year.)
1 Kings 8:32 (same as 2 Chron 6:23) and (maybe) Psalm 143:2 are the only forensic occurrences in which "declare righteous" would make sense. But this is only 1, maybe 2, verses in favor of such a definition.
Ex 23:7, Deut 25:1, Rom 8:33, 1 Cor 4:4, (and likely) Prov 17:5 & Mt 12:37 are not speaking of "declaring righteous" - as in declaring that someone has done his duty like keeping the commandments perfectly - but rather of "acquittal," meaning being found not guilty, i.e. innocent. For example, if I'm on trial for speeding, the Judge can either find me guilty (condemn), or he can acquit me (find innocent), but he cannot declare me to be a perfect driver and worthy of a reward.
Once one realizes that this is what the Bible has said on the subject, one finds that the Protestant understanding/definition of "justify" is very dubious and even erroneous. But I think the heat can be turned up even more on the Protestant assumption by looking at the possible definition of "vindicate".
Of the various possible definitions of "justify," I'm going to propose that "vindicate" is the 'truest' meaning of the term "justify" - meaning that translating the term as "vindicate" renders a coherent meaning in the great majority of the 76 or so verses that "justify" appears. Here are my findings:
Using "vindicate" is fits best for Job 9:2; 9:20; 13:18; 32:2; 33:12; 33:32; 34:5; 35:7; Ps 51:4 (Rom 3:4); Is 43:26; 45:25; 50:8; Jer 3:11; Mat 11:19 (Lk 7:35); Lk 7:29; Lk 10:29; Lk 16:15; Rom 2:13; 1 Tim 3:16; Jas 2:21; 2:24-25
Using "acquit" fits best for Gen 44:16; Ex 23:7; Deut 25:1; Job 9:15; 25:4; 27:5; Prov 17:15; Mt 12:37; Acts 13:39; Rom 8:33; 1 Cor 4:4
Using either "vindicate" or "acquit" is very possible for Gen 38:26; 2 Sam 15:4; 1 Kings 8:32 (2 Chron 6:23); Job 4:17; Job 10:15; 11:2; 15:14; 22:3; 40:8; Ps 19:9; 143:2; Is 5:23; 43:9; Is 53:11; Eze 16:51-52; Lk 18:14; Rom 3:20; 3:24; 3:26; 3:28; 3:30; Rom 4:2; 4:5; Rom 5:1; 5:9; Rom 6:7; Rom 8:30; 1 Cor 6:11; Gal 2:16-17; Gal 3:8; 3:11; 3:24; Gal 5:4; Titus 3:7
Using "vindicate" doesn't really fit for Ps 82:3; Dan 8:14; 12:3; Rev 22:11
I made a distinction between vindicating and acquitting because it seems acquitting fits best in situations where a person is being found 'innocent' of a charge, where as vindicating means more to show someone is in the right. But that said, I would argue that acquitting is a form or subset of vindicating, so the terms are conceptually not that different. With that in mind, all but 4 of the 76 verses can fit within a vindication/acquittal framework, meaning this is how we should most probably view it as well, especially in the key texts of Romans and Galatians.
This approach to rendering the term term "justify" as vindicate/acquit has the devastating effect of rendering the Protestant definition not only dubious, but completely without precedent. There isn't a single example where "justify" pertains to a judge declaring that you've kept the law perfectly.
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2013/04/does-biblical-term-justify-really-mean.html
A quick answer to a lengthy quote.
First, there is a problem with the term. It doesn't have one single meaning or use. For instance, Jesus said, "Wisdom is justified by all her children" (Luke 7:35). Clearly that one isn't "Wisdom was declared just before God." It was "Wisdom is proven right by her children -- the outcome." So arguing "It doesn't mean forensic justification in this passage" doesn't help. So in Matt 12:37, for instance, it isn't talking about "declared right before God" but "shown right." Just an example. We need to be aware of that. (That's the same sense used in James 2:24 ... or we have an honest-to-goodness biblical contradiction between Paul and James.)
To make matters difficult for Catholics, they cling to a "saved by grace through faith" that is on the basis of works. They teach (as opposed to merely implying) that we are saved on the basis of merit (on 3 levels -- Strict, Condign, and Congruent) and count on the "Treasury of Merit" -- the results of good works from Christ, Mary, and the saints -- to pay off their final "debt" to get into heaven (read "shorten Purgatory"). Justification by faith apart from works is justification by faith apart from works, not on the basis of works. That's simply contradictory. When Paul argues for "justification by faith apart from works" he points to Abraham. "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness'" (Rom 4:2-3). Not works; "counted to him." That is precisely forensic justification. Abraham was justified at that point. When the author of that piece says it is "completely without precedent," he does so in the face of just such passages and more (like 2 Cor 5:21 and so many more) and contradicts himself. He said, "1 Kings 8:32 (same as 2 Chron 6:23) and (maybe) Psalm 143:2 are the only forensic occurrences in which 'declare righteous' would make sense." That is not "without precedence" since he sites precedence all by himself.
If you deny the doctrine of "counted as righteousness," you're left with "saved by works." They don't mind that. I can't go there and remain faithful to Scripture.
Post a Comment