How can a blood-sacrifice renew our Nature?

[God_Seeker_1]

I have been having great difficulty with the Catholic interpretation of Romans 3:21-26. I believe the most straightforward explanation of “justification” in this passage is that sinful human beings are graciously "justified"by means of the blood-sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This much is clear by the words of Paul “…being justified by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forth as an expiation by His blood to be received through faith…” (Rom 3:24-25). Any Jew would understand what sacrifices effect. They effect atonement and remission of sin, not the re-creation of the soul and heart of man. Therefore, when Paul says that we are “justified” by His grace, he most likely has in mind the idea of having our sins washed away, forgiven, in the blood of Jesus Christ.

Now when it comes to “salvation”, one is “saved” through Holy Baptism, which is a sacrament of regeneration, right? So in baptism we die to sin, are washed clean from guilt, and are reborn as righteous sons and daughters of God. We are raised unto good works, righteousness, and our minds are renewed. So through this one act of initiation, our persons are forgiven and renewed in righteousness. Protestants have stressed that “justification” is divine acquittal and pardon in God’s judgement and that “sanctification”, which happens alongside justification is the renewal of our hearts and mind in the image and likeness of God. To me, Romans 3:21-26 highly favors the protestant definition. For Paul makes a “direct” connection between the “justification of sinners” and the “blood-sacrifice of Jesus”. Any Jew would have remembered those times of bringing an animal to be sacrifice to atone for his/her sins. Why should we shove into this portion of Paul’s writings the internal sanctification of the heart and mind of man? Of course, no one would rightly say that this is not required for salvation…but to squeeze it into the definition of justification seems to be a difficult endeavor.

I wanted to challenge anyone on how they could explain Romans 3:21-26 from a Catholic perspective. I would also ask that anyone who wishes to argue that the “righteousness of God” here is His covenant faithfulness to not post any comments in pursuit to argue for this.

 

[JerryZ]

I have been having great difficulty with the Catholic interpretation of Romans 3:21-26. I believe the most straightforward explanation of “justification” in this passage is that sinful human beings are graciously "justified"by means of the blood-sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This much is clear by the words of Paul “…being justified by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forth as an expiation by His blood to be received through faith…” (Rom 3:24-25). Any Jew would understand what sacrifices effect. They effect atonement and remission of sin, not the re-creation of the soul and heart of man. Therefore, when Paul says that we are “justified” by His grace, he most likely has in mind the idea of having our sins washed away, forgiven, in the blood of Jesus Christ.

Now when it comes to “salvation”, one is “saved” through Holy Baptism, which is a sacrament of regeneration, right? So in baptism we die to sin, are washed clean from guilt, and are reborn as righteous sons and daughters of God. We are raised unto good works, righteousness, and our minds are renewed. So through this one act of initiation, our persons are forgiven and renewed in righteousness. Protestants have stressed that “justification” is divine acquittal and pardon in God’s judgement and that “sanctification”, which happens alongside justification is the renewal of our hearts and mind in the image and likeness of God. To me, Romans 3:21-26 highly favors the protestant definition. For Paul makes a “direct” connection between the “justification of sinners” and the “blood-sacrifice of Jesus”. Any Jew would have remembered those times of bringing an animal to be sacrifice to atone for his/her sins. Why should we shove into this portion of Paul’s writings the internal sanctification of the heart and mind of man? Of course, no one would rightly say that this is not required for salvation…but to squeeze it into the definition of justification seems to be a difficult endeavor.

I wanted to challenge anyone on how they could explain Romans 3:21-26 from a Catholic perspective. I would also ask that anyone who wishes to argue that the “righteousness of God” here is His covenant faithfulness to not post any comments in pursuit to argue for this.

The animals that were sacrificed where just a “covering” they did NOT forgive sins.
Only the perfect sacrifice could achieve that.
For we where cut off from God and through His sacrifice we were reborn, also do not try to separate the sacrament of Baptism from the sacrifice of Jesus as they are connected.

 

[R_C]

Nobody is saved until death.

We are justified through Baptism by the merits of Christ’s Passion and Death (“This is the chalice of my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins”).

Please note that before the Protestant errors we had 15 centuries of Tradition on this topic, and justification is a very in-depth topic. A very brief overview of Catholic teaching follows:

Considered as an act (actus justificationis), justification is the work of God alone, presupposing, however, on the part of the adult the process of justification (processus justificationis) and the cooperation of his free will with God’s preventing and helping grace (gratia praeveniens et cooperans).

Other causes of justification include the glory of God and of Christ as the final cause (causa finalis), the mercy of God as the efficient cause (causa efficiens), the Passion of Christ as the meritorious cause (causa meritoria), the reception of the Sacraments as the instrumental cause (causa instrumentalis).

 

[God_Seeker_1]

But if someone can attend to explaining Paul’s meaning in Romans 3:21-26

 

[po18guy]

I wanted to challenge anyone on how they could explain Romans 3:21-26 from a Catholic perspective.

Please read the catechism sections regarding grace and justification.

From the Haydock Commentary: Ver. 20. &c. To the end of this chapter, the apostle shews that the Jews cannot be truly justified, and sanctified by the works of the written law of Moses only; that a knowledge of sin, or of what is sinful, came by the law, but if they did not comply with the precepts of the law, this knowledge made them more guilty. Now, at the coming of Christ, the justice of God, that is, the justice by which he made others just, and justified them, cannot be had without faith in Christ, and by the grace of our Redeemer Jesus Christ, whom God hath proposed to all, both Gentiles and Jews, as a sacrifice of[3] propitiation for the sins of all mankind, by faith in his blood; that is, by believing in him, who shed his blood and died for us on the cross. It is he alone, (ver. 26.) that is the just one, and the justifier of all. And as to this, there is no distinction. The Gentiles are justified and sanctified without the written law, and the Jews who have been under the law, cannot partake of the justice of God, that is, cannot be justified, sanctified, or saved, but by the faith and grace of Christ Jesus. St. Paul does not pretend that the virtue of faith alone will justify and save a man; nothing can be more opposite to the doctrine of the gospel, and of the apostles in many places, as hath been observed, and will be shewn hereafter. He tells us in this chapter (ver. 20. and 28.) that man is justified without the works of the written law: and he teaches us, that no works of the law of Moses, nor any works that a man does by the law of nature, are sufficient to justify a man, and save him of themselves, that is, unless they be joined with faith, and the grace of God. And when he seems to say, that men are justified or saved by faith, or by believing, as he says of Abraham in the next chapter, (ver. 3. and 5.) he never says (as some both ancient and later heretics have pretended) that faith alone is sufficient. And besides by faith, he understands the Christian faith and doctrine of Christ, as opposite to the law of Moses, to circumcision, and the ceremonies of that law, as it evidently appears by the design of the apostle, both in this epistle and in that to the Galatians. He teaches us in this epistle (chap. ii. 6.) that God will judge every man according to his works: (chap. ii. 13.) that “not the hearers of the law,” but the doers, shall be justified. See also chap. vi. He tells the Galatians (chap. v. ver. 6.) that the faith, by which they must be saved, must be a faith working by charity. He also tells the Corinthians (1 Corinthians vii. 19.) that circumcision is nothing, nor uncircumcision, but the keeping of the commandments of God. That though a man should have a faith, that so he could remove mountains, it would avail him nothing without charity. How often does he tell us that they who commit such and such sins, shall not inherit or possess the kingdom of God? Does not St. James tell us, that faith without good works is dead? See chap. ii. Of this more hereafter. (Witham)

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Po18guy,

I am very well acquainted with the Catechism and Haydock’s commentary. But I do not think that they adequately cover the message of Romans 3:21-26. I believe that in the act of saving man, through baptism, that our natures are recreated to empower us to fulfill the law. But this doesn’t seek to be the grace explained in Romans 3:21-26. That man is justified on the final day of judgement is very clear, though surrounding with the grace of a God. I have not come across any literature that can make any sense of Romans 3:21-26. In Paul, redemption is the forgiveness of sin (Ephesians 1:7: colossians 1:13). He actually says the present grace of redemption is the forgiveness of sin through the blood of Christ. Of course there is a coming redemption of the body. But Paul says we are justified (now) because of the redmeption in Christ Jesus because of his propitiatory sacrifice, which makes atonement for sin. It only seems logical to understanding this justification to be that state of forgiveness, something an Israelite would have thought he had when his lamb was sacrificed. It seems that it takes great pain of logic to squeeze into this the idea of sanctifying the habit and behavior of man.

 

[po18guy]

I am very well acquainted with the Catechism and Haydock’s commentary. But I do not think that they adequately cover the message of Romans 3:21-26.

Well, isn’t this a conundrum!

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Well, isn’t this a conundrum!

I am not saying it is wrong. I am saying that there has not been a sufficient explanation of how a blood sacrifice directly causes an infusion of righteousness.

 

[po18guy]

I am not saying it is wrong. I am saying that there has not been a sufficient explanation of how a blood sacrifice directly causes an infusion of righteousness.

I would follow the wise counsel of Saint Augustine of Hippo: “Understanding is the reward given by faith. Do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe so that you might understand.”

 

[God_Seeker_1]

I understand. There is wisdom. But I was catholic for many years. I simply would like to dive into content. Is there anyway you know if a direct causal connection between a blood. Sacrifice and our infusion of righteousness?

 

[Veedar]

I understand. There is wisdom. But I was catholic for many years. I simply would like to dive into content. Is there anyway you know if a direct causal connection between a blood. Sacrifice and our infusion of righteousness?

What would be the causal connection between an innocent man being tortured to death, and declaring guilty sinners innocent because of this travesty against justice?

 

[God_Seeker_1]

He bore our sins and suffered the curse of the Law, execution on a tree. He sacrifices his life so that we can he redeemed from the curse of death. Therefore you have a connection between Jesus sacrifice and our justification. A direct causal connection. Now when this grace is communicated to me, I am brought into the life of the spirit of holiness.but the language of justification in Romans 3:21-27 is dealing with imagery from the temple, Atonement, sacrifice, blood, sin, etc…this is not the conversation of being internally changed into a righteous person.

 

[Veedar]

He bore our sins and suffered the curse of the Law, execution on a tree. He sacrifices his life so that we can he redeemed from the curse of death. Therefore you have a connection between Jesus sacrifice and our justification. (…)

Imagine a court of law where a murderer is about to be found guilty. But then the judge remembers that an innocent man erroneously was put to death the day prior for the same crime. And so the judge declares the murderer to be a righteous person because the innocent guy was killed for crimes he did not commit. Where is the causal connection?

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Imagine a court of law where a murderer is about to be found guilty. But then the judge remembers that an innocent man erroneously was put to death the day prior for the same crime. And so the judge declares the murderer to be a righteous person because the innocent guy was killed for crimes he did not commit. Where is the causal connection?

None because the innocent man did not give himself

 

[Veedar]

None because the innocent man did not give himself

And if he did? Would it really satisfy justice? And why does Paul add: “He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification” (Romans 4:25)?

Why was the resurrection needed to justify? Had not the penalty been paid with the death of Christ?

EDIT: Let me also add the even stronger passage 1 Corinthians 15:17 “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins”.

How so? If Jesus was a scapegoat who God punished with death for our sins, and then proceeded to declare us righteous as a court judge, why would the Corinthians still be in their sins if Jesus was not raised from the dead?

 

[po18guy]

I am saying that there has not been a sufficient explanation of how a blood sacrifice directly causes an infusion of righteousness.

It does not. Baptismal grace does. Christ’s blood is the atonement for the sins of those who would accept Him and keep His commandments. The “many” of whom He spoke in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24. Since you left Catholicism, you have learned a different vocabulary. Different terms for the same thing, and different things for the same terms. I think you might be conflating justification, sanctification and ultimately, salvation. Those sections of the catechism might be good to review.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

But the problem with that is Paul sees a direct causal connection between his sacrifice and our justification. Romans 5:9

 

[Veedar]

But the problem with that is Paul sees a direct causal connection between his sacrifice and our justification. Romans 5:9

Then kindly explain why Paul says Jesus died because of our transgressions, but was raised to life for our justification (Romans 4:25) and that we are still in our sins if Jesus was not raised from the dead. If you are correct, I fail to see why the resurrection would even be needed in order to pay the price for our sins. God did not raise the sacrificial lambs of the OT from the dead, did he? The lamb was killed, the blood was sprinkled, and that was it. And yet Paul ties the justification directly to the resurrection. Why, in your view, is this?

 

[God_Seeker_1]

The Greek construction here is rather odd. The Greek word for ‘‘because of’’ or ‘‘on account’’ makes it seem like our justification caused his resurrection. For it says ''he was delivered up because of our offenses (cause), and was raised because of our justification (cause). It seems that because He was the sinless Lamb of God, the incarnate God, his resurrection was caused by our justification being accomplished. In other words, his resurrection marks the completion of what was needed to justify sinners, and therefore he no longer needed to remain dead.

This might be dissatisfying, but it would be more difficult to try and say that his resurrection was caused by us becoming righteous. Or that his resurrection causes us to be righteous, which despite being true doesn’t fit the Greek construction or the context.

Also, since Abraham’s faith was imputed for righteousness was a paradigm of chrisitian justification because it was faith in God giving life to what is dead, that Christs resurrection tion gives us the faith which God imputes as righteousness.

 

[Veedar]

The Greek construction here is rather odd. The Greek word for ‘‘because of’’ or ‘‘on account’’ makes it seem like our justification caused his resurrection. For it says ''he was delivered up because of our offenses (cause), and was raised because of our justification (cause). It seems that because He was the sinless Lamb of God, the incarnate God, his resurrection was caused by our justification being accomplished. In other words, his resurrection marks the completion of what was needed to justify sinners, and therefore he no longer needed to remain dead.

This might be dissatisfying, but it would be more difficult to try and say that his resurrection was caused by us becoming righteous. Or that his resurrection causes us to be righteous, which despite being true doesn’t fit the Greek construction or the context.

Also, since Abraham’s faith was imputed for righteousness was a paradigm of chrisitian justification because it was faith in God giving life to what is dead, that Christs resurrection tion gives us the faith which God imputes as righteousness.

Or perhaps the reason why Jesus (in Paul’s view) died because of our transgressions and was raised because of our justification (typical parallelism) is simpler than that. Even God cannot raise someone from the dead unless they are in fact dead. And if he could not be raised from the dead, then we could not be raised with him…?