Is justification a process?

[Indifferently]

Are we divinely acquitted? Or do we go through life losing and regaining our justification, going from being in God’s good books to being in his bad books and back again, rather hoping that on the day of our deaths we have got back into his good books in time? Is this the Gospel of Jesus Christ or something else?

 

[guanophore]

Are we divinely acquitted? Or do we go through life losing and regaining our justification, going from being in God’s good books to being in his bad books and back again, rather hoping that on the day of our deaths we have got back into his good books in time? Is this the Gospel of Jesus Christ or something else?

Rom 3:24-25
“(we are)now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith.”

1 Cor 6:11
“but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

We are justified in baptism.

 

[JerryZ]

Are we divinely acquitted? Or do we go through life losing and regaining our justification, going from being in God’s good books to being in his bad books and back again, rather hoping that on the day of our deaths we have got back into his good books in time? Is this the Gospel of Jesus Christ or something else?

Justification is an event we can p(name removed by moderator)oint to our baptism when the Holy Spirit was infused in us our salvation thereafter is a “process”

Philippians 2:12 So then, my beloved, even as ye have always obeyed, not [1] as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

We are definetively “saved” when we meet our Lord, until then we better work at it with fear and trembling as the Apostle admonishes us, lest us not boast we are saved and loose it.

 

[JRKH]

Are we divinely acquitted? Or do we go through life losing and regaining our justification, going from being in God’s good books to being in his bad books and back again, rather hoping that on the day of our deaths we have got back into his good books in time? Is this the Gospel of Jesus Christ or something else?

In response to the above, I can only say that it is neither and both…

Justification is both an event AND a process…BUT it is not a constant matter of flipping between being saved and not saved.

At our conversion to Christ we are “Justified” because true conversion requires repentance of sin and a renunciation of our sinful past. So - with all of our sins forgiven, we are fully justified. Moving forward from this point our justification is not so much about how we act as it is about how we think. It is our desire to Love God and neighbor - our desire to avoid sin - our desire to grow in holiness that is the determining factor on whether we are in God’s “good books” or his “bad books”.

If our desires and our efforts are geared toward the good…the Agape…then our slip-ups and failures mean nothing for we will immediately come running back to God for forgiveness.
It is only when we stop desiring to please God…when we cease in our efforts to grow in holiness that we slip over to the wrong side of the ledger…
Hope this helps.

Peace
James

 

[guanophore]

Are we divinely acquitted? Or do we go through life losing and regaining our justification, going from being in God’s good books to being in his bad books and back again, rather hoping that on the day of our deaths we have got back into his good books in time? Is this the Gospel of Jesus Christ or something else?

As I am sure you know, this question was a major element of the Reformation,and thus, prominently addressed at the Council of Trent.

 

[fhansen]

Are we divinely acquitted? Or do we go through life losing and regaining our justification, going from being in God’s good books to being in his bad books and back again, rather hoping that on the day of our deaths we have got back into his good books in time? Is this the Gospel of Jesus Christ or something else?

We’re acquitted and justified at once formally by Baptism. But that merely puts us back to the same status as Adam, in terms of righteousness. From there we have the opportunity to continue in that righteousness-or not. We’re expected to increase it, actually, doing the best we can with the grace we’re give. Reference the Parable of the Talents and Luke 12:48.

We’re not only forgiven; we’re expected to ‘go, and sin no more’, via the direct help-the grace- that is available through the New Covenant. God’s purpose in justification is to truly justify, to restore His creation to the heights from which it fell, for His will to be done, rather than for sin to merely be ignored.

 

[pablope]

Are we divinely acquitted? Or do we go through life losing and regaining our justification, going from being in God’s good books to being in his bad books and back again, rather hoping that on the day of our deaths we have got back into his good books in time? Is this the Gospel of Jesus Christ or something else?

chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/salvation.pdf

Justification By Faith
By Dr. William Marshner

Stages of Justification
Catholic and Protestant views on the respective roles of grace, faith and works cannot be compared meaningfully, unless one specifies what stage of the justificational process one is talking about. In the
preparatory stage, for instance, in which prevenient graces first stir a person towards an interest
in religious truth, towards repentance, and towards faith, Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists are at one in saying “sola gratia.”2 A second stage is the very transition from death to life, which is the first stage
of justification proper. Here the parties are at one in saying “sola fide,” though they seem to mean different things by it. Protestants tend to mean that, at this stage, by the grace of God, man’s act
of faith is the sole act required of him; Catholics mean that faith is the beginning, foundation and root of all justification, since only faith makes possible the acts of hope and charity (i.e. love-for-God) which
are also required.3 However, since most Protestants have a broad notion of the act of faith, whereby it includes elements of hope and love, it is often hard to tell how far the difference on this point is real and
how far it is a matter of words. Finally, however, there comes a third stage, that of actual Christian life, with its problems of growth and perseverance. The man justified by faith is called to “walk”
with God, to progress in holiness. It is at this stage that the parties sharply diverge.
Catholics affirm, and Protestants strenuously deny, that the born-again Christian’s good works merit for him the increase of grace and of the Christian virtues. As a result, Protestant piety has no obvious place
for the self-sacrifices, fasts, and states of perfection which are prominent features of Catholic piety.
At each stage, neither the apparent agreements nor the apparent disagreements can be understood without looking at certain metaphysical quarrels, the chief of which is over the very existence of what
Catholics call “grace.”

 

[JonNC]

chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/salvation.pdf

Justification By Faith
By Dr. William Marshner

Stages of Justification
Catholic and Protestant views on the respective roles of grace, faith and works cannot be compared meaningfully, unless one specifies what stage of the justificational process one is talking about. In the
preparatory stage, for instance, in which prevenient graces first stir a person towards an interest
in religious truth, towards repentance, and towards faith, Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists are at one in saying “sola gratia.”2 A second stage is the very transition from death to life, which is the first stage
of justification proper. Here the parties are at one in saying “sola fide,” though they seem to mean different things by it. Protestants tend to mean that, at this stage, by the grace of God, man’s act
of faith is the sole act required of him; Catholics mean that faith is the beginning, foundation and root of all justification, since only faith makes possible the acts of hope and charity (i.e. love-for-God) which
are also required.3 However, since most Protestants have a broad notion of the act of faith, whereby it includes elements of hope and love, it is often hard to tell how far the difference on this point is real and
how far it is a matter of words. Finally, however, there comes a third stage, that of actual Christian life, with its problems of growth and perseverance. The man justified by faith is called to “walk”
with God, to progress in holiness. It is at this stage that the parties sharply diverge.
Catholics affirm, and Protestants strenuously deny, that the born-again Christian’s good works merit for him the increase of grace and of the Christian virtues. As a result, **Protestant piety has no obvious place
for the self-sacrifices, fasts, and states of perfection which are prominent features of Catholic piety.**At each stage, neither the apparent agreements nor the apparent disagreements can be understood without looking at certain metaphysical quarrels, the chief of which is over the very existence of what
Catholics call “grace.”

I would agree, though I think the part I bolded is a bit overstated, at least where Lutherans are concerned.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

I would agree, though I think the part I bolded is a bit overstated, at least where Lutherans are concerned.

Jon

I agree Jon NC. When I was part of a Methodist community fasting, prayer, and acts of charity were considered a very important part of becoming sanctified.

 

[fhansen]

A second stage is the very transition from death to life, which is the first stage
of justification proper. Here the parties are at one in saying “sola fide,” though they seem to mean different things by it. Protestants tend to mean that, at this stage, by the grace of God, man’s act
of faith is the sole act required of him; Catholics mean that faith is the beginning, foundation and root of all justification, since only faith makes possible the acts of hope and charity (i.e. love-for-God) which
are also required.3 However, since most Protestants have a broad notion of the act of faith, whereby it includes elements of hope and love, it is often hard to tell how far the difference on this point is real and
how far it is a matter of words. ”

This points to a huge difference. In Protestantism we’re saved by a one-time act of faith, a faith which must persevere-and may in fact be guaranteed perseverance depending on ones theology on this point. In any case faith is everything from this perspective, while faith is only a part of the whole from the Catholic perspective. In Catholicism we’re saved via faith, faith being the means to restored relationship with God who first calls us to this very faith. From this basis He may now begin to do a work in us- the work of salvation, the first * formal* step of which would be baptism. It all begins with grace, moving onto more grace, but any of that grace can be responded to by man, or resisted by man, at any step along the way.

 

[JonNC]

This points to a huge difference. In Protestantism we’re saved by a one-time act of faith, a faith which must persevere-and may in fact be guaranteed perseverance depending on ones theology on this point. In any case faith is everything from this perspective, while faith is only a part of the whole from the Catholic perspective. In Catholicism we’re saved via faith, faith being the means to restored relationship with God who first calls us to this very faith. From this basis He may now begin to do a work in us- the work of salvation, the first * formal* step of which would be baptism. It all begins with grace, moving onto more grace, but any of that grace can be responded to by man, or resisted by man, at any step along the way.

If we are saved by some one time act of faith (the term actually makes it sound like a work) I can’t put my finger on when that happened to me. I think an emphasis on one- time event is also overstated. We are justified by faith, but faith even starts at Baptism. The forensic nature of justification does not necessarily mean a “conversion moment”, but more an understanding of us being declared justified by God. We certainly grow in grace.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Forensics is sometimes a misuse word, specifically when it comes to theology.

Forensic science (often known as forensics) is the application of a broad spectrum of sciences and technologies to investigate and establish facts of interest in relation to criminal or civil law. The word forensic comes from the Latin forēnsis, meaning “of or before the forum.” In Roman times, a criminal charge meant presenting the case before a group of public individuals in the forum. Both the person accused of the crime and the accuser would give speeches based on their sides of the story. The individual with the best argument and delivery would determine the outcome of the case. This origin is the source of the two modern usages of the word forensic – as a form of legal evidence and as a category of public presentation.

Having been in the field of computer forensics for 7 years now, I cannot help but agree with the bolded statement above. Also, I don’t see why we would want to apply forensic principles to theology. When, first and foremost, none of us is able to comprehend the nature of God. As such, He is outside the realm of our understanding.

The OSAS camp try as much as they can to “justify” (Ironic…) a once for all forensic application of justification with complete disregard to how our lives must then be subject to the conditions of Grace given by our Lord.

And they call us legalistic… Oh the Irony!

 

[fhansen]

If we are saved by some one time act of faith (the term actually makes it sound like a work) I can’t put my finger on when that happened to me. I think an emphasis on one- time event is also overstated. We are justified by faith, but faith even starts at Baptism. The forensic nature of justification does not necessarily mean a “conversion moment”, but more an understanding of us being declared justified by God.

Jon, perhaps I painted with too broad a brush, including all variants of the faith alone adherents under one roof. But what seems to me to be an increasing movement among Christians is to consider faith to be equal to justice for man, as if believing, alone, makes it a done deal, as if faith is all that’s necessary to please God, while, in fact, faith pleases God because of what it leads to, because it turns us towards Him making us pliable clay in the hands of the Potter for His work of salvation to be completed in us.

IfWe certainly grow in grace.

Does this mean, then, that we grow in justice?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Does seem that responsibility to maintain the Faith is overlooked. That’s the acknowledgement of the Grace, and thus giving back in appreciation. Theory being you can’t keep Grace but by giving it away, as to empty oneself, so one may continue to fill oneself with Grace. Its an on-going “union” of “love” with the Lord. Part of that established union is His Divinely instituted Church regardless of our agreement on it. This relationship, we have a responsibility to maintain, and in Faith, and you can only acknowledge the Grace through the Faith.

Been my experience anyway. And, the paradox drives me on.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

 

[guanophore]

If we are saved by some one time act of faith (the term actually makes it sound like a work) I can’t put my finger on when that happened to me.

You absolutely hit that nail on the head JonNC. And this is precisely why the Calvanists reject it. Since they believe we cannot do this “work” until after we are converted/justified/born again.

John 6:28-29
What must we do to perform the works of God?" 29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

So they say that God regenerates those He has chosen, so that they then are able to choose to believe.

I think an emphasis on one- time event is also overstated. We are justified by faith, but faith even starts at Baptism. The forensic nature of justification does not necessarily mean a “conversion moment”, but more an understanding of us being declared justified by God. We certainly grow in grace.

Jon

Yeah…then there is that “forensic” concept…

 

[JonNC]

=fhansen;10773889]Jon, perhaps I painted with too broad a brush, including all variants of the faith alone adherents under one roof. But what seems to me to be an increasing movement among Christians is to consider faith to be equal to justice for man, as if believing, alone, makes it a done deal, as if faith is all that’s necessary to please God, while, in fact, faith pleases God because of what it leads to, because it turns us towards Him making us pliable clay in the hands of the Potter for His work of salvation to be completed in us.

Well, in terms of justification, grace through faith is what is necessary. But Lutherans recognize that justification is always and completely linked to sanctification. Some Lutherans even today speak of deification/theosis in how we grow in His grace to be more and more like Him.

Does this mean, then, that we grow in justice?

I think I answered this above, but just let me say further that the Lutheran view of the Christian is at once both saint and sinner. We will always be sinners here in this life. The goal is to become increasingly less so, guided/led of course by the Holy Spirit - working out our salvation in fear and trembling.

Jon

 

[fhansen]

Some Lutherans even today speak of deification/theosis in how we grow in His grace to be more and more like Him.

Well, that’s certainly good. Sometimes it seems the reformed view of man can be so pessimistic-almost shame-based, with no capability of goodness in him even after salvation, and I can’t help but think satan’s pretty happy with that distortion.

I think I answered this above, but just let me say further that the Lutheran view of the Christian is at once both saint and sinner. We will always be sinners here in this life. The goal is to become increasingly less so, guided/led of course by the Holy Spirit - working out our salvation in fear and trembling.

Jon

I’d just emphasize the point in any case that man’s justice does not consist of faith alone, but rather of other virtues and dispositions as well, these most completely summed up with the virtues of hope (trust/confidence), and, most importantly, love. This is what man was made for, this is where God wants to lead us to, and this excludes sin by its very nature. And as scripture tells us, no sinners will enter heaven.

Since God didn’t create man to sin, and since all things are possible with God, I think He can pull off what most Protestants seem to believe is impossible: the sanctification of man for his justification.

 

[guanophore]

Well, in terms of justification, grace through faith is what is necessary. But Lutherans recognize that justification is always and completely linked to sanctification. Some Lutherans even today speak of deification/theosis in how we grow in His grace to be more and more like Him.

I think I answered this above, but just let me say further that the Lutheran view of the Christian is at once both saint and sinner. We will always be sinners here in this life. The goal is to become increasingly less so, guided/led of course by the Holy Spirit - working out our salvation in fear and trembling.

Jon

I am curious about this Jon. If God’s grace is sufficient to deliver us from sin, then why would it not be possible to be sanctified in this life?

 

[Indifferently]

Well, in terms of justification, grace through faith is what is necessary. But Lutherans recognize that justification is always and completely linked to sanctification. Some Lutherans even today speak of deification/theosis in how we grow in His grace to be more and more like Him.

I think I answered this above, but just let me say further that the Lutheran view of the Christian is at once both saint and sinner. We will always be sinners here in this life. The goal is to become increasingly less so, guided/led of course by the Holy Spirit - working out our salvation in fear and trembling.

Jon

Jon, I thought Lutherans believed that sanctification was a different thing from justification? I thought it was Rome which conflated the two?