Justification And Sanctification

[thenobes]

The article suffers from a careless reading and study of the Pauline corpus. For instance, notice how he never quotes the passages that show dikaioo as a forensic declaration apart from a transformation occurring. For example, Romans 2:13 speaks about how God will justify the doers of the law on the final day of judgement. This eschatological justification is forensic, meaning its a declaration, and no ontological change occurrs. The author of the article says that when God declares something he makes it ontologically real. Well, yes on many ocassions this is the case. But what kind of transformation occurs at the final judgement? Similar, 1 Corinthians 4:1-7 Paul uses justified in a clearly forensic non transformative way. The article simply was not a careful assessment of the NT.

Justification is separated from sanctification because they deal with different purposes. Justification deals with being discharged from the sentence of death. Sanctification does not denote this, otherwise you’d see it being used that way. Sanctification means to make holy, and both it and justification occur simultaneously. This is what calvin taught

Romans 2:13 could also mean “show to be righteous”, thus meaning He displays or declares our righteousness to all others at that time, so no one will be unsure of it. Same with 1 Cor 4:4.

David Palm just wants to make the point that the natural meaning of a verb when used with the ending dikaioo has in its use in “to justify”, is “to make righteous”. Except that man can’t make anything righteous, so the best man can do is to “declare innocent” or “declare righteous”, where that is pointing out what already was. Thus the forensic meaning. But God does not have this limitation.

I do agree with you about the forensic nature at the Last Judgement. At that point however, why would God need to make us righteous? However, it is obvious that at initial justification, there is a point where we are made righteous, and, due to what I said above, there need not be a limitation to a forensic connotation.

I think there may be a point where we are neither just nor unjust due to prevenient grace, and at that point God could make us righteous without contradicting His staement in the OT that He will not justify the guilty. The granting of faith enables us to assent to the works which God has prepared for us, thus changing us to positive obedience and actual righteousness.

Which obedience amd assent build our sanctification.

peace
steve

 

[Pax]

I realized that my view of “justification” might be the same as the way it is defined in the Council of Trent. I wanted others to briefly look at what I’ve written and gives a short assessment.

I personally believe that when Paul uses the word “justified” or “justification”, he is referring alone to the grace of forgiveness of sin and guilt. Through the sacrament of baptismal regeneration, we are reborn through the crucifixion and resurrection, and come up simultaneously forgiven of both original sin and actual sin and we are alive together with Christ in the divine life of sonship, true communion with God.

Therefore, when Paul says we are “justified”, this is tantamount to saying we are “forgiven”. When St. Paul says we are “sanctified”, what he means is that we are made holy. Both are necessary for salvation and without one, the other is not present.

The biblical reasons I have for this is the transparent distinction that Paul puts between sanctification and justification in the following verses. “He became wisdom from God, and justification, and sanctification, and redemption” (1 Cor 1:30) and “but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11). Why would Paul be using two words of equivalent meaning when he could use one? I believe there is an implicit distinction made because of the way Paul uses two different words in the same sentence to convey their meanings.

Now, how could my view be that of the Tridentine defintion? Well, could it be that the bishops of Trent were not trying to figure out what “Paul” meant when he said “justification”, but were rather making a broader systematic word “justification” which incorporates both what Paul called justification and sanctification together.

God Seeker in Christ,

There is a distinction to be made between justification and sanctification, but I agree with Jimmy Akin and, in paraphrasing his statements I would say, “that there is no bright line separating the terms justification and sanctification within Catholic teaching.”

Scripture makes that clear in the following verses:

Heb 13:12
Therefore Jesus also suffered outside the city gate in order to sanctify the people by his own blood.

Acts 20:32
And now I commend you to God and to the message of his grace, a message that is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all who are sanctified.

Acts 26:18
to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

1Cor 1:2
To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

Rom 6:22
But now that you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God, the advantage you get is sanctification. The end is eternal life.

Heb 2:11
For the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one Father. For this reason Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters,

HEB 10:9
And it is by God’s will that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Heb 10:29
How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

1Peter 1:2
who have been chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit to be obedient to Jesus Christ and to be sprinkled with his blood:

2 Thess 2:13
But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

You can see from this list of scriptures that a substitution of the word justification for the word sanctification would in no way cause an incorrect statement to be made about justification. The terms are sometimes nearly synonymous and are so closely related that it is proper to say that although they are different terms there is no “bright line” dividing them

God bless.

 

[o2bwise]

Hi,

I have done a bit of studying on this subject. This includes checking the rendering of Hebrew and Greek words that seem to be relevant to justification. I used the KJV (sorry!) because I am familiar with the Strong’s nomenclature.

The following is what I have come up with. I think it’s pretty accurate:

Original Str # pronounce # english
Hebrew 6662 tsaddiq 206 righteous, just
Hebrew 6663 tsadeq/tsadok 41 be justified, be righteous, justify
Hebrew 6664 tsedoq 114 righteousness, righteous, just, justice
Hebrew 6665 tsidqah 1 righteousness
Hebrew 6666 tsedaqah 57 righteousness, justice

Greek 1341 dikaiokrisia 1 righteous judgment
Greek 1342 dikaios 80 righteous, just
Greek 1343 dikaiosunee 89 righteousness
Greek 1344 dikaioo 39 justified
Greek 1345 dikaioma 10 righteousness, ordinances, justification, judgment
Greek 1346 dikaios 5 Justly, righteously
Greek 1347 dikaiosis 2 justification

Anyway, my present discernment is that to be justified is to be made right or to show to be right, the latter explaining how it is God (who already is right, of course) could be justified (see Romans 3:4).

Drilling to the original languages tells me that words like justify and being made right are synonymous, being interchangeable.

I see that the orthodox Protestant view is 100% substitutionary where justification and sanctification are mutually exclusive. Hmmmmm. Seems to me that sanctification is a subset of justification where the part of justification that is not sanctification is to show to be right. In other words, to my understanding, justification includes being made righteous and sanctification is being made righteous!

I am extremely curious of the Catholic view. Especially the following:

1. What is the rational basis for God accounting a person of faith as righteous, when a person of faith is not? (I believe any person of faith has experienced SOME heart change, but he sure is not yet 100% righteous in character.)
2. How does the Catholic view of justification handle the departure of any Christian’s character from what justification seems to be, that being a perfectly holy, sinless character?

Blessings,

Tony

 

[fhansen]

I am extremely curious of the Catholic view. Especially the following:

1. What is the rational basis for God accounting a person of faith as righteous, when a person of faith is not? (I believe any person of faith has experienced SOME heart change, but he sure is not yet 100% righteous in character.)
2. How does the Catholic view of justification handle the departure of any Christian’s character from what justification seems to be, that being a perfectly holy, sinless character?

Blessings,

Tony

Since a person is said to be completely forgiven, his sin removed, due to faith/baptism, then there can be no unrighteousness in him at that point, nothing that separates him from God; he’s basically in the position of Adam before the Fall. But that doesn’t mean that, from that justified point on, he’s immune from temptation, that he cannot fall again as Adam did. IOW, whatever it is in man that might cause him to disbelieve God and turn towards created things, placing them higher than Him, doesn’t leave us-we still may struggle with sin; we will retain concupiscence, until ultimately we learn what Adam apparently didn’t know: the supreme worth of God and His wisdom, the true Good and source of all other goods, and of our absolute need for Him in order to have life and have it abundantly. This is a good struggle, one that involves our wills becoming increasingly aligned with Gods will, by His drawing, and without forcing, our cooperation.

According to Catholic teaching we can actually grow in justice. This is because, from my understanding, there’ s no limit to the degree one can grow in love- and love defines mans justice according to the greatest commandments. And growth in love is what keeps sin at bay-the two are mutually exclusive.

Blessings,

Tony

 

[o2bwise]

Hi fhansen,

Well…

If I understand your view, it violates my reason!

Since a person is said to be completely forgiven, his sin removed, due to faith/baptism, then there can be no unrighteousness in him at that point

The context of the following Scripture is justification itself.

Romans 4:17
17 (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed–God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;

My understanding is that we are known by our fruit. Bad trees produce bad fruit. Good trees produce good fruit. Folks who have not yet been perfectly sanctified produce both good and bad fruit and this production demonstrates the actual moral status of our lives.

Moreover, the Bible tells us God has this quality of (sometimes) calling those things which do not exist as though they did. Would that not then invite something other than what you stated: “is said to be?”

Since I am still a sinner and since my reason cannot understand how a completely righteous person can sin, my reason is violated unless I conclude that God is calling something that does not exist as though it does.

Importantly, I do believe God has completely forgiven me and loves me. In other words, that His forgiveness of me is not contingent on the fact that I have a not yet fully righteous (read: fully justified) character.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)uts.

Blessings,

Tony

 

[fhansen]

Since I am still a sinner and since my reason cannot understand how a completely righteous person can sin, my reason is violated unless I conclude that God is calling something that does not exist as though it does.

Was Adam a completely righteous person at his creation?

 

[o2bwise]

Hi fhansen,

Was Adam a completely righteous person at his creation?

Ahhhh, I think I see your point.

I’ll supply an excerpt that is relevant to me to our discussion.

The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan. Angelic perfection failed in heaven. Human perfection failed in Eden, the paradise of bliss. All who wish for security in earth or heaven must look to the Lamb of God. The plan of salvation, making manifest the justice and love of God, provides an eternal safeguard against defection in unfallen worlds, as well as among those who shall be redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.

My point is that I believe Adam’s case is one of susceptibility due at least in part to a lack of knowledge. This would be akin to the proverbial child whose mom cautions him not to touch the hot stove. The child has no idea what hot is and is reliant on declaration from mom.

Now, without getting into whether or not Adam HAD to sin, he sure lacked knowledge that I believe can ultimately pack the punch to safeguard the universe from ever choosing sin again. He had no idea of the awful effects of sin as well as how far divine redeeming love would extend.

If one allows for susceptibility of this nature, I do not believe it is necessarily correct to take Adam’s circumstance (he sinned even though he was righteous) and posit it on us (therefore we may be sinning all the while we may be righteous).

Furthermore, I kind of know that for myself, I can wallow in nasty thoughts and inclinations. I think any “doctrine of beginnings” (such as conversion or how Adam or Lucifer for that matter first conceived sin) is far beyond my comprehension. Regardless, I don’t think the status of my mind is akin to the status of Adam’s previous to his sin.

Know what I mean?

Finally, I think that characteristic of God (calling those things that do not exist…) is crucial to a discussion on justification. Just my conviction.

Take Care,

Tony

 

[fhansen]

Hi fhansen,

Ahhhh, I think I see your point.

I’ll supply an excerpt that is relevant to me to our discussion.

The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan. Angelic perfection failed in heaven. Human perfection failed in Eden, the paradise of bliss. All who wish for security in earth or heaven must look to the Lamb of God. The plan of salvation, making manifest the justice and love of God, provides an eternal safeguard against defection in unfallen worlds, as well as among those who shall be redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.

My point is that I believe Adam’s case is one of susceptibility due at least in part to a lack of knowledge. This would be akin to the proverbial child whose mom cautions him not to touch the hot stove. The child has no idea what hot is and is reliant on declaration from mom.

Now, without getting into whether or not Adam HAD to sin, he sure lacked knowledge that I believe can ultimately pack the punch to safeguard the universe from ever choosing sin again. He had no idea of the awful effects of sin as well as how far divine redeeming love would extend.

If one allows for susceptibility of this nature, I do not believe it is necessarily correct to take Adam’s circumstance (he sinned even though he was righteous) and posit it on us (therefore we may be sinning all the while we may be righteous).

Furthermore, I kind of know that for myself, I can wallow in nasty thoughts and inclinations. I think any “doctrine of beginnings” (such as conversion or how Adam or Lucifer for that matter first conceived sin) is far beyond my comprehension. Regardless, I don’t think the status of my mind is akin to the status of Adam’s previous to his sin.

Know what I mean?

Finally, I think that characteristic of God (calling those things that do not exist…) is crucial to a discussion on justification. Just my conviction.

Take Care,

Tony

I believe we’re all now born Prodigals, in a sense, exiled from the Father due to our human ancestors rebellion against Him. We’re here to gain the knowledge that Adam apparently lacked, so humankind may turn back to God again-by coming to believe in, place our trust in, and ultimately to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. Then mans justice will be complete, then Gods universe is in the order He designed it to be in.

Adam broke faith in God, for all practical purposes. God cannot be the God of someone who doesn’t even trust Him, and that’s exactly what Adam wanted: to be his own God. Jesus came to restore a faith that should never have been lost, so that a relationship that should never have been lost can be restored; man and God may commune again, His Spirit dwelling within, man no longer lost, in exile.

Adam was created righteous but he lost that righteousness the moment he sinned, because in that moment he spurned God. Mans righteousness absolutely depends on intimate relationship with God; he has none otherwise.

Had Adam not rebelled, he would’ve necessarily grown in righteousness as he came to know God better and better, just as we’re called to do, because this knowledge inevitably leads to increasing trust and, most importantly, increasing love for God. Instead he set man on a detour course, where we’re all bound to literally know good and evil in this world, and with the combination of that knowledge and revelation and grace, we have the opportunity now to run, like the Prodigal, back to the Father, choosing the Good alone.

 

[o2bwise]

Hi fhansen,

Thank you. Your words resonated with me as wonderful truth.

I am blessed.

Take Care…

Tony

 

[fhansen]

Hi fhansen,

Thank you. Your words resonated with me as wonderful truth.

I am blessed.

Take Care…

Tony

Thank you, Tony.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Electricity FLOWS.

The Protestant mind is incapable of conceiving of grace or justification or sanctification as being FLOWING.

Their mind is too small and narrow to conceive of such a thing.

BEING justified with God means BEING right with God.

Being RIGHT with God necessarily connotes a FLOWING or BEING From the past to the present to the future.

FLOWING is never a DISCRETE moment in time.

All these arguments go round and round but no one ever debates the CENTRAL issue.

Does sanctiFYING grace Flow?

If it FLOWS then justification FLOWS.

The devil doesn’t want people to understand the concept of Grace FLOWING because if people understand that then they’ll understand that if they want to go to heaven then grace must be FLOWING when they die–if it’s not they’ll go to Hell with him!

The reason that the devil wants people to think of JUSTIFICATION as DISCRETE–then they won’t worry about whether grace is FLOWING or not–they’ll ASSUME it is flowing after they commit a mortal sin when it is not flowing and then if death unexpectedly happens like Jesus taught it MIGHT-- then Satan can laughingly take their soul to Hell!

The whole real question isn’t works or faith or faith alone–for the devil it is whether he can get people to be dumb enough to think of justification as DISCRETE when it is not–and then to think that grace always FLOWS after justification starts WHEN IT does not–it doesn’t after mortal sin!

The real question is whether mortal sin exists or not–IT DOES!!!

Whether Grace FLOWS or merely BRANDS–it FLOWS even after having first make its mark!

And lastly can that FLOW be broken? It can! It is broken by mortal sin.

The whole Protestant fiasco consists of the CON job of the devil of getting people to believe in an EASIER way–a way where justification is a BRAND which makes getting to heaven easy–or if that doesn’t work the CON jog of getting people to believe that AFTER justification–even if it isn’t a BRAND that grace will ALWAYS and NECESSARILY ALWAYS after Justification FLOW.

It DOESN’T!!!

That fact is what Martin Luther wanted to get around because that made SALVATION hard because after justification one had to STILL–CONTINUALLY carry their cross–and it was still possible for them to MORTALLY sin only ONCE–die unrepentant in that state–and thereby go to Hell!

Is that possible? Yes! That is what horrified Luther and that is the reason the devil came up with the CON job on justification and the elimination of MORTAL sin–the EASIER way–and that is why people went for it–why worry about having to CONTINUALLY carry that weight of your cross and worry about one mortal sin which could possibly send you to Hell if you didn’t have to worry about it?

Jesus didn’t suffer the weight of the sins of the whole world for all times on the Cross so that later on His disciples wouldn’t even have to worry about continually carrying their own crosses which are VERY LIGHT with NO WORRY about ever falling into MORTAL sin which according to the Protestants doesn’t exist!

We don’t have to carry Christ’s Cross–most of the time Jesus’s yoke is easy and His burden is light but SOMETIMES we do have to carry our own crosses that he gives us–we have to suffer–we have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling–we have to examine our consciences and we have to confess MORTAL sins to priests because YES–it is possible that even though we were justified in the past–we can still go to Hell!

Those things are NOT the justification by faith alone garbage taught by Martin Luther!!!

The “Easy Road” to salvation is paved by the devil and leads to Hell! It is called the broad easy way to destruction–justification by faith alone–mortal sin does not exist–don’t worry about it highway!

Get off of that highway–confess your sins to a Catholic priest–and get on the pick up your cross and follow me Hard WAY narrow path that leads to heaven!

Yes you’ll always worry about and “FEAR and TREMBLE” about whether you are on this road or not–but when you finally get to heaven you’ll be glad you got on that road!

Other highways to stay off are the “Ecumenical everybody is on it” highway and the “Universalism express” train. Both of those routes also go to Hell!

 

[o2bwise]

Hi There,

I am settled in terms of believing myself to have, at a high level, a view of mainline Protestant and Catholic views of justification.

But, I do have one other (related) question.

What exactly is the Catholic understanding of what the wages of sin is and what the source of the wages of sin is?

Here, I’ll suggest possibilities, using the terms forensic and inherent.

By forensic, I mean sort of like a human system of justice where it doles out punishment as just penalty for transgression, an example being Ted Bundy and the electric chair.

By inherent, I mean like what took place in the mind of Judas when he more clearly saw the evil that he did (and he was). With this view, the source of the wages of sin was his own heart and it was unleashed when he simply saw who he was with more clarity. In fact, Isaiah 1 says that shame and embarrassment can pack enough punch to consume a person. Going back to Judas, we know that physical death was not sin’s wage, rather it was a means to escape sin’s wage. This causes me to think of the folks in Revelation who cry for rocks to fall on them.

To my understanding the source of the wages of sin has three possibilities.

1. Forensic
2. Inherent
3. Forensic and inherent

With a forensic view, it follows that the source of the wages of sin is God Himself and Christ’s work of salvation is to satisfy a need God has. With an inherent view, the source of the wages of sin is the immorality that is part of the sinner and Christ’s work of salvation is to perform a change in man, with no need to do so in God, for God does not change anyway.

Of course, more could be said, but, anyway, I am quite curious of knowing the answer to this.

Blessings,

Tony

 

[thenobes]

Hi There,

I am settled in terms of believing myself to have, at a high level, a view of mainline Protestant and Catholic views of justification.

But, I do have one other (related) question.

What exactly is the Catholic understanding of what the wages of sin is and what the source of the wages of sin is?

Here, I’ll suggest possibilities, using the terms forensic and inherent.

By forensic, I mean sort of like a human system of justice where it doles out punishment as just penalty for transgression, an example being Ted Bundy and the electric chair.

By inherent, I mean like what took place in the mind of Judas when he more clearly saw the evil that he did (and he was). With this view, the source of the wages of sin was his own heart and it was unleashed when he simply saw who he was with more clarity. In fact, Isaiah 1 says that shame and embarrassment can pack enough punch to consume a person. Going back to Judas, we know that physical death was not sin’s wage, rather it was a means to escape sin’s wage. This causes me to think of the folks in Revelation who cry for rocks to fall on them.

To my understanding the source of the wages of sin has three possibilities.

1. Forensic
2. Inherent
3. Forensic and inherent

With a forensic view, it follows that the source of the wages of sin is God Himself and Christ’s work of salvation is to satisfy a need God has. With an inherent view, the source of the wages of sin is the immorality that is part of the sinner and Christ’s work of salvation is to perform a change in man, with no need to do so in God, for God does not change anyway.

Of course, more could be said, but, anyway, I am quite curious of knowing the answer to this.

Blessings,

Tony

Tony,

I think it is an interaction between our will and God’s nature that makes the most sense. I believe that it is inherent in our free will that, if it is opposed to God it will not, indeed does not want to, remain in His presence.

I believe that coming to faith is God removing that opposition for us, so that we can make a free choice to believe or to reject Him.

The wages of sin is separation from God. Venial sin weakens our connection with God, by weakening our faith. Mortal sin separates us from God by killing our faith.

While we are on earth I believe our will swings one way or the other and God can intervene to cause it to cease opposition to Hism, at which point the offer of faith may be made, or the incentive to repent may be imparted (repent from mortal sin).

peace
steve

 

[o2bwise]

The Protestant mind is incapable of conceiving of grace or justification or sanctification as being FLOWING.

Their mind is too small and narrow to conceive of such a thing.

So you have concluded that you can characterize the Protestant mind in such a way? Too small and narrow?

Hmmmmmm.

Srong stuff that I would reserve for God alone for only He is qualified.

 

[Chesster]

Hi There,

I am settled in terms of believing myself to have, at a high level, a view of mainline Protestant and Catholic views of justification.

But, I do have one other (related) question.

What exactly is the Catholic understanding of what the wages of sin is and what the source of the wages of sin is?

Here, I’ll suggest possibilities, using the terms forensic and inherent.

By forensic, I mean sort of like a human system of justice where it doles out punishment as just penalty for transgression, an example being Ted Bundy and the electric chair.

By inherent, I mean like what took place in the mind of Judas when he more clearly saw the evil that he did (and he was). With this view, the source of the wages of sin was his own heart and it was unleashed when he simply saw who he was with more clarity. In fact, Isaiah 1 says that shame and embarrassment can pack enough punch to consume a person. Going back to Judas, we know that physical death was not sin’s wage, rather it was a means to escape sin’s wage. This causes me to think of the folks in Revelation who cry for rocks to fall on them.

To my understanding the source of the wages of sin has three possibilities.

1. Forensic
2. Inherent
3. Forensic and inherent

With a forensic view, it follows that the source of the wages of sin is God Himself and Christ’s work of salvation is to satisfy a need God has. With an inherent view, the source of the wages of sin is the immorality that is part of the sinner and Christ’s work of salvation is to perform a change in man, with no need to do so in God, for God does not change anyway.

Of course, more could be said, but, anyway, I am quite curious of knowing the answer to this.

Blessings,

Tony

For Catholics the wages of sin is death. Just like an employer pays an employee his wages, sin pays us or wage of death. Also, we don’t use the phrase forensic source. We use the phrases per se and* per accidens*. God per se is never the source of death however God per accidens is the source of death. Sin per se is the source of death.

 

[o2bwise]

Hi Chesster,

Thanks!

Yeah, forensic and inherent. I wish I had better terms!

On death that is the wages of sin. Realizing no chapter divisions in the original, Paul says the wages of sin is death in the final verse of Chapter 6 and he continues the discussion. Nine verses later, he says “the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” So, it would seem whatever this thing is he terms “death” is something other than what we generally consider death, cuz he hadn’t died that one yet!

He elaborates a bit in verse 13.

One time I read the entire NT and jotted down all texts that mentioned death and/or resurrection. I then reviewed them. It was illuminating to notice that the vast majority of the time (95% or so), when death was used, it was not referring to cessation of our earthly life and this also included the term crucify.

That was illuminating, I thought.

Thanks and Blessings,

Tony

 

[fhansen]

Hi Chesster,

Thanks!

Yeah, forensic and inherent. I wish I had better terms!

On death that is the wages of sin. Realizing no chapter divisions in the original, Paul says the wages of sin is death in the final verse of Chapter 6 and he continues the discussion. Nine verses later, he says “the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” So, it would seem whatever this thing is he terms “death” is something other than what we generally consider death, cuz he hadn’t died that one yet!

He elaborates a bit in verse 13.

One time I read the entire NT and jotted down all texts that mentioned death and/or resurrection. I then reviewed them. It was illuminating to notice that the vast majority of the time (95% or so), when death was used, it was not referring to cessation of our earthly life and this also included the term crucify.

That was illuminating, I thought.

Thanks and Blessings,

Tony

Trent, going off of Aquinas I believe, calls this the “death of the soul”. It consists of separation from God -whom man must remain in communion with in order to have life and have it abundantly-in order to simply be the being he was created to be. Man is born dead, so to speak, and so must be born again, or born from above, by being reconciled with God, restoring the relationship with Him that was destroyed at the fall. Sin is always disobedience of God, opposition to His will. It is death, and spells death, because it lies outside of the very order of the universe! Nothing about sin has anything to do with reality as God made it.

When Paul says that he died when the commandment came, this echoes the situation surrounding the original sin of Adam, from which all other sin flows. The greater our understanding of the sinfulness of an act the greater our culpability- and yet we cannot refrain from sin simply by hearing that it is sin, that there’s a command against it. So the Law cannot bring life because it cannot justify anyone. The only way that a person can be justified is first of all by being in communion with God, His Spirit dwelling within, which begins with faith, which Jesus came to instill in us, ultimately leading to the intimate relationship with God that man was always intended to have where increasingly he can’t help but love Him with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength- and with this his justice is complete, the separation is ended, man is alive again. Of course this is most fully realized-the “gestation” is complete, the deed consummated -when man finally meets God “face to face” in what is generally referred to as the Beatific Vision.

 

[brb3]

Well, in Romans 3:21-26 justification is clearly not speaking about an ontological transformation of the inner man, making him interiorly holy. You cannot squeeze that definition in there, for the language will not allow it. It says we are ‘‘justified by the redemption which is in Christ Jesus whom God put forth as a sacrifice of expiation in his blood’’ (v24). You have here sacrificial language, one of atoning the sins of sinners and the ungodly (5:9). Moreover Paul speaks of imputing righteousness to man in direct terms of forgiving sin in Romans 4:6-8.

Since justification has more of an acquittal langauge I take it to mean the forgiveness of sin. But I believe that this occurs when we are regenerated in baptisd inwardly sanctified. So I accept the requirements of inward cleansing, but this is saved for another category of langaue in Paul, sanctification.

U are giving us the standard Protestant understanding. NAMELY…we are saved by faith alone (justified) … apart from any initial sanctification. Sanctification by Protestants, is believed what comes later, once we begin living for Christ.

Thus, God justifies us …so that he might thereafter sanctify (set us apart) for himself.

But, Catholics believe both occur concurrently …and repeatedly ---------
" grace upon grace" …per St.Paul.

 

[brb3]

So you have concluded that you can characterize the Protestant mind in such a way? Too small and narrow?

Hmmmmmm.

Srong stuff that I would reserve for God alone for only He is qualified.

I knew Protestants would protest !! Jerry overstated here / underestimated the mind of Protestants !!!
But, he didn’t mean Protestants are mental pigmies … I hope not

 

[God_Seeker_1]

brb3,

Nowhere have I ever said what you think I am saying.

When you here “justified”, you think “santification, salvation, being made righteous, becoming conformed to Christ”, etc,etc. I believe sanctification (immedialtey upon baptism), conformity to Christ, being made righteous, are all CONDITIONS that are NECESSARY for salvation. So I am not sure what you are doing when you characterize what I am saying.

I do not see these things in the word “justified”. I see “remission of sins”. Sanctification and Justification, according to Protestants, are both necessary for salvation. One cannot be a snow covered dunghill. Whatever luther meant by this, it was not the idea from any of the original documents of the reformed believers. There have been Lutheran believers here in the past who have proven this.

Rather think of it this, Catholic believe justification is the inner sanctification of man into a just person and the remission of sins, and both are necessary for salvation. Protestants say that justification is the remission of sins and sanctification is the inner renewal of the man into a just person, and both are equally necessary for salvation. So what is the different?