Justification And Sanctification

[God_Seeker_1]

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.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Titus 3: 4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Rom 5: 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

Rom 6: 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been justified [Greek] from sin.
But most people forget that the Bible speaks of justification often without using the term justification, but other synonymous terms:

• Acts 15:9,11 is about the Gentiles accepting the Gospel and parallels “cleansed their heart by faith” to “saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus.”
• Ephesians 2:5,8 says, “when we were dead in our trespasses, [God] made us alive together with Christ” and defines this as “by grace you have been saved”
• 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says, “God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved**, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth**”
• Acts 26:18 says “open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.”
• Col 2:11ff says, “having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,”
• 1 John 1:7,9 says, “the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. … If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Thank you for the listing.

I understand what you are saying, and I would say that a broader look at the whole of scripture teaches that justification does include internal sanctification. But Paul, however, I think is a bit more concerned about an exterior grace of friendship with God which has internal renewal as a pre-requisite, and not the actual grace itself.

 

[fhansen]

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.

He actually used three words, all meaning essentially the same thing. In Catholic theology we’re washed, renewed, made new, sanctified, justified at Baptism. Sanctifying grace is infused; we’re placed on the same level as Adam albeit without certain preternatural gifts. We still struggle against sin, with concupiscence, because this is how our justice is tested, challenged, stretched, and even increased according to Trent. And there’s no guarantee that we’ll pass the test, that we"ll win the struggle, that we’ll persevere, that we won’t turn again away from God and back to sin. Also from Trent:

**CHAPTER VII.
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.

This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.
**.

 

[inChristAlone33]

Justified by His Blood:

This video really moved me:

youtube.com/watch?v=x6T0m7uGJd4

2 minutes

 

[Michael_Allen]

Hi God Seeker

I think when we consider Paul and justification we always have to hold on to his view that we are justified “in Christ”. It’s not, for Paul, simply a matter of forgiveness* per se*, but we are forgiven, made just, and anew in Christ. We are “justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24), “So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Romans 6:11), “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1), “And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Corinthians 1:30), etc. Paul’s writings are riddled through with new life “in Christ”, the indwelling that our Lord talked about in the upper room (John 14:20) - that is central to Paul’s view of justification and sanctification, it seems.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Thank you all for your comments.

I am fully aware that in christ there is a broad range of aspects which make up the gift of salvation, including inner recreation. I thought I made this clear.

What I am focusing on in this post is the unique usage of Paul for the dikaiosune through faith. I’ve not denied the reality of the rebirth or the inner sanctification of man.

I don’t think Paul equates redemption, justification, sanctification, and washing. Some of these gifts are connected and related but Paul is free to give them their distinct meanings. Justification, for instance, is called the forgiveness of sin. Redemption is also called the forgiveness of sin (Ephesians 1:7) . Faith being reckoned for righteousness is not the same exact thing as the act of being made holy. Therefore justification can be the exterior counterpart to sanctification, while maintaining that both are required for a right relationship with God. Why is this not inline with Trent?

 

[fhansen]

Thank you all for your comments.

I am fully aware that in christ there is a broad range of aspects which make up the gift of salvation, including inner recreation. I thought I made this clear.

What I am focusing on in this post is the unique usage of Paul for the dikaiosune through faith. I’ve not denied the reality of the rebirth or the inner sanctification of man.

I don’t think Paul equates redemption, justification, sanctification, and washing. Some of these gifts are connected and related but Paul is free to give them their distinct meanings. Justification, for instance, is called the forgiveness of sin. Redemption is also called the forgiveness of sin (Ephesians 1:7) . Faith being reckoned for righteousness is not the same exact thing as the act of being made holy. Therefore justification can be the exterior counterpart to sanctification, while maintaining that both are required for a right relationship with God. Why is this not inline with Trent?

I’m not sure how you’re distinguishing between exterior and interior in regard to justification/sanctification. Justification means to be made holy/righteous/just. Only God can justify. Maybe this, also from Trent, will help:

"…faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification"

So faith is not the equivalent of justice for man, but rather the pathway to it.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

I’m not sure how you’re distinguishing between exterior and interior in regard to justification/sanctification. Justification means to be made holy/righteous/just. Only God can justify.

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. Especially Romans 5:9-11 where justification is again cast in terms of sacrificial language ‘‘having now been justified by His blood’’. What do you get from a blood atonement? Redemption? Paul defines it as the forgiveness of sin (colossians 1:7-14; eph 1:7) .

Justification does not always have the meaning of make righteous. Romans 2:13 ‘’ the doers of the law will be justified …in the day when God judges the secrets of mans heart ‘’. Is god supposed to be making righteous on the day of judgement? Also read 1 Corinthians 4:1-7 where Paul says 4

Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. [a] In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God.’’. Paul is clearly not meaning make righteous but more like acquitted. Therefore your argument does not fully take into consideration of Paul’s varied usages of the word.

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 baptism and inwardly sanctified. So I accept the requirements of inward cleansing, but this is saved for another category of langaue in Paul, sanctification.

 

[fhansen]

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. Especially Romans 5:9-11 where justification is again cast in terms of sacrificial language ‘‘having now been justified by His blood’’. What do you get from a blood atonement? Redemption? Paul defines it as the forgiveness of sin (colossians 1:7-14; eph 1:7) .

Justification does not always have the meaning of make righteous. Romans 2:13 ‘’ the doers of the law will be justified …in the day when God judges the secrets of mans heart ‘’. Is god supposed to be making righteous on the day of judgement? Also read 1 Corinthians 4:1-7 where Paul says 4

Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. [a] In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God.’’. Paul is clearly not meaning make righteous but more like acquitted. Therefore your argument does not fully take into consideration of Paul’s varied usages of the word.

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 baptism and inwardly sanctified. So I accept the requirements of inward cleansing, but this is saved for another category of langaue in Paul, sanctification.

I’m not sure why you need to separate baptism from justification then. We simply see baptism as the first formal expression of faith.

 

[Michael_Allen]

I’m not sure why you need to separate baptism from justification then. We simply see baptism as the first formal expression of faith.

Yes, and especially if we see baptism, and the baptised life, as sharing in the death and resurrection of our Lord. At the risk of repeating myself it seems pretty clear that Paul saw both justification and sanctification as coming from sharing in Christ’s life, being in Christ, rather than just forgiveness of sin, or simply a legal declaration. Baptism is obviously a key and intimate moment in the sharing in our Lord’s death and resurrection.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

I thought I made it clear that both sanctification and justification come out of baptismal regeneration. I am not sure why either of you thought to make those comments.

The problem is that the word “justified” is used in the context to convey the forgiveness of sin and acquittal from the wrath of God whereas the “sanctified” word is never used in such a context. That distinction is worth considering. I have already showed proof that “justified” does not mean “make righteous” all the time. In fact, it doesn’t most of the time, maybe even all the time.

And do not mistaken me for someone who wants to keep salvation exterior. That’s another mistake some make here. Salvation is an inward holiness, and nowhere have I disputed that fact.

 

[thenobes]

Thank you all for your comments.

I am fully aware that in christ there is a broad range of aspects which make up the gift of salvation, including inner recreation. I thought I made this clear.

What I am focusing on in this post is the unique usage of Paul for the dikaiosune through faith. I’ve not denied the reality of the rebirth or the inner sanctification of man.

I don’t think Paul equates redemption, justification, sanctification, and washing. Some of these gifts are connected and related but Paul is free to give them their distinct meanings. Justification, for instance, is called the forgiveness of sin. Redemption is also called the forgiveness of sin (Ephesians 1:7) . Faith being reckoned for righteousness is not the same exact thing as the act of being made holy. Therefore justification can be the exterior counterpart to sanctification, while maintaining that both are required for a right relationship with God. Why is this not inline with Trent?

G.S.,

Have you read this?
cfpeople.org/apologetics/page51a037.html
It’s a very clear explanation by David Palm to a Baptist workshop of the meaning of Justification (= Righteoussification). Very interesting. It helped to clarify much of my thinking on the topic.

Basically he makes the point that “declaring righteous” is for God the same as “making righteous”. I’m not sure exactly how it fits into your investigation here, but it might be a useful adjunct to your understanding.

peace
steve

 

[fhansen]

I thought I made it clear that both sanctification and justification come out of baptismal regeneration. I am not sure why either of you thought to make those comments.

The problem is that the word “justified” is used in the context to convey the forgiveness of sin and acquittal from the wrath of God whereas the “sanctified” word is never used in such a context. That distinction is worth considering. I have already showed proof that “justified” does not mean “make righteous” all the time. In fact, it doesn’t most of the time, maybe even all the time.

And do not mistaken me for someone who wants to keep salvation exterior. That’s another mistake some make here. Salvation is an inward holiness, and nowhere have I disputed that fact.

Yes, I think I had misunderstood your position with my last post. You separate justification and sanctification in time and purpose but seem to be saying that both are more or less instantaneous? In any case your position is at odds with Trent. And I think the reason is because justice simply doesn’t occur with forgiveness alone; sins aren’t merely forgiven; they’re taken away-and injustice is automatically replaced with something-with justice- or else there is no authentic justification. Man is in possession of his justice to the extent that he’s in communion with God. There is no neutral ground for us. This is essentially where Adam began. From there man can actually grow in justice, as he comes to grow in love for God and neighbor (the greatest commandments define what justice/holiness/righteousness consists of), or he can, like Adam, take a detour and elect to mistrust God instead, resulting in a loss of this same justice. In any case the terminology used to describe man’s justice are many and varied while directly related to each other, and all are said to fill him at the moment of justification. So Trent puts it this way:

** For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. **

Other ways of explaining the same thing is to say that we’re infused with sanctifying grace or that we’re indwelled by the Holy Spirit, God’s life having been imparted to us.

In any case, while Paul may’ve couched the Atonement in legal terms, and while forgiveness is obviously an essential aspect of its role, this doesn’t exclude the necessity of real positive change being an inherent part of this action of God.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

I do not separate justification in time. I believe that in order to be in communion. With God, one must be infused with divine life, righteousness and holiness. This is called sanctification. Justification refers to the remission of sins that come together with being united to the cross in baptism. The divinized life comes with justification, at same time and they depend on each other.

Atonement for sin was always understood as an exterior grace of salvation and Paul connects justification to the atonement of jesus’ death. Of course we must be raised to new life, but justification is referring to that atonement of his sacrifice.

 

[fhansen]

I do not separate justification in time. I believe that in order to be in communion. With God, one must be infused with divine life, righteousness and holiness. This is called sanctification. Justification refers to the remission of sins that come together with being united to the cross in baptism. The divinized life comes with justification, at same time and they depend on each other.

Atonement for sin was always understood as an exterior grace of salvation and Paul connects justification to the atonement of jesus’ death. Of course we must be raised to new life, but justification is referring to that atonement of his sacrifice.

But that Atonement brings with it grace. I’m just not sure why you need to separate justification and sanctification at all, especially if they’re not separated in time.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

G.S.,

Have you read this?
cfpeople.org/apologetics/page51a037.html
It’s a very clear explanation by David Palm to a Baptist workshop of the meaning of Justification (= Righteoussification). Very interesting. It helped to clarify much of my thinking on the topic.

Basically he makes the point that “declaring righteous” is for God the same as “making righteous”. I’m not sure exactly how it fits into your investigation here, but it might be a useful adjunct to your understanding.

peace
steve

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

 

[fhansen]

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

Calvin didnt teach that sanctification is progressive?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I understand what you are saying, and I would say that a broader look at the whole of scripture teaches that justification does include internal sanctification. But Paul, however, I think is a bit more concerned about an exterior grace of friendship with God which has internal renewal as a pre-requisite, and not the actual grace itself.

This is the heart of the problem with the Protestant understanding of justification. In the Protestant view, being in a relationship with God is an afterthought (after-effect) of being justified by God - as you said “exterior grace of friendship” - friendship is purely exterior. That’s not the Biblical and Catholic view, which is salvation/justification is synonymous with restoring intimate communion with God.

The verses I presented show that the classical Protestant view (i.e. Calvinism and Lutheranism) has projected a man-made, man-centered, Pelagian definition of “justify” onto Paul’s teaching.

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).

This is presuming and misunderstanding Paul. The “sacrificial language” is very much about restoring communion, and this is principally effected through inward cleansing. This is why the New Testament always links Christ’s Blood with sanctification/cleansing. The classical Protestant view of justification holds that it is purely forensic (i.e. legal categories only), which is a serious misunderstanding.

Moreover Paul speaks of imputing righteousness to man in direct terms of forgiving sin in Romans 4:6-8.

Yes, and think about what is being said: Paul says in Romans 4:6-8 that to “regard as righteous” is synonymous with “not regard as sinner”. This entails that the forgiven man is now righteous, which is why the Psalm quoted says things like “in who’s spirit there is no deceit” (Ps 32:2b).

Justification does not always have the meaning of make righteous. … Since justification has more of an acquittal langauge I take it to mean the forgiveness of sin.

Protestants have conflated Conversion with Final Judgment. Texts like Rom 2:13 and 1 Cor 4:7 are speaking of Final Judgment. When Paul speaks of Justification in the context of Conversion, he does not use “acquittal language” since those contexts are never forensic.

notice how he never quotes the passages that show dikaioo as a forensic declaration apart from a transformation occurring. For example, Romans 2:13

But you cannot make this same error in the opposite direction! What I mean is that, just because Justify is used in a forensic context does not mean you can just assume it means forensic every time, nor can you just lift and apply forensic wherever. That’s the problem. Protestants insert forensic into places like Rom 4 and Gal 3, when that’s not Paul’s intent, and from there the force the rest of Scripture to conform. This is how they come up with their Justification-Sanctification distinction, when Paul never goes about teaching Sanctification commences after or alongside Justification.

Justification is separated from sanctification because they deal with different purposes.

Sorry, but this is a man-made, unbiblical distinction. In the context of Conversion and growing in holiness, Justification rests on Sanctification. The Protestant view says Justification comes about by God imputing Christ’s Righteousness to us, which is a thoroughly unbiblical and Pelagian-Judaizer concept.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Catholic Dude,

You clearly did not read my statements carefully. Your red highlight did not cover the whole ofmy first paragraph. I said that inward, not exterior, grace must come and it a precondition for justification. Therefore inner sanctifying grace is necessary for justification. So I’m not sure how you can identify me as espousing a protestant view, that was very odd.

Justification is that part of baptism which involved es the removal of guilt. But for this to happen, one must be given sanctifying grace which renews the heart and mind of man to holiness.

I argue this because justification is said to be through the atonement provided by Christ (Romans 3:240 ). In leviticus, one brought their sin offering before the priest and the animal was killed and made atonement for the transgressions, and the confessor was forgiven or justified. Since Paul directly sees a causal connection between the atonement of christ and our justifications, and since our justification is stated explicitly in terns of forgiveness, the exegete cannot but help to conclude that justification is an exterior grace with interior preconditions (sanctification). When Christs death is connected to our sanctification it is never spoken of in terms of renewal. Sometimes washing or purification is used to cover both, but the just word group is reserved in Paul for that status we are in be Aussie of Christs shed blood.

Secondly, Trent argues that justification is that translation from being in Adam to being in christ, how can this be for Abraham who lived before the Christic mode of human life.came with Pentecost?