Justification And Sanctification

[thenobes]

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?

To believe in the remission of sins without metanoia, change of heart, where one dedicates oneself to following the lead of God, is not justification. However, this dedication will come with itself the beginning of sanctification. From second to second this rededication must be done interiorly to maintain faith and so remain justified.

peace
steve

 

[brb3]

brb3,

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.

Well, some Protestants don’t worry much about their post-baptism sins. They think all future sins were washed away by their first confession.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

To believe in the remission of sins without metanoia, change of heart, where one dedicates oneself to following the lead of God, is not justification. However, this dedication will come with itself the beginning of sanctification. From second to second this rededication must be done interiorly to maintain faith and so remain justified.

peace
steve

You have probably not had much experience in the reformed tradition, but in the reformed tradition, they believe that the soul is regenerated, which means that it is renewed from being dead in sin to being alive to righteousness, and then this gives the gift of faith, by which man is justified, and the simultaneous gift of repentance from sin. So faith and repentance are two sides of the same coin, and both are pre-conditions for the remission of sins.

Therefore, the reformed view has not be adequately described. I do not by any means hold to the protestant view of salvation, which is why I am still puzzled for it being brought up.

All that I am saying is the “justification” is a word used in Paul and it is not meant to be extensive on the whole gift of salvation, but rather it refers to that aspect of being released from guilt and punishment. Even if good works and inner holiness are required for it, it carries a forensic meaning.

 

[Chesster]

I agree that justification (at the final judgment) is a verdict however initial justification through faith and baptism is not a verdict at all. It is a translation from a state of unrighteousness and alienation from God to a state of covenant with God and adoption as His children. It has nothing to do with a courtroom. It is the result of a sacrifice that inaugurates a new covenant, which is not a forensic procedure. Sacrifices have nothing to do with courtroom verdicts. To bring the unrighteous into covenant with God is something that God does as a Redeemer not as a Judge.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

St. Thomas Aquinas says that “justification” IS “remission of sins”. However, he understands the “remission of sins” as the “removal of sins”, which is wierd itself.
Sins are not, in the first place, objects which can be dissolved or obliterated. Secondly, the word remission connotates the idea of cancelling or forgiving. Therefore remission of sins itself is not an activity acted upon the object, but a decision of the subject (God).

The challenge is to understand how the forgiveness of sins is the actual removal of sin. This is a peculiar idea.

Now, I understand that for God to forgive man, he must repent of his sin. But this repentance is not what Paul means by justification .

 

[brb3]

St. Thomas Aquinas says that “justification” IS “remission of sins”. However, he understands the “remission of sins” as the “removal of sins”, which is wierd itself.
Sins are not, in the first place, objects which can be dissolved or obliterated. Secondly, the word remission connotates the idea of cancelling or forgiving. Therefore remission of sins itself is not an activity acted upon the object, but a decision of the subject (God).

The challenge is to understand how the forgiveness of sins is the actual removal of sin. This is a peculiar idea.

Now, I understand that for God to forgive man, he must repent of his sin. But this repentance is not what Paul means by justification .

What does Paul mean ?

 

[Chesster]

Aquinas states: “sin is in the will as its subject.” Summa Subject of Sin

 

[brb3]

The challenge is to understand how the forgiveness of sins is the actual removal of sin. This is a peculiar idea.

Removal of sin charge to your/my debt account. As far as East from the West.

 

[Pax]

…
…

All that I am saying is the “justification” is a word used in Paul and it is not meant to be extensive on the whole gift of salvation, but rather it refers to that aspect of being released from guilt and punishment. Even if good works and inner holiness are required for it, it carries a forensic meaning.

Justification has a forensic dimension but it is also ontological. In scripture we clearly see that there is an ontological change at justification. In Romans 5:19 it says:

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

The phrase “made righteous”(“katestathesan” in Greek) is clearly ontological just as the fall is ontological. There are many other passages in the NT as presented by Paul that further support that point.

God bless.

 

[po18guy]

The difference? The inanimate can be sanctified. Jesus spoke of the altar that was holy (sanctified), as well as the gift placed upon the altar (Matthew 23:16-22). However, it was the altar’s greater holiness which also made the gift holy.

Humans can also be sanctified, but need to be justified first. All creation is good - it needs no justification, as it cannot depart from God, having no will of its own. However, it can be sanctified (as opposed to profaned) and placed in God’s service. Only the human soul needs to be justified, and the sanctification follows from it.

Example: Jesus sanctified the waters when He submitted to baptism, but water needs no justification.

 

[thenobes]

You have probably not had much experience in the reformed tradition, but in the reformed tradition, they believe that the soul is regenerated, which means that it is renewed from being dead in sin to being alive to righteousness, and then this gives the gift of faith, by which man is justified, and the simultaneous gift of repentance from sin. So faith and repentance are two sides of the same coin, and both are pre-conditions for the remission of sins.

Therefore, the reformed view has not be adequately described. I do not by any means hold to the protestant view of salvation, which is why I am still puzzled for it being brought up.

All that I am saying is the “justification” is a word used in Paul and it is not meant to be extensive on the whole gift of salvation, but rather it refers to that aspect of being released from guilt and punishment. Even if good works and inner holiness are required for it, it carries a forensic meaning.

GS,

Check out 1 John 3:7 The person who acts in righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous.

Sounds pretty intrinsic to me (if you accept that justification is the beginning of our being “Righteous”).

peace
steve

 

[God_Seeker_1]

But again the way Paul uses the word is in direct causal connection with the sacrifice of Jesus. And so it cannot merely mean that we are made righteous in the behavioral sense without tending to the cause of a sacrifice, for being made righteous happened to Adam and no sacrifice was needed.

 

[Chesster]

But again the way Paul uses the word is in direct causal connection with the sacrifice of Jesus.

That’s the reason why “justify” cannot be taken only as a verdict - it is the result of an expiatory sacrifice and courtroom verdicts are not decided by sacrifices. The imagery is sacrificial and covenantal, not forensic.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Yes that is acceptable. But Adam was justified when he created and no blood was required. However in our case, we are justified by his blood sacrifice and so this added notion of sacrifice e will have to be explained , for to simply be made righteous does not require sacrifices, as in Adams case, or even in Gods (Romans 3:1-4).

 

[Chesster]

Seems to me that God added the notion of sacrifice because of sin. Adam was not created in sin, therefor no sacrifice was needed.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Therefore it cannot simply mean make righteous

 

[thenobes]

Therefore it cannot simply mean make righteous

It means make righteous from unrighteousness. Adam was non-existent before being made. He never was unrighteous beforehand.

Therefore need no justification. He never needed (before he was created) the Holy Spirit to move him to repentance and faith.

peace
steve

 

[thenobes]

Therefore it cannot simply mean make righteous

Why not? It’s just that in one case no prior unrighteousness existed, so there was no need for sacrifice and repentance beforehand. After the fall, yes.

Are you saying you believe that Paul’s definition of justification covered every case of being made righteous? And it points to sacrifice as necessary? What about the Adam’s required sacrifice of his desire to eat the fruit of the tree of KoGaE to the requirement to obey God?

peace
steve

 

[Chesster]

Therefore it cannot simply mean make righteous

Why?

 

[fhansen]

Yes that is acceptable. But Adam was justified when he created and no blood was required. However in our case, we are justified by his blood sacrifice and so this added notion of sacrifice e will have to be explained , for to simply be made righteous does not require sacrifices, as in Adams case, or even in Gods (Romans 3:1-4).

Adam lost righteousness-by sin. We’re born without righteousness now as a result but humankind proves it doesn’t desire true, God-given righteousness by carrying on this family tradition of sinning. In any case, after sin, which is a radical departure from the will of God, something equally radical is called for to make up for it. But man is lost, dead in his sins, unable to find his way back to the Father where true righteousness lies. God, alone, must accomplish the act of reconciliation and restoration of relationship between Himself and man.