justification by faith alone in Early Fathers

[Pax]

1. There really isn’t a scholary historian that I know that can find a place in any ancient antiquity which teaches that the word “justify” (dikaioo) means to “make righteous”. In fact many of the scholars who still wrongly call themselves catholic such as Hans King and Joseph Fitzmyer both realize that the latin vulgate wrongfully translated the work-group of DIK into “make righteous” instead of “declare righteous”. This point has little relevance since you take the bishops of rome and the college of bishops to be under the present power and wisdom of Christ Jesus.

Erick in Christ,

Regardless of what King and Fitzmyer and others might claim, I think this is a lot of baloney. I already proved to you in an earlier post, from the Greek itself, that it does mean “make.” Moreover, I had no problem whatsoever finding quotes from St. Ambrose where he uses the term “make righteous.” I’m sure that I could find other ECF’s using the same terminology. The fact is that the issue of “declared” versus “made” never even arose until after the Reformation.

Moreover, God’s declarations go out in power and they cause to happen that which they declare. We see this in Genesis where God declares “Let there be light” and of course the next thing that happens is that there is light. Likewise, in Isaiah 55:10-11 we read this:

“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.”

We are declared righteous and we thus made righteous by the power of God’s word which accomplishes that which He purposes.

I think you’re relying on all of the wrong scholars.
God bless.

 

[Koineman]

My whole family is catholic. None serve christ. They go to church, but the practice of sin is tolerated. I was catholic all my life, dead in my sin. My friends were catholic. Dead in sin.

The catholic I witness to on the street, on campus, door to door, I’ve not met one that has heard a deep call to a while hearted repentance, a zealous serving of our lord. Most of then I’ve met live in sin.

And theybstill call themselves catholic.

Grant it many protestants are the same.

But I find more serving christ.

Given the fact that you have not substantiated other claims you’ve made about the Catholic Church, I take these comments with a grain of salt. You still have not provided quotations tht support your allegation that the CC teaches that nonbelievers can be saved. You also made the claim, “In fact, I personally have only seen “easy-believism” in its most explicit form in the roman catholic church.” Still to be substantiated.

 

[Koineman]

Erick in Christ,

Regardless of what King and Fitzmyer and others might claim, I think this is a lot of baloney. I already proved to you in an earlier post, from the Greek itself, that it does mean “make.”

Pax, what post was that? I’m curious to read it.

 

[onemangang]

Grant that. Be that as it may, I have no problem with the notion that God made them righteous. But we are doing etymology, the study of words and their usage.the word ‘‘justified’’ here it is not written with the thought of what happens in these peoples lives on earth in their individual pilgrimages, rather it has a unique sole reference to the passing through of the final judgement. These people are being given a reward for their works, namely justification.

With regard to whether justification takes place before or after regeneration. I believe that justification is a major component of regeneration , for in the process of being united to Christs death and resurrection, we are simulataneously recreated and acquitted from our adamic sinful lifestyles

Ok, so there is no separation in a sense. I don’t believe we Catholics separate the two either. You have also spoken of an ontological change, rather than a legal fiction, so in regards to the adamic lifestyle, to clearify, we both believe (I assume) we are imparted the sinful nature of Adam? Romans 5:19

Adams fall transfused us with sin, (a real, ontilogical sinful state of the soul), and sinful nature correct?

We that were made sinners in Adam, have now been made righteous in Christ!

Since we were transfused the sin of Adam, wouldn’t we be infused the righteousness of Christ? Furthermore, is it not the regenerative sanctifying grace that is infused into the soul, that makes us righteous? I can understand your point of a legal declaration of acquittal, (but may not use that phraseology) maybe only to the extent that we have now entered into a divine family, through the sactifying grace poured into our hearts, and are no longer under Law, but now we are now viewed through the loving eyes of grace, and mercy, by our heavenly Father through the merits of Christ Jesus!

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

There are two different aspects to our falleness. Our infused sinful corruption and the legal consequences that are attached to it. Through participating with christ in the adamic flesh of crucifixion and the christic resurrection if a new humanity, all done through regeneration, we receive acquittal and renewal.justification is the removal of our guilt in phaul

 

[Pax]

Pax, what post was that? I’m curious to read it.

You will find it contained in post # 36.

God bless.

 

[onemangang]

There are two different aspects to our falleness. Our infused sinful corruption and the legal consequences that are attached to it. Through participating with christ in the adamic flesh of crucifixion and the christic resurrection if a new humanity, all done through regeneration, we receive acquittal and renewal.justification is the removal of our guilt in phaul

Humanity is full of wayward sons that have walked away from their father, like the prodigal son! He was received back as a son, not acquitted, but forgiven!

As Adam was a Child of God, he walked away from his father through disobedience (as we all have through sin) but we are received back into the arms of our loving Father through the second Adam (Jesus Christ) . We are forgiven by our Father, not acquitted by a judge. Now granted there is a court room type setting pertaining to our final judgment, but our initial justification is a restoration of a family bond broken. We are justified by the infusion of sanctifying grace in regeneration. As far as I know? At least in regards to initial justification, and progressing justification. Granted final justification does indeed seem to have a court room setting lending to a view of a verdict in judgment, but as far as I know (I am not a scholar) initial justification is an estranged son returning home! Nothing is held back either as an adopted son or daughter, to the point where our God makes us a true member in Body, blood, soul and divinty

I have not done as much of an indepth study as you, or some others on this issue to be honest, but I have learned much from following these post. Thanks

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Certainly being justified is equivalent to the prodigal son coming home.

Salvation is like the prodigal son, it is going from death and being lost to being alive and found. But in this transition, there is guilt that is being remitted, sin that is being forgiven. This is what St. Paul has in mind when speaking of justificationjustification

 

[onemangang]

Certainly being justified is equivalent to the prodigal son coming home.

Salvation is like the prodigal son, it is going from death and being lost to being alive and found. But in this transition, there is guilt that is being remitted, sin that is being forgiven. This is what St. Paul has in mind when speaking of justificationjustificatio… n

Sure if by remitted you mean forgiven and not acquitted. Forgiven implies mercy, to acquit in a legal sense would call God’s justice into question!

I can understand in the final judgment an acquittal only when one has been made just by grace through Christ, otherwise it seems to call into question God’s justice.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

If we are not ready to admit that the legal consequences of sin as the penalty of death then why did christ Jesus die? If not top remove the penalty of sinsin

 

[onemangang]

If we are not ready to admit that the legal consequences of sin as the penalty of death then why did christ Jesus die? If not top remove the penalty of sinsin

Good question why did Jesus die?

Perhaps a lot of the legal aspect of your understanding of the courtroom setting is rooted in your view of the Atonement. I take it you ascribe to some sort of Penal Substitution theory?

I don’t! This would just end up hi-jacking the thread if we were going to debate atonement.

Here is a quick article that may point to St. Thomas Aquinas view of satisfaction out of love

calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

There are many views out there concerning the atonement. I believe that Jesus, by virtue of His incarnation, death, resurrection, and exaltation has defeated the powers against mankind, namely, sin, death, Satan, and the demonic hosts.

But the reason for Jesus’ sacrifice is the same as the lamb and the scapegoat on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). You couldn’t get away with telling a Jew that these animals did not bear the guilt and so suffer for it, of Israel. Read Leviticus 16, the sins of the people are put on the victim and the victim suffer the loss of life, a sacrificial death, to make atonement for the people.

The fact that people have left this understanding of penal substitution is intellectually mind-boggling.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

There are many views out there concerning the atonement. I believe that Jesus, by virtue of His incarnation, death, resurrection, and exaltation has defeated the powers against mankind, namely, sin, death, Satan, and the demonic hosts.

But the reason for Jesus’ sacrifice is the same as the lamb and the scapegoat on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). You couldn’t get away with telling a Jew that these animals did not bear the guilt and so suffer for it, of Israel. Read Leviticus 16, the sins of the people are put on the victim and the victim suffer the loss of life, a sacrificial death, to make atonement for the people.

The fact that people have left this understanding of penal substitution is intellectually mind-boggling.

No, its that we left this understanding that God the Father is ONLY a disinterested judge in a courtroom instead of a Loving Father. His divine judgement is not limited simply to legal declarations. He doesn’t just want to declare us innocent, He wants to actually make us innocent. But He can’t force innocence upon us without violating Love and human fee will.

Initial justification come from Faith. Faith is our belief in God’s love for us in Christ. But in order to be “conformed into the image of His Son” we have to respond to God’s grace with love. If you say that you believe in God’s love, yet either do not respond in love or, even worse, go on with your life without any real “conversion” after you obtain “knowledge of the truth” are even worse off than before(2 Pet 2:20).

Our love for God in Christ complete’s our justification, therefore not “faith alone.”

 

[Pax]

Certainly being justified is equivalent to the prodigal son coming home.

Salvation is like the prodigal son, it is going from death and being lost to being alive and found. But in this transition, there is guilt that is being remitted, sin that is being forgiven. This is what St. Paul has in mind when speaking of justificationjustification

Erick in Christ,

I already dealt with the issue of the prodigal son in a prior post. Clearly, the prodigal son was already a member of the household and a son prior to his demanding his inheritance which he subsequently squandered. The prodigal son was already justified in being a member of the father’s household, but chose to leave and was considered dead. He was upon his return "alive again.

Since you admit that his return and being “alive again” meant that he was thus justified, then you must also admit that one can be justified on more than one occasion.

God bless.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

No, its that we left this understanding that God the Father is ONLY a disinterested judge in a courtroom instead of a Loving Father. His divine judgement is not limited simply to legal declarations. He doesn’t just want to declare us innocent, He wants to actually make us innocent. But He can’t force innocence upon us without violating Love and human fee will.

Initial justification come from Faith. Faith is our belief in God’s love for us in Christ. But in order to be “conformed into the image of His Son” we have to respond to God’s grace with love. If you say that you believe in God’s love, yet either do not respond in love or, even worse, go on with your life without any real “conversion” after you obtain “knowledge of the truth” are even worse off than before(2 Pet 2:20).

Our love for God in Christ complete’s our justification, therefore not “faith alone.”

God cannot violate free will?

Are their restrictions on the almighty?

Does the thing made have authority to the maker to ask ‘Why have you made me this way’?

If God chose people before the world began, whose in control?

 

[carlos19]

interesting thread…but the title is erroneous

Ybarra never made a case for justification by faith alone in the early fathers…

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Also if you believe that a person still goes to heaven after violating one of the ten commandments and then dying unrepentant then all you are is a once saved always saved justification by faith alone believing protestant.

The Early Fathers who were all Catholic didn’t believe that heresy!

Is this thread about what the Early Fathers said about justification by faith alone or not?

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

how do you know the fathers believed what you did?

And if you have no documentation and you are going to rely on Rome, then please do not add that statement. I understand this is what you believe.

Clement said we are justified by faith. When he mentions being justified by our words, he is saying nothing different than what Jesus said in the gospels concerning every idle word and also the idea that by our words we will be justified and by our words we will be condemned.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I think we can get into more clarity if we just begin interpreting passages.

What does it mean that “Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6).

What is meant by “faith” is accounted for righteousness?

In my interpretation, Abraham’s faith is considered or calculated as righteousness.

Usually, works are reckoned for righteousness. Paul distinguishes “faith” and “works” just like James does. And because of that we must give the same meaning to Paul here. “faith” is not “works” even though one without the other is useless and that they work together. But it remains that “faith” is not “works” and “works” are not “faith”. They are different words, in the first place. Secondly, the biblical authors use them as if their definitions are different. Thirdly, their greek definitions are different as well.

For Paul to say “For if Abraham was justified by works, then he would have reason to boast” (Rom 4:4). But then “James says that Abraham was justified by works when he offered up Isaac” (James 2:24). It seems like there is a contradiction here. For James is not going to admit that Abraham can boast in his justification by works and Paul is saying that Abraham could boast if he was justified by works. How do we harmonize this?

This can be harmonized by 1) Recognizing that Paul and James are referring to two different occasions. We must give though to the time points. For Paul argues that Abraham was justified before he circumcised his family and that this bore significance in allowing Gentiles to be justified without being circumcised. Therefore we must give significance to the time difference between Abraham’s faith in Genesis 15:6 and Abraham’s works in Genesis 22.

1. Paul explicitly teaches that Abraham was justified by having faith, apart from doing any works. Therefore, already having this righteousness, Abraham moves forward in his life of works. We can say this already happened in Genesis 12 when Abraham believed in the Lord and obeyed His voice to leave Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan. Just because we get a detail on what God reckons Abraham’s faith as in Genesis 15:6 does not mean that his “faith” in Genesis 12 was not reckoned for righteousness. God just chose to reveal this later, that faith in Abraham’s life, not works, is the righteousness of God.
2. James speaks about Abraham being justified in a much different way that Paul’s overall teaching on justification is. James is not teaching that Abraham’s salvation was first brought to him when he offered up Isaac. Rather Abraham was already saved and God had already given him the oath of making him a great nation. At this point, God could not have violated His prior oath to make Abraham a “father of many nations”. Abraham, in a sense, was already a recipient of God’s invincible salvation. Paul speaks of justification is the point of transition from being lost to, upon conversion, being right with God.
3. The works of Abraham prove that he believed in God and it was God’s necessary test for him. All we can say is that Abraham was truly “justified” before God at this moment of passing the test.

 

[carlos19]

Again you default to discussing the scriptures, but you do not use the writings of the fathers to develop your point