justification by faith alone in Early Fathers

[Odell]

When we are said to be “justified by His blood” (Rom 5:9) what it meant is that we have been given acquittal from all guilt and reason for condemnation. This gift, only being a part of the salvation process, is by faith in the act of conversion.*

The conversion process can be put into a formula

1. Repentance & Faith
2. Baptism
3. Reception of the Holy Spirit

through this process, we are put to death with Jesus and raised from the dead with Jesus, and because we participate in this death/resurrection, our sins also are judged and washed away. This issues the gift of justification.

So can one be justified apart from being raised with Jesus; apart from participation in his death/resurrection?

This reminds me of Paul’s conversion*

Paul on the road to Damascus when Christ revealed himself to Paul was converted; by all means he had faith right? Paul was regenerated born again, washed right?(Acts:9)*

No!

In (Acts;22) Ananias tells Paul “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, invoking His name…and rising up he was baptized.”*

But wait a minute according to you Paul was already regenerated yet scripture tells is Paul’s sins were washed away several days later?

Ananias is saying Paul is still in his sins!*

So back to my question can one be justified prior to this participation in the death and resurrection of Christ you speak of? Can one be justified prior to being regenerated in Christ? *

Is this all that is done? Of course not. In and through this the person is also made a new creation and lives in accordance with the will of God. ’

Can one be justified prior to being made a new creation?

You think it is evil to justify the ungodly? Well, St. Paul says that God justifies the ungodly (Rom 4:4-6).

Jesus is the means to be Godly! That the whole point above. Then He can justify us but only after first being Godly.

It is because of Christ’s cross-work that such remission of sin is made valid

Amen*

 

[Koineman]

It’s helpful to clarify that justification involves both an acquittal (declaration) as well as making one righteous.

Consider Paul’s passage in Romans 5, in which he compares Adam with Christ. Notice v. 19:

“For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”

If Adam’s disobedience actually made us sinful–not just legally, forensically so but actually inwardly sinful–then Christ’s work, which is far greater than Adam’s disobedience, makes those who have faith to be righteous.

 

[Odell]

It’s helpful to clarify that justification involves both an acquittal (declaration) as well as making one righteous.

Consider Paul’s passage in Romans 5, in which he compares Adam with Christ. Notice v. 19:

“For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”

If Adam’s disobedience actually made us sinful–not just legally, forensically so but actually inwardly sinful–then Christ’s work, which is far greater than Adam’s disobedience, makes those who have faith to be righteous.

Good point

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

We have to realize that when Paul is speaking about justification he is referring to something that does not repeat itself.

This is why after listing a bunch of sins characterize Corinth, Paul says that they were just like that, but they had been washed, you have been sanctified, you have been justified in the name of the lord Jesus and by the spirit of God.

This is no doubt referring to baptism. And in the acts of the apostles, in the name of the lord is referring to forgivenezz

 

[Koineman]

Just a note: Scratch my comments earlier about the formal cause of justification. I was wrong about the meaning of “formal cause.”

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

The work that God has done in saving man is the death and resurrection of Jesus. This is why it is said we are justified by faith.

If someone wants to argue that protestants always have to wonder if their faith is of a right quality, well Catholics always have to wonder if their works are right. Protestants live by faith in the love of Christ for justification.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

So can one be justified apart from being raised with Jesus; apart from participation in his death/resurrection?

This reminds me of Paul’s conversion*

Paul on the road to Damascus when Christ revealed himself to Paul was converted; by all means he had faith right? Paul was regenerated born again, washed right?(Acts:9)*

No!

In (Acts;22) Ananias tells Paul “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, invoking His name…and rising up he was baptized.”*

But wait a minute according to you Paul was already regenerated yet scripture tells is Paul’s sins were washed away several days later?

Ananias is saying Paul is still in his sins!*

So back to my question can one be justified prior to this participation in the death and resurrection of Christ you speak of? Can one be justified prior to being regenerated in Christ? *

Can one be justified prior to being made a new creation?

Jesus is the means to be Godly! That the whole point above. Then He can justify us but only after first being Godly.

Amen*

I never said that Paul was justified when Jesus revealed Himself to him.

I understand water baptism to be the place of where salvation is normally received. This would include justification.

I don’t know where you assumed that I believed this.

No, no one can be justified apart from being crucified and raised with Christ. In fact, Justification comes out of our being crucified and raised with Christ.

When Peter proclaimed to the Jews “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38), dying/rising with Christ is included in this, no?

So that when someone is baptized, they are participating in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Is not not done not only for regeneration but also the forgiveness of sin?

When Ananias told Paul “Rise and be wash away your sins in baptism” is he not including the notion of the forgiveness of sin?

Thus, Paul understands forgiveness and justification interchangeably, for he says that David speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works in this Pslam

Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, whose sins are covered,
blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin .

It is clear that Paul understands justification very closely with what Peter understands as forgiveness in the sacrament of baptism.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

It’s helpful to clarify that justification involves both an acquittal (declaration) as well as making one righteous.

Consider Paul’s passage in Romans 5, in which he compares Adam with Christ. Notice v. 19:

“For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”

If Adam’s disobedience actually made us sinful–not just legally, forensically so but actually inwardly sinful–then Christ’s work, which is far greater than Adam’s disobedience, makes those who have faith to be righteous.

The problem with that interpretation is that it does not follow the argument of Paul.

The whole point that Paul is trying to make is that just as we have incurred an original guilt apart from anything we have done by virtue of our union with Adam, so also we have gained an original righteousness apart from anything we have done by virtue of Jesus’ death on the cross (otherwise known as baptismal innocence).

Since Paul is concerned about original sin and it’s power to “make us sinners” (which just means make us guilty with an original guilt), then when Paul says Jesus’ “makes us righteous” this is referring to the right-status we have before God by virtue of his death, which is basically the remission of sins, or acquittal from divine judgement in the sacrament of baptism.

This is why the rhetoric question follows “Should we continue in sin that grace may abound?” No!! Because baptism not only entails the forgiveness of sin (Rom 3-5) but also the renewal of the person.

 

[Yab_Yum]

“Faith” is the work of the Spirit in thoughts.

“Works” is the faith of the Spirit in behavior.

 

[Koineman]

The problem with that interpretation is that it does not follow the argument of Paul.

The whole point that Paul is trying to make is that just as we have incurred an original guilt apart from anything we have done by virtue of our union with Adam, so also we have gained an original righteousness apart from anything we have done by virtue of Jesus’ death on the cross (otherwise known as baptismal innocence).

Yes, but I’m sure you’ll agree that because of original sin, we are actually sinners, not just declared sinners. Yes? And if that is true, then it follows that justification involves not just a declared righteousness but also an actual, inward righteousness. So your rejoinder doesn’t address my point completely. Do you think that we are actually unrighteous inside because of something other than Adam’s disobedience?

 

[Koineman]

Erick, what is your response to my earlier post about the different causes of justification, i.e., Trent’s view on it? I’ve brought that up on other occasions, but as far as I know, you’ve never responded to it. Do you think it harmonizes James with Paul?

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I do believe that we are born with an original corruption. However, what Paul is interested in saying here is that we have an original “guilt” which is the first cause of our suffering the penalty of death.

This is what is meant here

*“For by one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all mankind for all sinned. For until the Law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law, nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the transgression of Adam” *(Romans 5:13-14)

The word “nevertheless” supposes that the previous statement might be used to argue a different conclusion, but nevertheless the stated conclusion is the true one.

If sin is not imputed when there is no law, and if “sin not imputed” is the state of being innocent in God’s eyes. However, these people who live in the time period of Adam until Moses did not sin like Adam where there was a Law, and because of this their sin was not imputed, however they died anyway because Paul says when Adam sinned “all sinned” (5:12).

What this is referring to is an original guilt which is the first reason why human beings all die. However, we did receive a corruption nature as well from Adam, and we also receive a new nature from Christ, the new humanity of the resurrection. However there is a distinction, though no separation, between original guilt and original corruption.

 

[Koineman]

I do believe that we are born with an original corruption. However, what Paul is interested in saying here is that we have an original “guilt” which is the first cause of our suffering the penalty of death.

But Erick, that still doesn’t address my point. IF Adam’s disobedience brought about both inward corruption as well as imputation of guilt, and IF the results of Christ’s obedience are greater than Adam’s disobedience (which this passage says), then it follows that those who believe in Christ should have at least both an inward righteousness and the declaration of being righteous. The scenario you have in view, from what I can tell, is as follows:

Adam’s disobedience results in inward corruption as well as being declared sinners.

BUT

Christ’s obedience results in only being declared righteous.

In that scenario, what Christ brought about is less than what Adam brought about.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I never said that Christ only brings in a declarative salvation.

Nowhere have I ever espoused an external covering merely to salvation.

Through baptism, we are joined to the mechanism of God that disconnects us from our Adamic human state and inserts us into the Christic human state. This includes both the washing away of guilt from the sins committed in our Adamic life as well as the crucifixion and resurrection that we undergo in order to live the life that is characteristic of the new humanity in Christ Jesus.

We are joined and made one in Christ, and therefore His death and resurrection is somehow ours, and by this we enter into the new creation. Of course there is a transformation and renewal of the inside person. This is the greatest part of our salvation in Christ Jesus.

In fact, our participation in the 2nd Adam is not fully completed until we are co-glorified with Jesus as our Elder brother as the human community of the new heavens and new earth.

I have never denied that the new creation which is in Christ’s resurrection begins HERE and NOW in the inner person through baptism.

All I am saying is that Paul uses the term “justification” as acquittal which refers to the forgiveness of sin that the preachers in Acts so well talk about when they call people to repentance and baptism.

 

[Koineman]

All I am saying is that Paul uses the term “justification” as acquittal which refers to the forgiveness of sin that the preachers in Acts so well talk about when they call people to repentance and baptism.

Yes, and that’s the problem: You’re speaking of justification as only an acquittal and not also as a being made righteous. I don’t think you’ve established that as the correct meaning of justification. When I asked you earlier how you know the term justify means only to acquit and not also to make righteous, you replied, “In Romans 2:13 it also means acquittal. It its based off of being righteous in doing the law. The meaning ‘‘make righteous’’ can’t possibly be retained at the last judgement” and then later you said, “In Romans 2:13 there is the idea of judgement. However, Romans 3:21 is referring to the present view if god, nonetheless a judgement after examination.” The problem with that answer is that it does not address whether the acquittal results from actual righteousness inside the person or not. You’re reasoning that the phrase “in God’s sight” means that God has examined them and concluded that they are righteous, but that does not address whether those being examined actually are righteous or merely have righteousness imputed to them. In other words, why does God acquit them–because He has made them actually righteous or because He has only imputed righteousness to them?

 

[Odell]

I never said that Paul was justified when Jesus revealed Himself to him.*

I understand water baptism to be the place of where salvation is normally received. This would include justification.

Where does faith alone fit into this picture?

No, no one can be justified apart from being crucified and raised with Christ. In fact, Justification comes out of our being crucified and raised with Christ.

When does this happen? Faith alone or a qualified faith?*

So that when someone is baptized, they are participating in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Is not not done not only for regeneration but also the forgiveness of sin?

Where does faith alone come in?

Thus, Paul understands forgiveness and justification interchangeably, for he says that David speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works in this Pslam

There was no deceit in David’s spirit Psalm 32:1. The Psalm and Paul referre to the in quality.*

Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, whose sins are covered,*
blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin .

He is not imputing sin because David’s heart is pure. We are all sinners but God looks at our hearts to determine if our sins will be held against us or not. None of this is done apart from the grace of God I might add.

It is clear that Paul understands justification very closely with what Peter understands as forgiveness in the sacrament of baptism.

How does this fit with a faith alone theology?

The problem with that interpretation is that it does not follow the argument of Paul.*

The whole point that Paul is trying to make is that just as we have incurred an original guilt apart from anything we have done by virtue of our union with Adam, so also we have gained an original righteousness apart from anything we have done by virtue of Jesus’ death on the cross (otherwise known as baptismal innocence).*

This is why Trent has been brought up multiple times. We agree on this to
help I will include one more.

Canon 18 of the council of Orange II says this “That grace is preceded by no merits. A reward is due to good works, if they are performed; but grace, which is not due, precede that they may be done.”

Do you understand? Grace is given without any merit! Catholics will go as far in saying that grace precedes faith! Read the Trent references.

Koineman still made a valid point that those who believe in Christ should have at least both an inward righteousness and the declaration of being righteous.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Catholic faith will ALWAYS teach that faith cannot be separated from works into faith alone!

James 2:24 will ALWAYS be true.

The works that Paul writes of will NEVER be “God willed works” done for the love of God and obedience to God.

The WORKS that James writes of will ALWAYS be “God willed works” done for the love of God and obedience to God

Who CARES if initial faith justifies but it is interrupted by MORTAL sin and one can go to Hell because of it?

How many Catholics today in this PRESENT world are practicing WORKS of the law–the ceremonial prescriptions of Judaism in the mistaken belief that by doing so they will be justified and enter heaven?

How many proponents of “faith alone” in opposition to James in James 2:24 do not believe in MORTAL sin?

Ask ANY proponent in “faith alone” if a justified baptized christian of true faith AFTER his baptism and justification commits a mortal sin and then dies unexpectedly before repenting if they go to Heaven or Hell?

The will tell you that ONE sin will not damn a person to Hell

That is the TOTAL CRUX of the whole problem!

That is WHY the devil inspired the notion of justification by “faith alone”.

Sure there are some protestants that will tell you that it is possible for a christian to lose one’s salvation–all Protestants do not believe in Once Saved always saved.

But those same people will tell you that you have to commit apostacy to be lost–one mortal sin–such as stealing or adultery for example and then an unexpected death before repentance after a life of faith will not damn a person to Hell.

It will!

That’s the WHOLE problem with justification by faith alone.

Faith alone WILL not justify in those situations and the person in those situations WILL go to Hell and not heaven.

Here is my challenge for faith alone proponents here who always run away from my points about faith alone:

Say what would happen to people who knowingly AFTER justifiaction by faith and baptism–who knowingly violate ANY of the ten commandments and then die unexpectedly before repentance–Where do those people go–Heaven or Hell?

They have to go to Heaven for faith alone to be true!

They don’t go to Heaven in that situation but they go to Hell which means faith alone IS NOT true.

Speak up faith alone proponents–where do they go–Heaven or Hell?

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Well, that is a good question.

What is the acquittal based off of? A internal righteousness or an alien righteousness?

Paul answers this question over and over again.

“…being justified as a gift of grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood to be received through faith…” (Rom 3:24-25)

The ground of this “justification” is not stated, here anyway, in any other terms than the sacrifice of Jesus. There is your answer. The logic of the verse is that redemption has cause justification, a propitiation has cause the redemption, the blood of Christ Jesus has cause a propitiation, and God has sent Christ Jesus. This is as deep as it goes according to St. Paul.

In another place:

“it will imputed to us who believe in Him who raised our Lord Jesus from the dead, who was delivered up for our offenses, and was raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25).

Again, justification here is not grounded or even hinted as being involved with our good works. Justification is inextricably tied to Jesus death and resurrection. And that all Paul has to say!

In another place

“Much more having been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him” (Rom 5:9)

Again, the good works of believers is not even stated or hinted at. The word “justified” is used, and it is grounded in the “blood” of Jesus, much like Romans 3:21-26 where his sacrifice causes propitiation, which causes redemption, which causes our justification by the grace of God.

In another place

“For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us so that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

How did God make Christ to be sin? The same word “made” is used in both instances, either “made Him who knew no sin” or “that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him”. Therefore, I ask, how did God make Christ to be sin ? Did Christ become a sinner? No. Therefore, what does it mean that we are “made the righteousness of God in Him”? It must mean that we are acquitted or justified. But even if one wants to urge that this means that we are behaviorally changed to practice internal righteousness, it does not remove the fact of the clarity in Romans.

In Another place

“For if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ Jesus died in vain” (Gal 2:20)

But Catholics wish to urge that the gift of “righteousness” is the internal transformation that occurs in our hearts changing us from being evil to being good. And therefore the cross of jesus becomes a bit less of a significance, even though they will add it in there somehow. However, Paul wishes to show that “Jesus dying” and the gift of “righteousness” go hand in hand. In other words, we obtain righteousness through the death of Jesus.

You are not realizing the “past tense” nature of the word “justified”. For Paul, when we have been baptized (past tense) we have been washed (past tense) and we have been justified (past tense) and we have been sanctified (past tense). In other words, they are past tense verbs!! They have already been done. Yes, I know that there is a progression in other places to the word sanctification. But would you say the same things about washing? Isnt this a singular reference to baptism

 

[thenobes]

Other Protestants wouldn’t agree with you in this point.

In another place

“For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us so that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

How did God make Christ to be sin? The same word “made” is used in both instances, either “made Him who knew no sin” or “that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him”. Therefore, I ask, how did God make Christ to be sin ? Did Christ become a sinner? No. Therefore, what does it mean that we are “made the righteousness of God in Him”? It must mean that we are acquitted or justified. But even if one wants to urge that this means that we are behaviorally changed to practice internal righteousness, it does not remove the fact of the clarity in Romans.

from webpage:

fwponline.cc/v14n2/v14n2joemac.html

(From vol 14 no 2 of “The Arminian” newsletter.)

WAS CHRIST REALLY MADE SIN?
Joseph D. McPherson

“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” So reads the King James translation of 2 Corinthians 5:21. Mr. Wesley, Mr. Fletcher, and Dr. Adam Clarke all take strong exception to this translation. The following is to them a much preferred rendering of this verse: “He made him who knew no sin (who was innocent), a sin-offering for us…” The following comments of Dr. Adam Clarke defend well this latter translation while pointing out the dangerous teachings that have resulted from the former.

The [Greek] word harmartia occurs here twice: in the first place it means sin, i. e. transgression and guilt; and of Christ it is said, He knew no sin, i. e. was innocent; for not to know sin is the same as to be conscious of innocence; so,… to be conscious of nothing against one’s self, is the same as… to be unimpeachable.

In the second place, it signifies a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin, and answers to the chattaah and chattath of the Hebrew text; which signifies both sinand sin-offering in a great variety of places in the Pentateuch. The Septuagint translate the Hebrew word by harmartia in ninety-four places in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, where a sin-offering is meant; and where our [King James] version translates the word not sin, but an offering for sin. Had our [King James] translators attended to their own method of translating the word in other places where it means the same as here, they would not have given this false view of a passage which has been made the foundation of a most blasphemous doctrine; viz. that our sins were imputed to Christ, and that he was a proper object of the indignation of Divine justice, because he was blackened with imputed sin; and some have proceeded so far in this blasphemous career as to say, that Christ may be considered as the greatest of sinners, because all the sins of mankind, or of the elect, as they say, were imputed to him, and reckoned as his own. One of these writers translates the passage thus: God accounted christ the greatest of sinners, that we might be supremely righteous. Thus they have confounded sin with the punishment due to sin. Christ suffered in our stead; died for us; bore our sins (the punishment due to them), in his own body upon the tree, for the Lord laid upon him the iniquities of us all; that is, the punishment due to them; explained by making his soul - - his life, an offering for sin; and healing us by his stripes.

In order that he might make plain that sin-offering, not sin, is the meaning of the word in this verse, Dr. Clarke lists a total of one hundred and eight places from the Septuagint and the King James Version where the word occurs; and where it answers to the Hebrew words already quoted; and where the translators of the King James Version have rendered correctly what they render here incorrectly.

I also have answers to the other points you make, concerning with which I may make other responses in the future, but this one just stood out as worthy of first response.

peace
steve

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

2 Corinthians 5:21 should not be understood in any other sense
than what the original gospel teaches:

“Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:1-5)

What does this mean? It means he suffered death which our sins required.

It means he was “delivered over to death for our offenses, and was raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25)

Why does our sins cause Him to be delivered up? Because the wages of sin is death. Therefore Christ dies, not for his own sins, but for the sins of others.

It is ridiculously unintelligent to try and escape the idea of penal substitution. Christ, as a sinless man, dies…but the wages of sin is death…therefore he dies not because He himself sinned, but because our sin was the cause of his death.

Really no other way to understand it without looking like a fool.