- 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 is a good point, but it doesn’t settle the issue. Augustine, who is often believed to have gotten the wrong meaning of
justify because he was dependent on the Latin term, actually acknowledged the term could be used to mean “make righteous” or “to declare righteous.” This can be seen in chapter 45 of “On the Spirit and the Letter.” (I have been working through that passage recently.)
Here are some definitions:
From
Biblestudytools.com:
Code:
to render righteous or such he ought to be
to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be
From
Teknia.com:
to justify, vindicate, declare righteous, to put someone in a proper relationship with another, usually referring to God’s relationship to humankind, implying a proper legal or moral relationship
pr. to make or render right or just; mid. to act with justice, Rev. 22:11; to avouch to be good and true, to vindicate, Mt. 11:19; Lk. 7:29; to set forth as good and just, Lk. 10:29; 16:15; in NT to hold as guiltless, to accept as righteous, to justify, Rom. 3:26, 30; 4:5; 8:30, 33; pass. to be held acquitted, to be cleared, Acts 13:39; Rom. 3:24; 6:7; to be approved, to stand approved, to stand accepted, Rom. 2:13; 3:20, 28
As you can see from these two lexical entries, the word can have both meanings. Therefore, we need to see how the NT authors used the term. Paul, in Titus 3:4-7, used the term “justify” in the sense of making righteous:
4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being
justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
The word “justified” here is used in the immediate context of transformation: the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.
- It just doesn’t make sense to directly go from a blood-sacrifice on account of human sinfulness and good behavior. It makes much more sense to directly argue from a blood-sacrifice on account of human sinfulness to acquittal for divine judgement on sin. It is just out of wack with Paul’s argument.
Sorry, but I don’t understand what you mean here.
We are “justified” (made behaviorally good throughout our lives) by his “blood” (sacrificial offering)??? Much more preferred is the idea of acquittal.
Much more preferred by you, but that doesn’t settle the issue. You haven’t even provided any definitions for dikaioo in response to my question. I am wondering how thoroughly you have examined this issue. I admit that I am still working through the whole justification issue, but so far I haven’t seen you provide any substantial proof that
justify must mean “declare righteous.”
This is getting nowhere really. But I will add one last thing.
I agree, Erick, but it could go somewhere if we got down to brass tacks. As I said above, you have not provided nearly enough evidence to support your view that justify must always have just a declarative sense.
I have been blessed to have never been around the modern day protestant Church which teaches that all mankind has to do is bow their heads, pray a little tiny prayer, and belief that Jesus died for their sins, and they are eternally sealed in the kingdom of God.
The sinner’s prayer and altar call are indeed horrible Protestant neo-traditions. And dangerous, too. Thankfully those in Reformed circles don’t use them.
In fact, I have only met these kind of evangelicals in my witnessing encounters, which usually are spent showing them the true conversion of Christ, in which once they see it from the Scriptures, they confess that good works are the necessary consequence of salvation in Christ Jesus.
And according to James 2, they are more than just a consequence; they precede justification because faith, which precedes justification, can’t exist without them. This is another problem with this discussion, Erick: You haven’t made much effort to harmonize James 2 with Paul’s teaching on justification. Or if you have, I’ve missed it because it was so brief. What you’ve done is what most people will do when faced with two passages in the Bible that are in tension: focus primarily on those passages that support the theological system they’ve already made up their minds to accept, while spending almost no attention on the passage(s) that causes tension. THAT is a major reason why discussions like this go nowhere.
Later in life, I was excommunicated from a protestant church for failure to exhibit a repentant lifestyle and was pleaded to repent and be restored. Something that I have never seen done in a catholic church.
Perhaps not, but have you attended any Catholic Church for an extended period of time? I hope so, if you’re making such sweeping statements like that.
I am very unfamiliar with the supposed licentious consequences of “faith alone” that many here propose. In fact, I personally have only seen “easy-believism” in its most explicit form in the roman catholic church
Really? How so?
