Justification/Justified

[Truthstalker]

In a PM I was asked the following question by a forum member. Since I am not Mr. Answer Man, I thought I would turn it into a thread:

What is the definition of dikaiio and is it an event or a process by definition?

First a caveat. I am always leery of getting into arguments about the definition of words, considering

1 Tim 2:23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife.

and

Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.

I looked in the handiest lexicon I own, now in the other room, and read what it has to say about dikiaooo, One definition has it as a pronouncement, but it is rarely used that way - aksio is the preferred word for this. In another definition it can be a process. Some definitions seem indefinite. Then I realized the lexicon itself is a product of Protestant scholarship, and that this certainly colors the definitions: presuppositions creep it quickly. I don’t have a Catholic or Orthodox lexicon to compare it to, but the Protestant one yields the ground that I think you wish to defend.

I will say then that it is neither instantaneous nor a process by definition: justification goes a lot deeper than the meaning of one word.

Now I will lecture you on the faults of the methodology I think you are trying to employ, that of asserting that the Word of God can simply be broken down grammatically into text and syntax, and that the revelation of God to us is contained in whether a verb is aorist middle or perfect passive. The Bible can be analyzed, but the whole must be looked at as well as the parts. Definitions are important, but the overall meaning will not turn on the definition of one word. Other words are and have been used to describe what is meant by justification; dikaiooo by no means stands in splendid isolation, a way-marker by itself on the road of salvation. It has many friends, not only in immediate context but in overall context. Looking at it independently of anything else will only cause error.

 

[Bishopite]

In a PM I was asked the following question by a forum member. Since I am not Mr. Answer Man, I thought I would turn it into a thread:

First a caveat. I am always leery of getting into arguments about the definition of words, considering

and

I looked in the handiest lexicon I own, now in the other room, and read what it has to say about dikiaooo, One definition has it as a pronouncement, but it is rarely used that way - aksio is the preferred word for this. In another definition it can be a process. Some definitions seem indefinite. Then I realized the lexicon itself is a product of Protestant scholarship, and that this certainly colors the definitions: presuppositions creep it quickly. I don’t have a Catholic or Orthodox lexicon to compare it to, but the Protestant one yields the ground that I think you wish to defend.

I will say then that it is neither instantaneous nor a process by definition: justification goes a lot deeper than the meaning of one word.

Now I will lecture you on the faults of the methodology I think you are trying to employ, that of asserting that the Word of God can simply be broken down grammatically into text and syntax, and that the revelation of God to us is contained in whether a verb is aorist middle or perfect passive. The Bible can be analyzed, but the whole must be looked at as well as the parts. Definitions are important, but the overall meaning will not turn on the definition of one word. Other words are and have been used to describe what is meant by justification; dikaiooo by no means stands in splendid isolation, a way-marker by itself on the road of salvation. It has many friends, not only in immediate context but in overall context. Looking at it independently of anything else will only cause error.

I’m not really sure what is your question, however, I recently gave this response to someone asking what is the difference between justification and righteousness.

The Greek verb for “justification” is transliterated dikaioo. The Greek noun for “righteousness” is transliterated dikaisune. In certain contexts these words are distinguished. Dikaioo normally refers to the act of justifying the individual, whether at the begining, middle, or end of his life. *Dikaiosune *normally describes the state or disposition of the individual who has been justified. Hence, if he has been “justified”, he is “righteous” or posseses “righteousness.” These terms refer both to how God views us and to what God gives us. Simply put, if a person is “justified” or “righteous” this means that from God’s perspective he is worthy to enter heaven. " (“Not by Faith Alone," Sungenis, Queenship publishing, page 310)”

Justification is a verb, righteousness is a noun, they can be distinguished in how they are applied, justification is an act (verb) and righteousness is the state of the individual (noun). Hope that helps.

 

[Nita]

I will say then that it is neither instantaneous nor a process by definition:

I’d say it’s both. Instantaneous at Baptism. Process (ongoing activity) if one survives Baptism/infancy.

justification goes a lot deeper than the meaning of one word.

Agreed.
Here’s how the CCC Glossary describes justification:
The gracious action of God which frees us from sin and communicates “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” (Rom 3:22). Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man (1987-9)

The distinct separation between justification, sanctification, righteousness, expiation, etc. is foreign to the ordinary Catholic mindset - my first experience of it came with being exposed to Protestant teaching (close Baptist friend and BSF). For a Catholic, they’re like the “intertwined strands” of the “single rope” of our salvation.
I’m not sure, but perhaps it’s the OSAS outlook that forces the separation. eg. sanctification becomes optional, so has to be separated from what is “necessary”.

Now I will lecture you on the faults of the methodology I think you are trying to employ, that of asserting that the Word of God can simply be broken down grammatically into text and syntax, and that the revelation of God to us is contained in whether a verb is aorist middle or perfect passive. The Bible can be analyzed, but the whole must be looked at as well as the parts. Definitions are important, but the overall meaning will not turn on the definition of one word. Other words are and have been used to describe what is meant by justification; dikaiooo by no means stands in splendid isolation, a way-marker by itself on the road of salvation. It has many friends, not only in immediate context but in overall context. Looking at it independently of anything else will only cause error

That’s about as Catholic a view as you can get. So, I assume it’s not us Catholics you’re lecturing.

Nita

 

[Lazerlike42]

If you want something to chew on to help with the Catholic understanding of justification (and to get some answers for Protestant friends) check out www.soladeiverbum.com/gracealone.shtml. It will take a few minutes to read, but I promise you will get something out of it.

 

[Bishopite]

I will say then that it is neither instantaneous nor a process by definition: justification goes a lot deeper than the meaning of one word.

Justification IS a process and it IS intantaneous. It’s a both and.