Righteousness of God (Dikaisune tou theou)

[Erick_Ybarra]

I’ve been going through the epistle to the Romans. I’ve centered upon trying to go through it all the while defining “righteousness of God” as the good works which believers perform by the power of God.

I figured since Paul says “…the gospel is the power of God unto all who are believing, for in it the righteousness of God is made manifest from faith to faith” (Rom 1:16) that “righteousness” should have more meaning that simply the external label of being righteous which he imputes to believers, but that God’s power is operating in this “righteousness”.

However, I can follow through all the way until Romans 4:7-9. Even in Romans 3:24 “…being justified by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” , I’ve been able to reconcile the meaning for “justified” as one coming to be holy by virtue of the resurrection of Jesus as well as the forgiveness of sins in His blood.

But when we read Romans 4:7-9

"Just as David speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

 Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven; 
    Whose sins are covered; 
 Blessed it the man to whom God will not impute sin"

It seems as though the imputation of righteousness is interpreted from the non-imputation of sin, as if one entails the other. Well, if God does not impute sin, this means that he does not hold us accountable for the consequences, which is suffering death. Well, therefore to impute righteousness (in this context) must mean to hold us as if we are righteous and the consequence is justification.

 

[R_C]

It seems as though the imputation of righteousness is interpreted from the non-imputation of sin, as if one entails the other. Well, if God does not impute sin, this means that he does not hold us accountable for the consequences, which is suffering death. Well, therefore to impute righteousness (in this context) must mean to hold us as if we are righteous and the consequence is justification.

It seems.

However, consider those who believe in Christ but do not do God’s will.

Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?

Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?

But if God does not impute sin, why would He say to these who these in the judgment:

“depart from me, you that work iniquity” (Mt 7:23)

"Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. …] Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me. (Mt 25:41-45)

Justification is not the forgiveness of sins. We will be judged by and held accountable for our sins, even for every idle word we speak. None of these is forgiven automatically.

We can, however, obtain forgiveness because of the death and resurrection of Christ. This was the justification He merited for us.

Besides, the consequence of sin is not physical death, but the death of the soul. I believe Christ was clear enough when He taught that physical death is no death at all, but those who do not do God’s will are as if they were already dead, though they look alive, because their soul has no life.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

But I attribute the non imputation of sin as a part of salvation, namely justification.

Those who say lord lord will have their sins imputed because they failed to do righteousness.

However justification is forgiveness whereas sanctification is the necessarily holiness we need on the day of jusgement

 

[R_C]

But I attribute the non imputation of sin as a part of salvation, namely justification.

Those who say lord lord will have their sins imputed because they failed to do righteousness.

However justification is forgiveness whereas sanctification is the necessarily holiness we need on the day of judgement

I found a very interesting document, a Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church.

In it, we find common ground for our arguments. (Emphases mine).

Justification becomes ours through Christ Jesus “whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith” (Rom 3:25; see 3:21-28). “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God - not the result of works” (Eph 2:8f).

11.Justification is the forgiveness of sins (cf. Rom 3:23-25; Acts 13:39; Lk 18:14), liberation from the dominating power of sin and death (Rom 5:12-21) and from the curse of the law (Gal 3:10-14). It is acceptance into communion with God: already now, but then fully in God’s coming kingdom (Rom 5:1f). It unites with Christ and with his death and resurrection (Rom 6:5). It occurs in the reception of the Holy Spirit in baptism and incorporation into the one body (Rom 8:1f, 9f; I Cor 12:12f). All this is from God alone, for Christ’s sake, by grace, through faith in “the gospel of God’s Son” (Rom 1:1-3).

12.The justified live by faith that comes from the Word of Christ (Rom 10:17) and is active through love (Gal 5:6), the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22f). But since the justified are assailed from within and without by powers and desires (Rom 8:35-39; Gal 5:16-21) and fall into sin (1 Jn 1:8,10), they must constantly hear God’s promises anew, confess their sins (1 Jn 1:9), participate in Christ’s body and blood, and be exhorted to live righteously in accord with the will of God. That is why the Apostle says to the justified: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:12f).

But the good news remains: “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1), and in whom Christ lives (Gal 2:20). Christ’s “act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all” (Rom 5:18).

The document is very interesting, and should be - I think - made readily available both for us in the Catholic church and for our protestant brothers. Perhaps in there you will find more clarification to your argument.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I believe in this document.

However, people like Robert Sungenis said once in a debate that it is bogus for us to find common ground.

 

[R_C]

I believe in this document. However, people like Robert Sungenis said once in a debate that it is bogus for us to find common ground.

If a joint declaration between brothers in Christ receives such a harsh opinion, I wonder what do those people think of St. Paul’s use of the “altar to the unknown god” as common ground to preach to the pagans in Athens, or of the “epistle to the Hebrews”…

Let us for a second consider the possibility that the division in the Church was meant to happen as a fulfillment of the Scriptures:

I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered

However, aren’t we commanded by Christ to find common ground and work towards unity, though?

Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.

They will listen to my voice, and there will be one flock with one shepherd.

That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee;

It seems that any initiative that opposes the reunion of the Christian communities opposes the direct will of Christ on this matter.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Back to the main topic.

I’m trying to understand the relationship between the imputation of righteousness and the non-imputation of sin. If God (name removed by moderator)utted righteousness to David, king David understands this as the mere cancellation of guilt?

Can someone make sense of Romans 4:7-10

 

[thenobes]

Back to the main topic.

I’m trying to understand the relationship between the imputation of righteousness and the non-imputation of sin. If God (name removed by moderator)utted righteousness to David, king David understands this as the mere cancellation of guilt?

Can someone make sense of Romans 4:7-10

David calls himself blessed because, being forgiven, he can have the joy of his salvation again.

This is like the Catholic, who having repented in confession, has afterwards a certainty that he is in a state of grace, and dying then, would be in Heaven.

But sinning, resisting the Holy Spirit, ie, RESISTING THE WORK THAT THE SPIRIT usges you to do, may lose that intimacy with God and the joy that accompanies it.

Righteousness is living in relation to God, as God wants you. Without God forgiving you, you cannot enter into that relationship.

peace
steve

 

[Pax]

I’ve been going through the epistle to the Romans. I’ve centered upon trying to go through it all the while defining “righteousness of God” as the good works which believers perform by the power of God.

I figured since Paul says “…the gospel is the power of God unto all who are believing, for in it the righteousness of God is made manifest from faith to faith” (Rom 1:16) that “righteousness” should have more meaning that simply the external label of being righteous which he imputes to believers, but that God’s power is operating in this “righteousness”.

However, I can follow through all the way until Romans 4:7-9. Even in Romans 3:24 “…being justified by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” , I’ve been able to reconcile the meaning for “justified” as one coming to be holy by virtue of the resurrection of Jesus as well as the forgiveness of sins in His blood.

But when we read Romans 4:7-9

"Just as David speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

 Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven; 
    Whose sins are covered; 
 Blessed it the man to whom God will not impute sin"

It seems as though the imputation of righteousness is interpreted from the non-imputation of sin, as if one entails the other. Well, if God does not impute sin, this means that he does not hold us accountable for the consequences, which is suffering death. Well, therefore to impute righteousness (in this context) must mean to hold us as if we are righteous and the consequence is justification.

Erick in Christ,

With all due respect and without any intention to antagonize or irritate you, I must ask a question. Why after I proved to you on a different thread that righteousness is not merely forensic/imputed but is also ontological, do you insist on continuing with that false premise?

God bless.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I fail to see the ontological righteousness in the text. I’m trying to.

How do you understand Romans 3:21-26

 

[Pax]

I fail to see the ontological righteousness in the text. I’m trying to.

How do you understand Romans 3:21-26

Erick in Christ,

First of all, scripture is to be taken in context and all words have a denotation and a connotation. The context of Paul’s teaching establishes whether or not he is speaking of righteousness as only forensic or if he is speaking of it as both forensic and ontological. It is not a matter of justification being only forensic or ontological. Paul’s writings make it clear that it is both.

Let’s look at what Paul says about justification’s ontological dimension. In the other thread I pointed to Eph 2:8-10. One is not justified, and thus a believer, unless one is also made a new creation in Christ Jesus. They are inextricably intertwined, and that becomes clear when taking all of the scriptures together.

We know from scripture that justification includes an ontological change and not simply a juridical decree.

Romans 5:19 for example says the following:

“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.

Another passage that supports the Catholic view of justification is:

Galatians 3:21 which says this:

Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law

The Greek word translated here as “impart life” is zoopoeio, which means to **“cause” **to live or “make” alive. Note that in Galatians 3:21, Paul states that if a law could give life, then righteousness would truly have been by law. Clearly, Paul is equating the giving of life with righteousness. That means that righteousness or justification is the giving of spiritual life which is the Catholic view. The following passage also reinforces this:

Romans 8:10

"If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the “spirit is alive because of righteousness.”

I can provide many more scriptures from Paul that show that justification is an ontological change and not simply a juridical decree. Protestant theology is correct in its description of the juridical aspects of justification, but that view is incomplete because it denies the scriptural definition which includes the ontological dimension. If you need more scriptural examples from Paul that clearly make the case that I’m presenting, then I would be glad to give them to you.

God bless.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Thank you for your response. Gladly read it through.

Certainly something to think about.

As far as the forensic and ontological both intertwined in the meaning of justification, this is admitted by myself to be the Catholic Teaching, not one without the other.

As far as the meaning of biblical words, “justification” or “justified” retains a forensic meaning, exclusively. Now, normally this “forensic justification” is pronounced over someone who is ontologically guilt-free. They really have no cause for accusation. They have really conformed to the norm of justice that God requires or man requires.

However, this is a justification by works. We must understand that “justification by works” is not to be angry with. This is how the human race should have been. In fact, Adam and Eve were just before God before they sinned precisely because of their faith and trust and obedience to Him. This was their own “justification” or “status of being just” by their works. This is a beautiful thing!!

However, given the description of human beings post-fall (Rom 1-3:20), this is simply not the accessible thing anymore. Rather, God comes from the outside to bring us, by His own power, into conformity with His divine standards. This is the gift of the “righteousness of God” (Rom 3:21) which comes out of the one act of obedience (Rom 5:17-19) performed by the crucifixion of Jesus, and His resurrection (Rom 4:25). We are rather “justified” (forensically pronounced just) by the cross-work of Jesus Christ (rom 3:24; 5:9) when it is applied to us via baptism (Rom 6:1-11). This justification is not one created by man or even wrought “in” man, but remains in the cross and resurrection of Jesus.

Does this lead our lives into sinful liberty? Absolutely not, for baptism, the new creation, does not merely justify us in God’s sight, it also brings the life of the 2nd Adam into our hearts and lives, so that we are now “walking according to the Spirit” (Rom 8:1-13) where the result is “eternal life” (Rom 6:23).

I have no quam with “new creation” language being mixed with “justification” for this is precisley what Paul does in Colossians 2:1-17, we are “made alive” through faith in the “power of God” where one of the effects of this is “forgiving us from every lawless deed”. As we are made a new creation in Christ Jesus through baptism, God washes away our sin by the blood of His Son. This is justification. For in times past He passed over sins, but now punishes them in Christ Jesus (Rom 3:25), demonstrating his righteousness to the world.

As for the word “justified” to mean ontological change, I would love for you to provide the biblical datum for this. I have no dispute that normally, one is “justified” because of an ontological innocence that they have had prior to the verdict, but the word itself “justified” remains to be the conclusive statement after the examination of the ontological reality. Therefore, to be at the same time “under sin” (Rom 3:9) , ontologically unrighteous, and yet to be “justified by His grace” (Rom 3:24) by the “blood of Christ” (Rom 5:9) would definitely denote, not an ontological change at the moment of the verdict (or somehow at the same time), but a declaration that one is “just” in God’s eyes because of what Christ has done on the cross for their souls.

 

[Pax]

Thank you for your response. Gladly read it through.

Certainly something to think about.

As far as the forensic and ontological both intertwined in the meaning of justification, this is admitted by myself to be the Catholic Teaching, not one without the other.
…
…
…
I have no quam with “new creation” language being mixed with “justification” for this is precisley what Paul does in Colossians 2:1-17, we are “made alive” through faith in the “power of God” where one of the effects of this is “forgiving us from every lawless deed”. As we are made a new creation in Christ Jesus through baptism, God washes away our sin by the blood of His Son. This is justification. For in times past He passed over sins, but now punishes them in Christ Jesus (Rom 3:25), demonstrating his righteousness to the world.

As for the word “justified” to mean ontological change, I would love for you to provide the biblical datum for this. I have no dispute that normally, one is “justified” because of an ontological innocence that they have had prior to the verdict, but the word itself “justified” remains to be the conclusive statement after the examination of the ontological reality. Therefore, to be at the same time “under sin” (Rom 3:9) , ontologically unrighteous, and yet to be “justified by His grace” (Rom 3:24) by the “blood of Christ” (Rom 5:9) would definitely denote, not an ontological change at the moment of the verdict (or somehow at the same time), but a declaration that one is “just” in God’s eyes because of what Christ has done on the cross for their souls.

Erick in Christ,

I’ve already given you some of the conclusive biblical data which you have not refuted. Instead, you cited passages that show the juridical dimension. I’ll give you some more that show the ontological dimension.

Let’s look closer at Romans 8:10 which says:

Romans 8:10

If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.

Paul is stating that while the body is subject to death because of sin, the spirit is alive because of righteousness. Just as original sin effects the mortality of the body, righteousness effects a spiritual vivification or quickening of the soul. That is an ontological righteousness as opposed to only a forensic righteousness. Spiritual vivification of the soul, is according to your statements, effected by regeneration(i.e. being born again) which you say is not the same thing as justification. But in that passage, Paul clearly connects the giving of spiritual life with righteousness, and not with regeneration.

This shows up again in Galatians 2:19-21 where it says:

“For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might** live to God**. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”

Context is everything and it is obvious that Paul is talking about justification. Moreover, Paul is once again relating justification to spiritual life and the indwelling of Christ. Furthermore, Paul describes the infusion of spiritual life as a “death” and a “crucifixion.” :

Paul goes on in Romans 6:6-7 to say this:

…knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.

In that passage the word “freed” is “dikaioo”, which means justified. You could read it without violating the translation as:

“…for he who has died is justified from sin.”

“Death” and the crucifixion of the “old self” refers to an ontological and internal change of the person. This “death” or “crucifixion”, as already established, is effected by the infusion of spritual life. This ontological change is connected with justification in verse 7, and it serves to reinforces the fact that justification is the infusion of righteousness which effects the “death” of the “old self” and the spiritual vivification of the soul.

A mere extrinsic or forensic righteousness cannot cause a soul to live. That’s why the righteousness Paul refers to must be ontological and infused in order to translate a soul from spiritual death to spiritual life. Something merely external cannot do anything internally. And since Galatians 3 is about justification and “righteousness” in Romans is justification, it is clear that Paul’s understanding of justification is more than just imputed righteousness.

Here are a few more verses:

Ephesians 2:5

even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ by grace you have been saved,

Colossians 2:13

When you were )dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you **alive **together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

Paul clearly says that the spirit is alive because of righteousness. In other words, righteousness is the reason why the spirit is alive. This is not simply an extrinsic declaration and imputed righteousness. We are instead, as I have stated before, also “made” righteous.

I hope this helps and I give many kudos to a fellow named Mike Leades who gave me some of these quotes as part of my education on this issue.

God bless.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Very well done. This is something I’ve not noticed. I kind of get it.

Could you help with Romans 5:13-14. What does Paul mean by all sinned? I was reading the catholic catechism and it really didn’t say anything on it. I’m so used to the reformed interpretation of Adams sin being imputed to the whole race.

 

[Pax]

Very well done. This is something I’ve not noticed. I kind of get it.

Could you help with Romans 5:13-14. What does Paul mean by all sinned? I was reading the catholic catechism and it really didn’t say anything on it. I’m so used to the reformed interpretation of Adams sin being imputed to the whole race.

Erick in Christ,

One of the best explanations of that verse that I’ve seen comes from the Haydock Bible Commentary which says the following:

Ver. 13-14. Until the law, sin was in the world. That is, from Adam’s fall, both original sin and actual sins truly infected all mankind. (Witham) — Not imputed. That is, men knew not, or made no account of sin; neither was it imputed to them, in the manner it was afterwards, when they transgressed the known written law of God. (Challoner) — All were conceived and born in sin, in what we call original sin, and liable to death, even infants, who were not come to the use of reason, and consequently could not sin after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, or by imitating his sin, but were born in sin: and besides this, all manner of actual sins, which men committed by their own perverse will, reigned every where in the world. But before the law these sins were not imputed, that is, were not declared sins, that deserved such punishments as were ordained by the law. — Adam, who is a figure of him that was to come. That is, of Christ, whom the apostle calls the last Adam, 1 Corinthians xv. 45. But he was a figure by contraries. By the first Adam, sin and death entered into the world; by Christ, justice and life. (Witham)

God bless.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Thanks. Very helpful.

When you get a chance it would be a huge favor if you gave some comments about the following article written by a world leading protestant professor d.a. Carson.

etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/40/40-4/40-4-pp581-608_JETS.pdf

 

[Pax]

Thanks. Very helpful.

When you get a chance it would be a huge favor if you gave some comments about the following article written by a world leading protestant professor d.a. Carson.

etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/40/40-4/40-4-pp581-608_JETS.pdf

Erick in Christ,

I read the article and must point out that it is far too lengthy and detailed to give anything more than a brief and shallow review in a post. I’ll point out “some” of the things that bothered me.

1. I agree that we are still far apart in the Ecumenical process in spite of the progress demonstrated by the Lutheran/Catholic accords on Justification.
2. I found some of his understandings of Catholic teaching to be seriously wanting, but much of how he understands Catholicism is correct.
3. Carson erroneously claimed, and offered no proof, that recent Encyclicals indicate that the Church teaches that “human nature remains basically intact” after the fall. That is simply untrue. I recommend reading Frank Sheed’s book “Theology and Sanity”. It gives the best analysis on that topic that I have ever read and articulates the Catholic position accurately.
4. It is erroneous to use the OT context, in the fashion used by Carson and others, to define justification as only declarative/forensic. It is extremely important to remember that scripture itself tells us in Hebrews 10:11 that:

“…the law has but a shadow of the good things to come.”

With that in mind we can easily see from the NT that justification is much more than a forensic acquital by way of the scriptures I previously presented.

1. Carson speaks of baggage that both sides bring to the table in Ecumenical discussion, but seems to cling to Evangelical baggage as being correct. He even dismissed the clear and obvious meaning of "righteous: in Romans 5:19 using what I think is nothing more than contrived reasoning driven by doctrine. I would cut him slack on this except for the fact that other scriptures, specifically written by Paul, also corroborate the Catholic position and show that justification is both forensic and ontological.
2. He made negative remarks on both scholasticism and Trent that are unsupported and wrong. I was particularly surprised at his contention that some statements from Trent have been eclipsed. That is simply untrue and the Catholic position on justification remains unchanged. Carson goes on oddly after that remark to say that the Church’s position hasn’t changed very much from that of Trent. The fact that he believes that it has changed at all is an error, but he contradicts himself by saying that statements from Trent have been eclipsed. The only change is in the Joint Declarations between Catholics and Lutherans concerning the “excommunications/condemnations.” The teachings remain unchanged, but there exists a much greater appreciation for the viewpoints on both sides especially where there is recognizable common ground.
3. Carson made uninformed remarks attempting to connect Pelagianism with Catholic doctrine. The man should know better since all forms of Pelagianism were condemned at various Catholic Church Councils and the condemnations remain in effect.
4. Carson changed the discussion in a deceptive fashion. Instead, of remaining focused on the ontological nature of justification which is the real bone of contention, he attempts to shift it to “distributive vs. forensic.”
5. He claims that mortal sin is not easily distinguished from non-mortal sins in scripture. That is absurd on its face since scripture speaks of mortal sin, and Paul on several different occasions discusses a list of sins that bring condemnation.
6. He also uses a popular Evangelical term that I find very misleading and deceptive. He quotes others as rightly saying that their view is that “faith is never alone.” Please be advised that this is slight of hand effort to reconcile their position with James statements about “faith alone” in chapter 2 of his epistle. Anyone who reads James 2 and his statement on faith alone can easily read what it means. At the very least, non-Catholic apologists and scholars should stick with the biblical terminology as it is written rather than playing a word game that definitely changes the clear meaning of what the apostle is saying.

That is about as much as I can say without writing a lengthy analysis which I’m not prepared to do, and one that most people probably wouldn’t wish to read anyway.

God bless.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Thank you for the comments.

Yes, I could not but help to conclude that it was very weak in it’s argumentation. But I don’t think that was an attempt to provide evidence for the protestant position. If it was, that is pretty sad.

I think it is interesting that the reformed protestant gives the forensic meaning to dikaiosunay in Romans 3:21 “righteousness” but then does not maintain this forensic meaning when Paul speaks of us “having set set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness” (Rom 6:18)

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Is it possible to interpret romans 5:5 “love of God” to be the same love which is stated a couple verses later speaking about the “love of God” in the death of Jesus?

In other words, is it possible to remain catholic and read it this way?

 

[Pax]

Thank you for the comments.

Yes, I could not but help to conclude that it was very weak in it’s argumentation. But I don’t think that was an attempt to provide evidence for the protestant position. If it was, that is pretty sad.

I think it is interesting that the reformed protestant gives the forensic meaning to dikaiosunay in Romans 3:21 “righteousness” but then does not maintain this forensic meaning when Paul speaks of us “having set set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness” (Rom 6:18)

Erick in Christ,

The Carson article looks to the OT for the meaning of justification as solely forensic. Please read the article at the following link that totally dismantles that argument along with the traditional view of the forensic only advocates:

devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/06/12/a-study-on-imputation-of-righteousness/

God bless.