The truth, as often, is that things aren’t as clear as some people want to make it.
1. There are differing uses of justification in the NT, though Paul uses it most. Catholics and Protestants thus define it differently. That leads to some (but not all) of the disagreements between them.
2. Even within Paul it’s used for a range of meanings. E.g.
* In Rom 2:20 and 4:2 it refers to someone who is recognized as righteous. It’s not specifically referring to the act of declaring them righteous, but how we know they are righteous.
* In Rom 3:30 it refers to God either making or declaring someone righteous. I think in differing passages it emphasizes one or the other of those.
While a legal meaning of declaring righteous is certainly part of the meaning, it doesn’t make sense to force all of the uses into that one meaning.
I also think there’s an non-legal reading of “making righteous.” Certainly a legal declaration is part of it. But Paul’s primary reading of the atonement is in Rom 6. It is that though union with Christ, in faith, we die with Christ to sin and rise to new life. This goes beyond a legal fiction, and includes real change. Not that we earn anything, of course, but that through union with Christ in faith he is really present in our lives. This is shown in behavior, but that goes beyond the question of the definition of justification, to the broader question of how justification fits into salvation. In this posting I will say only that justification by faith alone doesn’t mean salvation by faith alone, because justification is only part of salvation.
Of course the range of meanings to justification are closely connected. If we are made righteous through the means of faith, then we can also be recognized as God’s people by our faith. I doubt that Paul clearly distinguished between these meanings. Parts of the range have been (over)emphasized by the New Perspective, Lutheranism, and Calvin, respectively. Wright sees justification as how we know that someone is one of God’s people. Lutherans see it as declaring us righteousness as a legal act with no basis in us. Calvin (though not necessarily all of Reformed tradition) is closer to Rom 6, seeing a basis in what he calls our “mystical union” with Christ, based on faith.
This posting speaks only of Pauline usage. I think there is some basis in James’ usage for the traditional Catholic definition, in which justification refers to the whole restoration of God’s image in us. Using that definition, of course, it is quite right that justification is not by faith alone. On the other hand, it’s not clear to me that justification has the central role for James that it does for Paul, so it may make sense to use Paul’s definition when it comes down to technical theology.
1. There are differing uses of justification in the NT, though Paul uses it most. Catholics and Protestants thus define it differently. That leads to some (but not all) of the disagreements between them.
2. Even within Paul it’s used for a range of meanings. E.g.
* In Rom 2:20 and 4:2 it refers to someone who is recognized as righteous. It’s not specifically referring to the act of declaring them righteous, but how we know they are righteous.
* In Rom 3:30 it refers to God either making or declaring someone righteous. I think in differing passages it emphasizes one or the other of those.
While a legal meaning of declaring righteous is certainly part of the meaning, it doesn’t make sense to force all of the uses into that one meaning.
I also think there’s an non-legal reading of “making righteous.” Certainly a legal declaration is part of it. But Paul’s primary reading of the atonement is in Rom 6. It is that though union with Christ, in faith, we die with Christ to sin and rise to new life. This goes beyond a legal fiction, and includes real change. Not that we earn anything, of course, but that through union with Christ in faith he is really present in our lives. This is shown in behavior, but that goes beyond the question of the definition of justification, to the broader question of how justification fits into salvation. In this posting I will say only that justification by faith alone doesn’t mean salvation by faith alone, because justification is only part of salvation.
Of course the range of meanings to justification are closely connected. If we are made righteous through the means of faith, then we can also be recognized as God’s people by our faith. I doubt that Paul clearly distinguished between these meanings. Parts of the range have been (over)emphasized by the New Perspective, Lutheranism, and Calvin, respectively. Wright sees justification as how we know that someone is one of God’s people. Lutherans see it as declaring us righteousness as a legal act with no basis in us. Calvin (though not necessarily all of Reformed tradition) is closer to Rom 6, seeing a basis in what he calls our “mystical union” with Christ, based on faith.
This posting speaks only of Pauline usage. I think there is some basis in James’ usage for the traditional Catholic definition, in which justification refers to the whole restoration of God’s image in us. Using that definition, of course, it is quite right that justification is not by faith alone. On the other hand, it’s not clear to me that justification has the central role for James that it does for Paul, so it may make sense to use Paul’s definition when it comes down to technical theology.
Upvote
0
).
