What Is Justification?
- Thread starter Tree of Life
- Start date
1. Catholic Position - Justification is existential. In Justification, God infuses the righteousness of Christ into our souls and we actually become existentially righteous.
No Scriptural support.
2. Reformed Position - Justification is forensic. In Justification, God legally declares a person to be righteous. Justification does nothing to the person's existential state, but it does affect their legal status.
Imputation wasn't introduced by Luther but rather by Melancthion, who accepted Erasmus erroneous translation of reputatum as imputatum, when God actually considered Abraham's response as righteous, not imputed it, not transferred a righteous attribute to it.
Quote
Toward the end of the essay, McGrath raises the question of the origin of the Reformers?Eforensic understanding of justification, suggesting that ?it is possible that Melanchthon may have derived the idea from Erasmus?ENovum Instrumentum of 1516, in which the forensic overtones of the notion of ?imputation?Eare specifically noted, using Roman jurisprudence as a model.?E Quoting B. Moeller, McGrath notes ?Ohne Humanismus, keine Reformation?E(p. 241). McGrath pursues this point a bit further in a second 1982 article, published in the Achiv fur Reformationsgeschichte (73, pp. 5-19). There he points out that Melanchthon referred to some classical sources to explain the meaning of forensic justification in the Third Article of the ?Confessio Augustana?E ?Melachthon illustrated the conception of imputation with a classical analogy, recalling how the people of Rome declare Scipio to be free,?Eand points to the use of the notion of ?acceptilation,?Ea ?purely verbal remission of a debt, as if the debt has been paid,?Ein both Luther and Reformed discussions of justification. As he notes, ?It is significant that this term is derived from classical Roman legal practice. It therefore appears that the doctrine of forensic justification itself may have a humanist background, as is suggested by the frequent use of classical analogies (e.g. the people of Roman declaring Scipio to be free) and classical legal terms (e.g. acceptilation) in its articulation?E(p. 18).
The sources of these, he suggests, is likely Erasmus. In his 1516 printed Greek NT, which included a Latin translation, Erasmus chides earlier translators (Valla in particular) for inconsistency in the translation of the Greek LOGIZOMAI. Valla had translated the word as imputatum in some cases, but also as reputatum. Erasmus consistently opts for the former: ?In the 1535 edition, Erasmus expanded on this: ?reputare?Eis to be understood as ?animo confiderare, imputare as acceptum ferre.?E However, the potentially forensic implications of this translation are indicated by Erasmus, even in the 1516 edition, when he points out that the Jurisconsults used the term acceptilation in this sense.?E Erasmus?Euse of classical sources ?could have considerable influence upon those Reformers seeking to expound the true meaning of St. Paul?s teaching on justification.?E McGrath concludes that ?if the emergence of the concept of forensic justification at the time of the Reformation cannot be attributed to humanist influence, and supremely to that of Erasmus, then its sudden appearance in the third decade of the 16th century must be regarded as one of the greatest riddles in the history of thought, whose solution we may eagerly await?E(p. 19).
Read more at Justification and Reformation
...........
3. New Perspective - Justification is covenantal. This may not be the best word to describe the position. But according to NPP, in justification a person becomes recognized as a member of the covenant community and is thus liable to the blessings of the covenant. It's not clear to me how righteousness fits into this because NPP sees justification as neither infusion of righteousness nor a forensic imputation. NPP is confusing.
The covenant is with Abraham. It is his seed which will receive the promise. The requirement to be considered his seed is faith, not circumcision and its further requirement, PERFECT OBSERVANCE.
According to NPP, Justification is how a person is included in the church, on the basis of faith. According to NPP, Paul is dealing with how Gentiles are to be viewed in the context of socializing, table fellowship. They are not to be treated as Peter and the Judaisers treated them in the infamous incident.
Where NPP is confused is when Wright states that the recognition, as equals, of all believers, based on faith, will be vindicated in the future, based on the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the believers, as the result of their belief. IOW, works WILL manifest.
This is contradicted by James 2, where the writer teaches against such a view.
These are the results of not understanding HOW the Holy Spirit helps.
No Scriptural support.
2. Reformed Position - Justification is forensic. In Justification, God legally declares a person to be righteous. Justification does nothing to the person's existential state, but it does affect their legal status.
Imputation wasn't introduced by Luther but rather by Melancthion, who accepted Erasmus erroneous translation of reputatum as imputatum, when God actually considered Abraham's response as righteous, not imputed it, not transferred a righteous attribute to it.
Quote
Toward the end of the essay, McGrath raises the question of the origin of the Reformers?Eforensic understanding of justification, suggesting that ?it is possible that Melanchthon may have derived the idea from Erasmus?ENovum Instrumentum of 1516, in which the forensic overtones of the notion of ?imputation?Eare specifically noted, using Roman jurisprudence as a model.?E Quoting B. Moeller, McGrath notes ?Ohne Humanismus, keine Reformation?E(p. 241). McGrath pursues this point a bit further in a second 1982 article, published in the Achiv fur Reformationsgeschichte (73, pp. 5-19). There he points out that Melanchthon referred to some classical sources to explain the meaning of forensic justification in the Third Article of the ?Confessio Augustana?E ?Melachthon illustrated the conception of imputation with a classical analogy, recalling how the people of Rome declare Scipio to be free,?Eand points to the use of the notion of ?acceptilation,?Ea ?purely verbal remission of a debt, as if the debt has been paid,?Ein both Luther and Reformed discussions of justification. As he notes, ?It is significant that this term is derived from classical Roman legal practice. It therefore appears that the doctrine of forensic justification itself may have a humanist background, as is suggested by the frequent use of classical analogies (e.g. the people of Roman declaring Scipio to be free) and classical legal terms (e.g. acceptilation) in its articulation?E(p. 18).
The sources of these, he suggests, is likely Erasmus. In his 1516 printed Greek NT, which included a Latin translation, Erasmus chides earlier translators (Valla in particular) for inconsistency in the translation of the Greek LOGIZOMAI. Valla had translated the word as imputatum in some cases, but also as reputatum. Erasmus consistently opts for the former: ?In the 1535 edition, Erasmus expanded on this: ?reputare?Eis to be understood as ?animo confiderare, imputare as acceptum ferre.?E However, the potentially forensic implications of this translation are indicated by Erasmus, even in the 1516 edition, when he points out that the Jurisconsults used the term acceptilation in this sense.?E Erasmus?Euse of classical sources ?could have considerable influence upon those Reformers seeking to expound the true meaning of St. Paul?s teaching on justification.?E McGrath concludes that ?if the emergence of the concept of forensic justification at the time of the Reformation cannot be attributed to humanist influence, and supremely to that of Erasmus, then its sudden appearance in the third decade of the 16th century must be regarded as one of the greatest riddles in the history of thought, whose solution we may eagerly await?E(p. 19).
Read more at Justification and Reformation
...........
3. New Perspective - Justification is covenantal. This may not be the best word to describe the position. But according to NPP, in justification a person becomes recognized as a member of the covenant community and is thus liable to the blessings of the covenant. It's not clear to me how righteousness fits into this because NPP sees justification as neither infusion of righteousness nor a forensic imputation. NPP is confusing.
The covenant is with Abraham. It is his seed which will receive the promise. The requirement to be considered his seed is faith, not circumcision and its further requirement, PERFECT OBSERVANCE.
According to NPP, Justification is how a person is included in the church, on the basis of faith. According to NPP, Paul is dealing with how Gentiles are to be viewed in the context of socializing, table fellowship. They are not to be treated as Peter and the Judaisers treated them in the infamous incident.
Where NPP is confused is when Wright states that the recognition, as equals, of all believers, based on faith, will be vindicated in the future, based on the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the believers, as the result of their belief. IOW, works WILL manifest.
This is contradicted by James 2, where the writer teaches against such a view.
These are the results of not understanding HOW the Holy Spirit helps.
Upvote
0
Here is my proof from God's Word.
Jehovah-Tsidkenu” —Jehovah is our righteousness.
I suppose if you are looking for the word "imputes" in English, that could be an issue: many of todays (per)versions leave it out and some change it to "credited".
King James Bible
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
And here are more verses that say the same thing without the actual English word of "imputes".
If you only wish to argue, I want none of that. If you are truly trying to learn more or reevaluate what you currently believe, then I'll continue in the thread.
Romans 5:
17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
“For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation, He has covered me with the robe of righteousness” (Isaiah 61:10).
2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”
Upvote
0
PeaceB
Well-Known Member
- Apr 20, 2017
- 1,592
- 662
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
Sure, but if you look at those verses carefully, you will notice that not a single one of them states that Jesus’s own personal righteousness is imputed (or credited) to a believer. Sacred Scripture simply does not state that anywhere, and perhaps that is why you don’t see any Christians in history saying that before Luther/Melanchthon.
Upvote
0
Hmm so you asked for one verse and I gave it to you. I can do no more to help you.
Romans 4:3 King James Bible
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Galatians 3:6 and James 2:23 say the same in different ENGLISH words.
I'm sure we agree that God's Word was not originally written in English.
Romans 4:3 King James Bible
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Galatians 3:6 and James 2:23 say the same in different ENGLISH words.
I'm sure we agree that God's Word was not originally written in English.
Upvote
0
Romans 5 enumerates a federal headship imputation framework. In Adam all have sinned and in Christ all are saved. The guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to his progeny. Your own Catechism teaches this. Likewise, Christs' righteousness and death for sin is imputed to those who are in him. Re-read Romans 5 with that in mind and it makes a lot of sense of the text.
Upvote
0
oOKnights TemplarOo
Active Member
- Dec 29, 2017
- 116
- 23
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
Rom. 3:23 – “all have sinned” also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, and the senile cannot sin. Of course Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Others can be an exception as well. The Greek word for all is “pantes.”
1 Cor. 15:22 – in Adam all (“pantes”) have died, and in Christ all (“pantes”) shall live. This proves that “all” does not mean “every single one.” This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).
Rom. 5:12 – Paul says that death spread to all (“pantes”) men. Again, this proves that “all” does not mean “every single one” because death did not spread to all men (again as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).
Rom. 5:19 – here Paul says “many (not all) were made sinners.” Paul uses “polloi,” not “pantes.” Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.
Rom. 3:10-11 - Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse. Psalm 14 – this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful. It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God.
Upvote
0
I agree that "all" does not necessarily mean every individual when it's used in Scripture. But it certainly can mean "every individual".
Why cannot infants and senile folks sin? Your own Catechism maintains that by virtue of Adam's fall they are born with original sin and guilt. This alone would make them liable to death.
Enoch and Elijah are two extraordinary examples. But the fact that they were taken up into heaven does not mean they were sinless and it doesn't really have anything to do with Paul's argument here.
Enoch and Elijah aside, death spread to all.
Paul uses the expression οἱ πολλοί which has the definite article. It means "the many". It is meant to contrast with "the one" - be it Adam or Christ. In Adam, "the one" sinned" and "the many died". In Christ, "the one" obeyed and "the many" will live. So the fact that he uses it here does not mean that there are some of Adam's lineage who are not sinners.
This would be a tautology not worthy of expression. "All sinners are sinful" is not Paul's point. Paul's point in Romans 1-3 is to establish that every person - both Jew and Greek - are under sin and condemned by the Law.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
PeaceB
Well-Known Member
- Apr 20, 2017
- 1,592
- 662
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
This is what Romans 5 states:
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 (ESV)
The text does not state that Jesus’s own personal righteousness is imputed to a believer. That is your personal interpretation of the text, but that is not what the text states. I reject your personal interpretation.15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 (ESV)
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
It says in verse 19 that "by the one man's obedience, many will be made righteous". This is in the same way that "by the one man's disobedience, many were made sinners."
How were many made sinners by Adam's sin? The answer is imputation. Adam was a federal representative of his progeny. His righteousness would be their righteousness and his sin would be their sin. Your Catechism says: "All men are implicated in Adam's sin..." (402). If this is not an example of imputation then tell me how else I should take it.
And then Paul says that people are made righteous in Christ in the same way (Romans 5:19). So this means that Christ's righteousness is imputed to believers just as Adam's sin is imputed to his children.
And, again, this is not my personal interpretation. But the interpretation of the Reformed Tradition along with many other traditions. Many church fathers such as Augustine held to this view as well.
Upvote
0
The word sin used in 2 Cor 5:21 is hamartia. However there are two problems with accepting hamartia to mean sin.
The first is that the church used the Septuagint, which is the Greek old Testament and in it hamartia is used to mean sin offering.
Obviously in the context of 2 Cor 5:21, hamartia needs to be translated as sin offering.
The second problem is that if Jesus had been made sin, then his sacrifice would not have been an acceptable one, since the lamb had to be without blemish.
Quote
The Greek word I have in mind is hamartia. It is the word translated “sin” in 2 Corinthians 5:21. Certainly, hamartia means “sin” and it is often translated as such. But, considering that the version of the Old Testament commonly used at the time the New Testament was written—the version they often had in mind as they wrote—was the Septuagint, it is often very enlightening to see how a Greek word in the New Testament was used in the Greek Septuagint.
What we find, is that in the Septuagint, the word hamartia is very commonly used to mean a “sin offering.” That is, it is used where the Hebrew Scriptures are obviously referring to a sin offering and where the English translations also have “sin offering.” In just three chapters alone that I happened to pick out (Leviticus 4, 5, and 6), hamartia is used over twenty times to refer to a sin offering.
Considering this, then, what is the best and most natural translation of 2 Corinthians 5:21? Of course, it is simply this: “For the One not knowing sin, He made a sin offering for us, that we should become the righteousness of God in Him.” This does not introduce some new idea that Jesus Christ somehow became actual sin, and it perfectly agrees with other Scriptures, such as Ephesians 5:2, “And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour,” and Hebrews 10:10, “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
Q. Does 2 Corinthians 5:21 mean that Jesus Christ actually became sin?
Upvote
0
Another doctrine based on a bad translation:
Quote
Scot McKnight writes:
Behind the Reformation is Augustine; behind much of modern evangelicalism, especially in the Reformed circles today, is the Reformation. Therefore, at the bottom of the evangelical movement in the Reformed circles is Augustine and his anthropology.
And behind Augustine’s anthropology (understanding of humanity), which is outlined in Scot’s post, is a simple misunderstanding of one word in the Bible, a preposition consisting of just two letters. Scot is writing about the New Perspective on Paul, an interesting issue. But my point here is not about that, but about how a misleading Bible translation has led Christian theology seriously astray for 1600 years.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430) was a great thinker and church leader. As a young man he had left his Christian background and become a Manichaean, a follower of an anti-Christian dualistic religion; eventually he came back to the Christian faith. But he was not a great linguist. He could speak and understand well only his native Latin, not Greek. And so for his understanding of the Bible he had to rely on translations into Latin.
Doug Chaplin has recently explained how in Romans 5:12
Augustine took Paul’s phrase “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” following the Vulgate “in quo omnes peccaverunt” to be “in whom [Adam] all sinned”.
(The Greek can be transliterated ef’ ho pantes hemarton.) Well, Augustine didn’t actually use the Vulgate, which was being translated during his lifetime, but the sometimes not very accurate Old Latin translations. But his Latin version seems to have been similar to the Vulgate here. Doug continues:
the Augustinian interpretation of Paul’s “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” as meaning “in whom all sinned” makes it the most disastrous preposition in history. All modern translations agree that its proper meaning is “because.”
More precisely, “the most disastrous preposition” is ἐφ᾽ ef’, a contracted form of epimeaning “on”. The Greek phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ef’ holiterally means “on which”, or possibly “on whom”, but is commonly used to mean “because”, or perhaps “in that”. The problem is that the Latin rendering of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, in quo, is ambiguous between “in which” and “in whom” (I’m not sure if it can also mean simply “because” or “in that”), and Augustine understood it as meaning “in whom”, i.e. “in Adam”.
So, according to Augustine all sinned “in Adam”, which he understood as meaning that because Adam sinned every other human being, each of his descendants, is counted as a sinner. This is his doctrine of “original sin”, that every human is born a sinner and deserves death because of it. He may have taken up this idea because it agreed with his former Manichaean theology. This teaching is fundamental to most Protestant as well as Roman Catholic teaching today. For example, it underlies the Protestant (not just Calvinist) teaching of total depravity, that the unsaved person can do nothing good, a teaching for which there is little biblical basis apart from Augustine’s misunderstanding which was followed by Calvin.
Augustine's mistake about original sin - Gentle Wisdom
Upvote
0
I'm not seeing an alternative suggestion for how the phrase in Romans 5 should be translated or understood.
The problem with NPP is that they spend a lot of time criticizing the Reformed view, but when it's time to make their proposals and formulations clear they seem unable to do so. They offer no positive explanation of the text.
Upvote
0
PeaceB
Well-Known Member
- Apr 20, 2017
- 1,592
- 662
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
Romans 5:19 states "For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous." It does not state "in the same way" or anything else that you wrote above. That is your personal interpretation of the text, and I reject your personal interpretation.
And St. Augustine most certainly did not teach that Jesus’s own personal righteousness is imputed to a believer.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The short and sweet on justification plus sanctification from the book of Romans
1:1 to 5:11 deals with the blood's justification, while 5:12 to 8:39 deals with the cross's dealings. One is not carried over to the other. The first section deals with sin(s) given prominence while the second section deals with the sin nature, or the sin principle working within. No matter how many sins there is the one sin principle. 2 different subject matters are being dealt with.
The old topic of the work of Christ represented by the blood shed for justification for the remission of sins moves to the argument being centered on the cross aspect of Christ' work in union with death, buriel and resurrection.
Romans 5:9 Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God
Romans 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.
pg 12-14 the normal christian life watchman nee
1:1 to 5:11 deals with the blood's justification, while 5:12 to 8:39 deals with the cross's dealings. One is not carried over to the other. The first section deals with sin(s) given prominence while the second section deals with the sin nature, or the sin principle working within. No matter how many sins there is the one sin principle. 2 different subject matters are being dealt with.
The old topic of the work of Christ represented by the blood shed for justification for the remission of sins moves to the argument being centered on the cross aspect of Christ' work in union with death, buriel and resurrection.
Romans 5:9 Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God
Romans 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.
pg 12-14 the normal christian life watchman nee
Last edited:
Upvote
0
"For as by" = "in the same way". The greek phrase is ὥσπερ γὰρ which can be rendered "for just as" or "for just like". It's an adverbial comparative.
“Now if any man had it in his power confidently to declare, “I justify you,” it would necessarily follow that he could also say, “Believe in me.” But it has never been in the power of any of the saints of God to say this except the Saint of saints, who said: “You believe in God, believe also in me;” (John 14:1) so that, inasmuch as it is He that justifies the ungodly, to the man who believes in him that justifies the ungodly his faith is imputed for righteousness.”
— St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.),
On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants,
Book I, Chapter 18.
Upvote
0
PeaceB
Well-Known Member
- Apr 20, 2017
- 1,592
- 662
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
No. "For as by" means "for as by". That is why all of the translators translate it as "for as by". If it meant "in the same way" they would have translated it as "in the same way."
There are a zillion translations right here, and not a single of of them translates the text that way.
Romans 5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
That's a nice quote, but it does not state that Jesus's own personal righteousness is imputed to a believer.
Upvote
0
Haha, ok. Then could you explain what the expression "for as by" means in this context? It obviously seems to be relating Adam's work to Christ's work.
Then whose righteousness is imputed to the believer?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
oOKnights TemplarOo
Active Member
- Dec 29, 2017
- 116
- 23
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
That is circular logic.
It does mean they were sinless for sin cannot enter heaven. It does have everything to do with the said passage, especially if a passage is taken out of context.
Sorry. Not Enoch and Elijah aside. You cannot do that just because you decide to take a passage out of context. You cannot say death spread to all.
You admit it here yourself "the many" does not mean everyone.
Enoch was the 7th generation from Adam through Seth.
Sorry but in the study of Rom 1:3 "set apart for the service of the gospel.." I cannot see how you arrive at your explanation.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
