(continued 2 of 2)
This is from NT Wright. This definitions implies that the behavior following the standing, and that righteousness could be living up to a certain code or standard, or being in or out of a relationship within a covenant community. If I used this latter definition, I think the whole debate goes away. It is not about conforming to a standard or about being pure or impure, but it is about being in a relationship which impacts the ontology of the one in that relationship to produce good works. In this sense, then, I think the debate would turn to what is necessary to regain relationship if it is severed and onto the sacrament of confession's justification. This quote I found, summarizing Wright's position, may shed light onto this . . .
I would agree with the major claims like that this is about a relationship, but Im not sure what you or Wright mean by "the whole debate goes away". Also the "it is not about being pure or impure" comment Im confused upon, it certainly is about being pure.
If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. For the judge to be righteous does not mean that the court has found in his favor. For the plaintiff or defendant to be righteous does not mean that he or she has tried the case properly or impartially. To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge's righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how the language works.
I have come across this quote by Wright in the past. If memory serves me right what he said here and in the context was totally incompatible with the classical Protestant understanding of justification. The concept of imputation was virtually rejected by Wright.
I think this concept of righteousness not being a substance to be passed around is extremely interesting as per this conversation.
True, but the fact is grace is received by us, in our souls (eg Rom 5:5). Further, Catholics wouldnt put this in the context of a courtroom, nor does the Bible, thus all Wright was really attacking in his quote was the classical Protestant position.
And here's another definition
From Wikipedia . . . This is the one I probably always had in my mind. The concept of living up to a standard. That my actions are the right ones when measured by God's holiness. With this definition, I don't know if there can be any reconciliation between Catholic and protestant.
I was going to provide the catholic definition, but I couldn't find it in the catechism index or encyclopedia.
How would you define it?
What in that definition leads you to say there cant be any reconciliation?
As I said above, the way I understand righteousness from a Catholic perspective has its roots in the concept of Adoption, starting with Adam. Adam was created with sanctifying grace in his soul, this made him righteous before God, when he lost it he made himself unrighteous as well as made everyone born after him lack that sanctifying grace at birth. Romans 5:19 comes to mind here, with Adam we were truly "made sinners" and Jesus we are truly "made righteous".
I think both are true, that this is not an either/or situation.
Protestants do believe in Adoption, but they strictly limit justification to the legal realm, it is a legal status of righteousness you are given because you lack it morally.
He was also created with an unfallen nature, but not a perfect nature. [1] Adam's righteousness was one of de facto, i.e. He never sinned and his righteousness was his own. [2] God's righteousness is perfect, and if we receive His righteousness, then ours would also be perfect as well.[3] If I can become more or less righteous, where is the line. [4] This is the difficulty of the catholic doctrine in my mind. How can I be semi-righteous? [5] Adam had no standard until he was given the command which he broke. Adam never chose to be at unity with the Godhead, and so never attained the same state as the saints in heaven. [6] Hence why Adam was both able to and able not to sin, but why we in heaven are not able to sin. [7]
[1] I would rephrase it to say he was not created with a perfected nature, that could only be attained if he obeyed and grew in righteousness.
[2] His righteousness was a gift from God, an addition to him as a creature. Think about it as if Adam was a car, the sanctifying grace in his soul would be akin to air in his tires. Air in the tires is not strictly necessary to exist, but for the car to run according to the level God intended it means you need that air. What the Protestant position sets up by not recognizing the sanctifying grace aspect is that when Adam sinned the results were extremely disastrous, the car became a total mangled wreck, incapable of any good by definition. This is in contrast to the Catholic view where the car lost the air in its tires, which prevented it from operating at the level God expects, but was not destructive to the nature itself in the way a mangled pile of metal is in the Protestant example. At that point to restore the car back is impossible, and that is why Protestants see imputed righteousness as the only hope. The car must be somehow considered righteous despite the fact it is a permanently mangled wreck. The Catholic solution is to have that air restored to the tires.
[3] But the way you "receive" this righteousness is odd, it is by imputation. It would be again as described earlier, like a dirty diaper covered and hidden within a clean cloth.
[4] You would never say there is a limit on how much we can/should love, that is because there is no "line" because the distance between God and man is infinite. We can grow from a current state of righteousness to a better one in the same sense. And not to sound like a broken record, but as an adopted child you are fully an adopted child even as you grow older and older when it comes time to receive the inheritance you are awarded your share according to how much you pleased your father. Everyone in Heaven enjoys God to the fullest capacity they are able, but not everyone has the same capacity. The capacity to enjoy Heaven is proportional to how much you show love on earth, the more you love the more your capacity to know and love God grows.
[5] You are not "semi-righteous" just like how you cannot be "semi-adopted". You are greater or lesser degrees of righteous just like you can be greater or lesser matured as a adopted child.
[6] Adam was created in union with the Godhead, that is why God acted so intimately with him. He didnt grow in his role however when he sinned, and we are not sure if he was reconciled before death.
[7] You dont believe as a Christian on earth you are able or not able to sin? As a Christian you dont have the ability to avoid robbing a store? We are able to sin and able not to sin because we have a will, Christians have a special advantage here because through grace (air in tires) we can will what God expects and please him. The Saints are not able to sin in Heaven not because they dont have a will, they do, but that there is no delusion as to what is True and Holy. Unlike Adam and us we dont have that perfect perspective, we sin because we convince ourselves this or that will make us happy if we do it, knowing but not fully trusting God's way makes us happy. In Heaven there is no such confusion, God's way is so crystal clear that we freely avoid sinning. That is how I understand the Catholic Church to be teaching it.
I still don't see how this supports that Abraham was justified three separate times.[1] In Galatians it is talking about what scripture foresees, a justification by faith, and in Hebrews it is reaffirming that faith and righteousness are connected but it doesn't imply that there is a sense of righteousness being lost and found again.[2] The only place where it mentions Abraham being credited righteousness because of faith in Genesis is in Chapter 15,which James references in connection to his faith-works argument when he mentions Isaac's almost sacrifice. [3] In fact, I see strong contextual evidence that James is saying that Abraham's actions prove his faith, since he references Genesis 15 in connection with Genesis 22 in regards to his faith being proven by works argument. His faith in God is proven by his willingness to obey God and sacrifice Isaac. [4] This seems more plausible in context then saying that Abraham lost or gaining righteousness or was made righteous on three separate occasions.[5]
[1] By the simple fact the term "justified" is used in reference to three separate times in his life. Further, you cant have Abraham be justified in Gen 15 and yet not in Gen 12, earlier in life. That would mean Abraham was believing in God and pleasing him from Gen 12-14 but was not justified until Gen 15, and that is impossible according to your theology.
[2] First things first. That Galatians and Hebrews passage put his belief and justification at Gen 12, thus to say he wasnt justified until Gen 15:6 is a problem. Next, this case is not about justification being lost and the found again, but rather Abraham growing in his relationship with God, growing in righteousness.
[3] But you run into multiple problems if that is your position. First of all it means nobody in Scripture except Abraham and Phinehas (Ps 106:30-31) were ever justified because the term "credited as righteousness" only appears in those two cases, this is implausible, especially given the OT Saints mentioned in Heb 11. Second, your theology will not allow Abraham to be believing and pleasing God in Gen 12-14 if he was not yet justified until Gen 15:6.
[4] Yes, and James says this was a moment of "justification", Abraham was proving himself to none other than God (Gen 22:10-12). If you think Abraham was simply proving his faith in Gen 22, you must say the same about Gen 15:6, in neither case did Arbaham get justified because he obviously believed as early as Gen 12. What is more troublesom is that you believe sanctification occurs immediately after justification, yet Abraham is never said to be being "sanctified" in Gen 15 or Gen 22, a place where it would logically have to be mentioned by Paul or James.
[5] Thats just it though, Abraham certainly was growing in his relationship with God as he continued to obey, you wouldnt argue his relationship remained static from Gen 12 to Gen 22. The best explanation is that he grew in righteousness.
As an aside, anybody start that NT Wright thread yet?
Not that I know of, and it doesnt look like it will occur anytime soon.
