Question on Justification

[Dominus Fidelis]

Hey PRE brethren!

I have a question about your beliefs on justification.

It is my understanding from studies on Luther that he taught that justification is a "forensic," "imputation" of the "alien righteousness of Christ" that does not change the believer inwardly.

Luther illustrated this by the image of a "dung heap covered by snow".

Is this the modern day understanding of Protestants?

(I realize its somewhat inaccurate to lump everyone under the term "Protestants," but it was the easiest way to ask the question and alternate understandings are welcome.)

Thanks for your information!

 

[II Paradox II]

It is my understanding from studies on Luther that he taught that justification is a "forensic," "imputation" of the "alien righteousness of Christ" that does not change the believer inwardly.

a few thoughts:

1) Justification in classical protestant theology is an alien righteousness imputed to the believer by grace through faith. I'm not sure though that Luther would've taught it the way you mentioned. In his sermon, "Two Kinds of Righteousness", he lays out a pretty good overview of his teaching.

"There are two kinds of Christian righteousness, just as man’s sin is of two kinds. The first is alien righteousness, that is the righteousness of another, instilled from without. This is the righteousness of Christ by which he justifies though faith, as it is written in I Cor. 1:30... The second kind of righteousness is our proper righteousness, not because we alone work it, but because we work with that first and alien righteousness. This is that manner of life spent profitably in good works...This righteousness is the product of the righteousness of the first type, actually its fruit and consequence"
http://www.mcm.edu/~eppleyd/luther.html

The more systematic categories of justification and sanctification were developed later than this, though they express roughly the same idea, just with different terminology.

2) Again, in classical protestant theology, the primary referent of justification is the alien righteousness of christ by which we are made right with God. However, as you are probably aware, justification is not equivalent to salvation, but it is a subset of it along with glorification, sanctification, regeneration and union with Christ. So while it is true that justification is not the primary agent of change in the believer, it is a part of it and salvation as a whole includes the change of heart and life.

ken

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Thanks Paradox...

I am a bit confused now...you said that justification is not equivalent to salvation in Protestant thought. I was under the impression that they were equivalent...once I am justified by Christ's alien righteousness, I am saved.

Is that not the case?

Thanks again!

 

[theologia crucis]

I've got to get to work, but for Lutherans, justification=salvation. Regeneration happens at conversion (bestowal of faith), from which justification immediately follows, and good works immediately follow justification. Sanctification only occurs AFTER we are justified (and that's a once and for all thing, unless we later reject it).

There are other immediate effects during justification (indwelling of the Holy Spirit, etc.), but I don't have time to hit those...

Gotta get to work on time!

 

[Flipper]

I apologize that my question is very simple sounding, but my understanding is that one is "saved" when one realizes the meaning of justification. Or is it that we are all "saved" unless we flat out reject Christ?

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

I've got to get to work, but for Lutherans, justification=salvation. Regeneration happens at conversion (bestowal of faith), from which justification immediately follows, and good works immediately follow justification. Sanctification only occurs AFTER we are justified (and that's a once and for all thing, unless we later reject it).

There are other immediate effects during justification (indwelling of the Holy Spirit, etc.), but I don't have time to hit those...

Gotta get to work on time!

Thanks! Thats what I thought Luther taught...

Now, is this the modern day understanding of Protestants that are not Lutherans?

Come on people, the rest of you can answer me, I'm just asking to understand your beliefs better. I'm not going to spring some trap on you or something...

 

[InquisitorKind]

I am a bit confused now...you said that justification is not equivalent to salvation in Protestant thought. I was under the impression that they were equivalent...once I am justified by Christ's alien righteousness, I am saved.

Is that not the case?

The person is saved in the sense that they are in the process of salvation--they're going to enter Heaven. Just because something dies after immediately being justified and still goes to Heaven doesn't mean that salvation and justification are to be equated.

Now, is this the modern day understanding of Protestants that are not Lutherans?

As was related during our formal debate, salvation is a process, where as justification is a one-time event during that process. I can't speak for theologia crucis but I don't believe that the understanding put forth by him is in conflict with what other Protestants, such as II Paradox II and myself, believe concerning this subject.

If you have other questions, feel free to ask.

~Matt

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Thanks Matt. I guess I just don't understand the idea that salvation and justification are different, when at the same time you say a justified person is saved.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the justified/saved person is then put through a process of being sanctified after this one-time declaration of Christ's righteousness?

 

[Jason1646]

I apologize that my question is very simple sounding, but my understanding is that one is "saved" when one realizes the meaning of justification. Or is it that we are all "saved" unless we flat out reject Christ?

Salvation is spoken of in past, present, and future. We are saved from the guilt and penalty of our sin at the time of Justification, we are being saved by the power of sin in Sanctification, and we will be saved from the presence of sin in Glorification. Since salvation intends our glorification, we will not be saved in the fullest sense of the term until the new heavens and the new earth.

Regards,

~Jason

 

[Lotar]

Justification is not the same thing as salvation, but once you are justified, you will be saved. They are seperate events though, since we do not technically recieve salvation until we die.

In many conversations they are interchangable terms though. Many people use the term, "saved" instead of "justified" but mean the same thing.

It is my understanding from studies on Luther that he taught that justification is a "forensic," "imputation" of the "alien righteousness of Christ" that does not change the believer inwardly.

When a person recieves God's grace they are regenerated, after which there is the battle between the flesh and the spirit, which Paul talks about. So the believer is changed inwardly.
Christ's righteousness is imputed into us, which means we are justified by His righteousness and not by any deeds of our own.

 

[InquisitorKind]

Thanks Matt. I guess I just don't understand the idea that salvation and justification are different, when at the same time you say a justified person is saved.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the justified/saved person is then put through a process of being sanctified after this one-time declaration of Christ's righteousness?

I don't appreciate that the terminology isn't always clear regarding issues of salvation. In general Protestants should be more careful with their choice of words regarding this matter, which is why it's so important to define what we're referring to when we discuss such things--some people just don't know the difference.

Contrasting "saved" vs. "being sanctified after this one-time declaration," I would certainly pick the latter as more accurate. The former simply confuses the two concepts, as the tense only relates a past action.

~Matt

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

I don't appreciate that the terminology isn't always clear regarding issues of salvation. In general Protestants should be more careful with their choice of words regarding this matter, which is why it's so important to define what we're referring to when we discuss such things--some people just don't know the difference.

Contrasting "saved" vs. "being sanctified after this one-time declaration," I would certainly pick the latter as more accurate. The former simply confuses the two concepts, as the tense only relates a past action.

~Matt

Thanks Matt.

Another question, if ya'll don't mind...

How does God choose who to save? If this is all God's doing by giving us this alien righteousness at the instant of justification, and nothing preceding this justification merits it (which is the same as Catholics believe, by the way), why aren't all people saved? This would support Calvinistic ideas it seems.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Justification is not the same thing as salvation, but once you are justified, you will be saved.

What if you kill someone in a rage, after you are justified, or is that not possible?

 

[Lotar]

What if you kill someone in a rage, after you are justified, or is that not possible?

This is a subject that is going to get us debating

I believe that a person can lose their salvation, though not because of any one sin. If someone thought, "I can do what I want and God will forgive me, so I'm just going to go kill this guy" I would say they have lost their salvation and are no longer justified. Some would say he was never justified to begin with.

But it is still possible for Christians to sin as even though we are regenerated, we still have to battle with our carnal selves, "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." So if a Christian were to kill someone in a fit of rage, and realize what they have done and be repentant, they would not lose their salvation. Those who trust in Christ alone are not justified by their actions, neither good nor sinful.

 

[PNG]

How does God choose who to save? If this is all God's doing by giving us this alien righteousness at the instant of justification, and nothing preceding this justification merits it (which is the same as Catholics believe, by the way), why aren't all people saved? This would support Calvinistic ideas it seems.

Defens,

How God chooses whom to save depends on who you ask, of course. Calvinists have an answer, as you indicated, and if I may presume to speak for that camp, we would say that we don’t really know how or on what basis God chooses one person and not another, except to say that He does have reasons for His decisions and that they aren’t to be found in the recipients of divine grace. I’m afraid I don’t quite understand the second question, namely how one would reach a conclusion that if redemption is all God’s doing from start to finish that this would imply all people would be saved. Maybe you can clarify?

What if you kill someone in a rage, after you are justified, or is that not possible?

I think most Protestants, certainly Calvinists, would say that justification is the work of God and is permanent, in light of the fact that the Atonement put away all sin, past, present and future, and that reality is concretized at the moment Christ’s righteousness is applied to the account of the believer.

 

[II Paradox II]

I am a bit confused now...you said that justification is not equivalent to salvation in Protestant thought. I was under the impression that they were equivalent...once I am justified by Christ's alien righteousness, I am saved.

As the others have said, it's a little bit of a fuzzy issue. Salvation, broadly speaking is a catch-all term for all that God accomplishes in his elect to bring them to peace with himself. The reason why justification in particular is thought almost to be to the whole of salvation is because in both Catholic thought and Protestant thought it *is* portrayed as the crux of what it means to be saved (as opposed to say, the idea of theosis for the eastern orthodox... a concept western theology shares to some degree, but without the central role it plays in the east in favor of our common juridical heritage in the west). However, this difference in relative importance should not be taken as an endorsement of the fact that justification is all there is, because that isn't the case. I suspect that the reductionist approach to this question has much more to do with populist religion than and actual theological roots in the reformation itself.

As far as Luther goes, I'm not sure exactly, but I think the distinction I'm making was more common with later reformed theologians, not with Luther himself. He, as usual, is much harder to pin down than someone like Calvin...

ken

 

[II Paradox II]

How does God choose who to save? If this is all God's doing by giving us this alien righteousness at the instant of justification, and nothing preceding this justification merits it (which is the same as Catholics believe, by the way), why aren't all people saved? This would support Calvinistic ideas it seems.

It certainly does move one towards a more "calvinist" position with regards to election. However, I should add that many of the most dominant Catholic theologians (Augustine and Aquinas in particular) who constructed the catholic doctrine of justification also believe that God elects people on the basis of His will ante praevisa merita (without reference to their merit). So while a concept of alien righteousness does push one towards a position like this, it is not a foregone conclusion any more than accepting a concept of merit will push one towards Molinism. As history has shown, there are mixtures of every position represented at one point or another...

ken

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Thanks everyone for the great responses!

I’m afraid I don’t quite understand the second question, namely how one would reach a conclusion that if redemption is all God’s doing from start to finish that this would imply all people would be saved. Maybe you can clarify?

I was refering to the idea that God is all-good, all-loving, and wants to save everyone. If that is true, and some people are not saved, then that means God is either not powerful enough (not true obviously), or that something else is involved...namely freewill of humans to reject Him.

Make sense?

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

I think most Protestants, certainly Calvinists, would say that justification is the work of God and is permanent, in light of the fact that the Atonement put away all sin, past, present and future, and that reality is concretized at the moment Christ’s righteousness is applied to the account of the believer.

Ok, I have to be careful not to debate, but I think its ok to ask...

How does this belief jive with the teachings in the Gospels/Epistles that we must "endure to the end to be saved".

Much thanks!

 

[Jason1646]

Thanks everyone for the great responses!



I was refering to the idea that God is all-good, all-loving, and wants to save everyone. If that is true, and some people are not saved, then that means God is either not powerful enough (not true obviously), or that something else is involved...namely freewill of humans to reject Him.

Make sense?

Defens0rFidei,

Two things. First, to claim that God must save everyone to be all loving is to impose a definition of love upon God rather than to have our notion of love be fashioned by Himself. In other words, the question begins with an autonomous determination of what all loving would look like and then demands that God fit within that conception. Hence, I reject the premise to begin with.

As far as free will is concerned, that's another glacial thread in itself. Suffice to say that what is usually targeted in free will discussions is the issue of responsibility. To that end I would say that nothing more is required for a creature to be responsible than it chooses according to its will, no matter how much that will may be influenced by external factors. Knowing that God is all powerful and has every right as the Potter over the clay, we can readily see how God can be sovereign and man can be responsible without any internal contradiction.

Sincerely in Christ,

~Jason