The definition of "Justification"

[hedrick]

Please answer my ealier question. Thanks.

I thought I had. I'm not sure what your question is. We are (including by Calvin) sometimes spoken of as being justified at the point we are "justified and admitted to his friendship." But he also speaks of one who "is justified who is regarded not as a sinner, but as righteous, and as such stands acquitted at the judgment-seat of God, where all sinners are condemned." This says that we are regarded as righteous all the way through to the judgement.

His primary definition (in the passage pointed to above) says: "A man is said to be justified in the sight of God when in the judgment of God he is deemed righteous, and is accepted on account of his righteousness". Being righteous and acquitted is a state the continues.

His primary model is taken by experts (e.g. McGrath) to be that based on faith, which in the passage I'm about to quote, he speaks of as participation in Christ, there are two parallel results: justification and sanctification: "Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification."

I'm mystified that anyone would not consider being justified to be a continuing status. Are we not considered to be righteous by God throughout our lives? The Christian life is based in our acceptance by God and his ongoing love and support.

 

[Richard FC]

I thought I had. I'm not sure what your question is.

I'm mystified that anyone would not consider being justified to be a continuing status. Are we not considered to be righteous by God throughout our lives? The Christian life is based in our acceptance by God and his ongoing love and support.

I agree with you, but in an earlier post, you wrote
"As long as we are Christ's, we remain justified"

But do we not know that 'as long as' should really read 'once'

??

 

[All4Christ]

All4Christ

Yes, thank you, I guess you are right! (I wanted to keep my post short following my very long one immediately before, but I kept it short sloppily). And by Protestant, of course I meant the non-Catholic western churches that emerged after the Reformation. I did not comment on the eastern Orthodox position(s).

I was specifically addressing the meaning of 'knowledge' in the post to which I was responding. Of course predestination, pre-ordination, and 'foreknowledge' (in the technical sense in which I was using it) are all interconnected and I believe I did reasonable justice to the Calvinist position (independent of whether I agree with it or not). I believe Calvin would himself track his view back (through Luther) to Augustine in the latter's stand against Pelagius who was to be declared a heretic.

Of course Augustine's idea that God is proactive in salvation was nuanced by Cassian and, much later, by Jacob Arminius. Yes, God was proactive but not monergistically. Man had to play his part, synergistically. This is a very different view within Protestantism and, yes, Calvin will be turning in his grave!

I suppose I sloppily passed over this Protestant synergism, seeing it as a slight variation of Catholic synergism. In my view, neither forms of synergism can support the predestination or pre-ordination or foreknowledge in the robust form in which I believe it appears in Rom 8's Golden Chain. Those concepts require monergism

But yes, there remain many Protestant attempts to reconcile synergism with predestination. One could be rendered 'justification by faith but sanctification by works' (perhaps unfairly seen as 'Jesus gets you in, your job to stay in', ie don't apostasize). Then there is one that portrays 'the perseverance of the saints' as a prescription not a promise (perhaps unfairly seen as 'Do your best, and Jesus will make up the rest', but be complacent). In my view, both are crypto-synergistic and cannot support the predestination that is intended to bring assurance

However if I have omitted some or not done justice above, I'd love to hear more from you

Forms of synergism will always remain because they are often seen as the best way of avoiding the charges that God is (i) arbitrary in election, and (ii) potentially the author of evil. Paul addresses arbitrariness in Roms 9. I don't think his vivid 'potter' analogy need be taken as a defence of arbitrariness, but it certainly stands as a rebuke to us when we apply human justice to God. He is after all the author and definer of 'fairness' and any sense of it that we have comes from Him and is no doubt corrupted by us.

The charge that God is the author of evil is addressed in Job, even if not to our human satisfaction. Questions of theodicy are all track back to the question of why did God even allow for a Satan and a Fall. On this issue, we are normally prepared to accept God's unfathomable sovereignty and His unfathomable goodness, so there is no great merit in quibbling later on about election. Jesus made it clear that questions of theodicy (the tower of Siloam) are really opportunities for theophany (that God might be seen)

Apologies - this has turned out to be a long one as well !

Apologies for not responding fully. It is a busy time! My main point above (which you affirmed in your response) was to stress that there is a wide range of opinions when discussing predestination- in the Protestant and reformed churches (not including Orthodox and Catholic). I was a Pentecostal before I became Orthodox, and we adhered to some of the tenets in the Holiness movements. Sanctification was critical, and we didn't believe in OSAS. We considered ourselves to justified upon "salvation". We stayed in that state by participating in our sanctification.

Ironically, it was a fairly easy switch to the Orthodox understanding of soteriology. I needed to understand a different set of vocabulary, but once I did, it wasn't that huge of a jump for me. My Pentecostal church did not adhere to Predestination as understood in Calvinism. We were a lot closer to Arminianism. There are, as you said, some Protestant churches that promote synergism, some that promote monergism and some that promote a combination of the two

 

[hedrick]

I agree with you, but in an earlier post, you wrote
"As long as we are Christ's, we remain justified"

But do we not know that 'as long as' should really read 'once'

??

This depends upon your soteriology. When Calvinism / Arminianism isn't at issue, I normally write things to apply to both. Calvinists, of course, would say that the elect remain Christ's.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I thought I had. I'm not sure what your question is. We are (including by Calvin) sometimes spoken of as being justified at the point we are "justified and admitted to his friendship." But he also speaks of one who "is justified who is regarded not as a sinner, but as righteous, and as such stands acquitted at the judgment-seat of God, where all sinners are condemned." This says that we are regarded as righteous all the way through to the judgement.

His primary definition (in the passage pointed to above) says: "A man is said to be justified in the sight of God when in the judgment of God he is deemed righteous, and is accepted on account of his righteousness". Being righteous and acquitted is a state the continues.

His primary model is taken by experts (e.g. McGrath) to be that based on faith, which in the passage I'm about to quote, he speaks of as participation in Christ, there are two parallel results: justification and sanctification: "Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification."

I'm mystified that anyone would not consider being justified to be a continuing status. Are we not considered to be righteous by God throughout our lives? The Christian life is based in our acceptance by God and his ongoing love and support.

It's not s Biblical definition. So I guess I'd like to know where your definition of justification came from then

 

[ToBeLoved]

I thought I had. I'm not sure what your question is. We are (including by Calvin) sometimes spoken of as being justified at the point we are "justified and admitted to his friendship." But he also speaks of one who "is justified who is regarded not as a sinner, but as righteous, and as such stands acquitted at the judgment-seat of God, where all sinners are condemned." This says that we are regarded as righteous all the way through to the judgement.

His primary definition (in the passage pointed to above) says: "A man is said to be justified in the sight of God when in the judgment of God he is deemed righteous, and is accepted on account of his righteousness". Being righteous and acquitted is a state the continues.

His primary model is taken by experts (e.g. McGrath) to be that based on faith, which in the passage I'm about to quote, he speaks of as participation in Christ, there are two parallel results: justification and sanctification: "Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification."

I'm mystified that anyone would not consider being justified to be a continuing status. Are we not considered to be righteous by God throughout our lives? The Christian life is based in our acceptance by God and his ongoing love and support.

As far as my question, you stated that Calvin taught being justified twice. I said I do not believe he did and asked for the teachings by Calvin that show he believed and taught this.

 

[Richard FC]

Apologies for not responding fully. It is a busy time! My main point above (which you affirmed in your response) was to stress that there is a wide range of opinions when discussing predestination- in the Protestant and reformed churches (not including Orthodox and Catholic). I was a Pentecostal before I became Orthodox, and we adhered to some of the tenets in the Holiness movements. Sanctification was critical, and we didn't believe in OSAS. We considered ourselves to justified upon "salvation". We stayed in that state by participating in our sanctification.

Ironically, it was a fairly easy switch to the Orthodox understanding of soteriology. I needed to understand a different set of vocabulary, but once I did, it wasn't that huge of a jump for me. My Pentecostal church did not adhere to Predestination as understood in Calvinism. We were a lot closer to Arminianism. There are, as you said, some Protestant churches that promote synergism, some that promote monergism and some that promote a combination of the two

---------

Thank you and most interesting.

Before retiring I was a Calvinist, teaching the theology of the Reformation, until I read Luther's Commentary on Galatians where he mentions the gospel account of the Syro-Phoenician woman. In joyous phrasing, no doubt echoing his Tower experience, Luther proclaims that 'Behind all God's noes, there is a Yes'.

This finally tipped me away from the muscular (in the sense of through gritted teeth), and also inconsistent, Calvinism I had always had a sneaking dissatisfaction with. Inconsistent, because it would say 'all is of God including your sanctification' but also hint darkly that you must somehow participate in the latter otherwise we were all robots. CS Lewis describes this brilliantly in chapter 1 of 'Pilgrim's Regress'. (Calvinists call it a 'tension' but I call it 'Gollum' theology or 'three cup' theology)

While there is much in Lutheranism I cannot accept, I do think Luther best expressed the idea of the new creation - calling forward the new man, whereas Calvinism seemed to emphasize improving the old man. Indeed I might provocatively argue that the Reformation lasted only until Melanchthon sold the pass on free will.

There is no Lutheranism here in the UK, but I did initially move from Calvinism to Wimber Vineyard. I liked the excitement of the charismatics as they came to church expecting God to preside. Cynically I compared this Calvinist churches where they dissected and talked much about the bible (which I too value) but with the implicit expectation that God would not show up.

I have been intrigued recently to find that some Finnish theologians have seen much in common between Luther and the Orthodox church. But about the latter I know little, and would much appreciate learning how and what you have found satisfying there. I understand Penal substitution has never taken root there and I find that a great point in its favor!

 

[All4Christ]

---------

Thank you and most interesting.

Before retiring I was a Calvinist, teaching the theology of the Reformation, until I read Luther's Commentary on Galatians where he mentions the gospel account of the Syro-Phoenician woman. In joyous phrasing, no doubt echoing his Tower experience, Luther proclaims that 'Behind all God's noes, there is a Yes'.

This finally tipped me away from the muscular (in the sense of through gritted teeth), and also inconsistent, Calvinism I had always had a sneaking dissatisfaction with. Inconsistent, because it would say 'all is of God including your sanctification' but also hint darkly that you must somehow participate in the latter otherwise we were all robots. CS Lewis describes this brilliantly in chapter 1 of 'Pilgrim's Regress'. (Calvinists call it a 'tension' but I call it 'Gollum' theology or 'three cup' theology)

While there is much in Lutheranism I cannot accept, I do think Luther best expressed the idea of the new creation - calling forward the new man, whereas Calvinism seemed to emphasize improving the old man. Indeed I might provocatively argue that the Reformation lasted only until Melanchthon sold the pass on free will.

There is no Lutheranism here in the UK, but I did initially move from Calvinism to Wimber Vineyard. I liked the excitement of the charismatics as they came to church expecting God to preside. Cynically I compared this Calvinist churches where they dissected and talked much about the bible (which I too value) but with the implicit expectation that God would not show up.

I have been intrigued recently to find that some Finnish theologians have seen much in common between Luther and the Orthodox church. But about the latter I know little, and would much appreciate learning how and what you have found satisfying there. I understand Penal substitution has never taken root there and I find that a great point in its favor!

I'd be happy to talk about my journey I'm heading out to meet some family members, so it will have to be later. That said, you are absolutely right about Penal Substitution! It was a refreshing change of Theology in regards to atonement, redemption, etc. I also have learned a lot in the Traditional Theology forum about the ways the Lutheran Church is similar to Orthodoxy. There are many similarities...many more than I originally identified.

 

[hedrick]

It's not s Biblical definition. So I guess I'd like to know where your definition of justification came from then
...
As far as my question, you stated that Calvin taught being justified twice. I said I do not believe he did and asked for the teachings by Calvin that show he believed and taught this.

I'm using justification in the sense that Paul did, although obviously when discussing Calvin my quotations are all from him.

No, Calvin didn't say that we're justified twice. If justification is the state of being right with God, then one can speak of someone as being justified both at the beginning and the end of their Christian life, without implying two separate justifications.

However the word is used by Paul in two slightly different ways, which is also reflected in Calvin's treatment. I refer you to post The definition of "Justification". Thus Calvin speaks of it both as the act of being set right with God, and to the state of being right with God. It's the second meaning that applies in this quotation: "is justified who is regarded not as a sinner, but as righteous, and as such stands acquitted at the judgment-seat of God, where all sinners are condemned."

As I noted before, for much of his discussion, Paul uses the term for the state of being right with God, or recognizing that we're in that state. That's the meaning in Rom 4:2 or 5:18. But Paul also uses it for God's act in setting someone right with himself. That's the meaning in Rom 4:5. The meanings overlap, so it's often hard to distinguish. Indeed scholars have differed on this issue. E.g. N T Wright thinks that there's one definition of justification in Paul, which is recognizing that someone is right with God.

I still don't know what the issue is here. What do you think the definition is, and why does the difference matter?