Justified by His
Grace:
How Catholics and Protestants understand the doctrine of Justification
Introduction:
This article will hopefully explain the key differences between how Protestants
and Catholics understand salvation, especially the doctrine of justification.
Martin Luther considered the doctrine of 'justification by faith alone' to be
the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls, in other words this doctrine
was so important that if people failed to teach it properly they literally
betrayed the Gospel. When I use the term "Protestant" in this article
I will almost exclusively be talking about the historical Protestant traditions
who adhere to classical Protestant documents like the Book of Concord
(Lutherans) and the Westminster, Belgic and London Baptist Confessions
(Reformed/"Calvinists"). I will try hard to base all my claims and explanations
off of Scripture and official sources of doctrine for both Catholic and
Protestant teaching. Also, every source cited in this article should be freely
and easily available online. I will primarily use the Protestant NASB
translation of the Bible in all of my Scripture references, and they will be
highlighted blue.
Chapter 1 - The Fall of Adam
Background:
I believe the fall in the garden of Eden is the correct place to start because
it is here we learn what went wrong and what the consequences were. These consequences
can be summed up in the traditional phrase "Original Sin.” Most
apologetics articles (both Protestant and Catholic) regarding justification I
have come across either fail to mention the consequences of the fall, or, worse
yet, brush it away as not a significant issue of dispute between Protestants
and Catholics. The fact is if you dont know what went wrong then it is likely
you wont know how to fix it, that is why I think it is important to mention the
critical distinctions between how each side understands the doctrine of
Original Sin.
Both sides agree that there was a fall, caused by our first parents Adam and
Eve. What most people dont realize is that Protestants and Catholics view the
fall and Original Sin very differently. Both sides recognize the phrase
"Original Sin" does not appear in Scripture, but both sides agree the
concept is there. Though the Scriptures are clear there was a fall, it
was not until New Testament revelation when the precise theological
consequences were discussed. The primary Scripture texts that both Protestants
and Catholics appeal to is from Romans 5:12-19, I have singled out the most
relevant passages:
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned … death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. … For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. … So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
Remember, both sides agree these passages refer to the doctrine of Original Sin, what we don’t agree on is how those passages are to be interpreted.
The Catholic view:
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.
Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin.”
As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence"). [1]
The two consequences we see
resulting from the first sin was (1) a loss of "the original holiness and
justice he had received from God" and (2) human nature becoming weakened
(man is now subject to pain, suffering, death and concupiscence). The second
consequence remains a part of fallen human nature, even after Baptism in life
of all Christians, yet it must be noted these characteristics (pain, suffering,
death, concupiscence) are not themselves sin.
The first and most serious consequence, the loss of "original holiness and
justice," is popularly called the loss of "sanctifying grace.” The
Catechism teaches:
Grace is the help God gives us to
respond to our vocation of becoming his adopted sons.
Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of his life that God makes to us; it
is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify
it. Sanctifying grace makes us "pleasing to God." [2]
Sanctifying grace is a special gift, it is an "addition" to Adam as a
human creature, though indispensable for Adam to act properly towards God. It
would be like saying gasoline is an addition to a car, the car can exist apart
from gasoline, but it cannot function according to its designed potential
without gasoline. Adam started out with sanctifying grace in his soul, by this
grace his soul was alive and Adam was an "adopted son" of God and
capable of carrying out God's commands to the level He requires. Through his
sin he lost this grace, and as a result his soul became spiritually dead, and
as long as he lacked that sanctifying grace he was no longer an adopted son of
God and in this state he could not act in such a way as to please or obey God
to the level He desires.
The Catholic doctrine of Original Sin is basically this: All men and women born
after Adam and Eve lacked sanctifying grace in their souls, they lacked the
status of sons of God and essentially orphaned. From here Catholics realize
that the first and most important part of salvation is to have that sanctifying
grace restored, making our souls "pleasing to God" which causes us to
become adopted sons of God. How this sanctifying grace is restored will be
talked about later, and as you will see plays a very important role in the
doctrine of justification. [3]
The Protestant view:
From the Book of Concord and Belgic Confession:
[Lutherans] teach that since the
fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is,
without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence; and
that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin , even now condemning
and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the
Holy Ghost. [4]
And first, it is true that Christians should regard and recognize as sin not
only the actual transgression of God's commandments; but also that the
horrible, dreadful hereditary malady by which the entire nature is corrupted
should above all things be regarded and recognized as sin indeed, yea,
as the chief sin, which is a root and fountain-head of all actual sins.
And by Dr. Luther it is called a nature-sin or person-sin, thereby to indicate
that, even though a person would think, speak, or do nothing evil (which,
however, is impossible in this life, since the fall of our first parents), his
nature and person are nevertheless sinful, that is, thoroughly and utterly
infected and corrupted before God by original sin, as by a spiritual leprosy;
and on account of this corruption and because of the fall of the first man the
nature or person is accused or condemned by God's Law, so that we are by nature
the children of wrath, death, and damnation, unless we are delivered therefrom
by the merit of Christ.
That original sin (in human nature) is not only this entire absence of all
good in spiritual, divine things, but that, instead of the lost image of God in
man, it is at the same time also a deep, wicked, horrible, fathomless,
inscrutable, and unspeakable corruption of the entire nature and all its powers,
especially of the highest, principal powers of the soul in the understanding,
heart, and will, so that now, since the Fall, man inherits an inborn wicked
disposition and inward impurity of heart, evil lust and propensity; that
we all by disposition and nature inherit from Adam such a heart, feeling, and
thought as are, according to their highest powers and the light of reason,
naturally inclined and disposed directly contrary to God and His chief
commandments, yea, that they are enmity against God, especially as regards
divine and spiritual things. For in other respects, as regards natural,
external things which are subject to reason, man still has to a certain degree
understanding, power, and ability, although very much weakened, all of
which, however, has been so infected and contaminated by original sin that
before God it is of no use. [5]
We believe that by the disobedience of Adam original sin has been spread
through the whole human race.
It is a corruption of all nature-- an inherited depravity which even infects
small infants in their mother's womb, and the root which produces in man every
sort of sin. It is therefore so vile and enormous in God's sight that it is
enough to condemn the human race, and it is not abolished or
wholly uprooted even by baptism, seeing that sin constantly boils forth as
though from a contaminated spring. [6]
There is no mention of loss of sanctifying grace, rather the Protestant focus
is that the human nature became corrupted and concupiscence is seen as a
permanent disease and root of this corruption. It is important to note that the
Protestants understand concupiscence very differently, they see it as truly sin
(as opposed to what Catholics believe) and they say this sin/disease remains
even after faith and baptism. Given this general Protestant understanding of the
fall of Adam, and how different it is from the Catholic understanding, it
should be easy to see that when it comes to salvation, especially
justification, the Protestant side is going to have a very different
"solution" than the Catholic side will.
Summary:
Catholics understand the fall of Adam to be first and foremost the loss of
Adam's original "holiness and justice.” As mentioned above this is
commonly known today as sanctifying grace and was an added gift by God, not
part of human nature itself, thus when it was lost human nature was not
corrupted, though it suffered serious physical and spiritual
consequences. Protestants see the fall of Adam as a corruption of human
nature (which is far more devastating than the Catholic understanding) which
included the disease of concupiscence which for Protestants is itself sin.
In the Catholic model above I
described original sin as the lack of gasoline in a car, in the Protestant
model it is as if the car was totaled in a severe car wreck. In the Catholic model
God is displeased with the car not operating at potential, in the Protestant
model God is displeased because the car is literally a corrupt mass of metal
with only slight evidence it is still a car.
Finally it should be noted that the Catholic model teaches man can still do
"natural good" but apart from grace cannot do supernaturally pleasing
works in God's sight. While the Protestant model logically means man cannot do
even "natural good," none the less Protestants insist man is not 'as
evil as he could be' and the middle quote above they teach man has in some
weakened sense the ability to do some "natural good.” Given that we see
non-Christians doing good works like giving to charity, caring for their
family, being an upright citizen, etc, this good is purely on the natural level
and apart from grace these good works are unable to rise to the supernaturally
good level which God's standards require. The Catholic model does a far better
and clearer job of explaining why man is not as evil as he could possibly be,
because his nature is not corrupt.
Chapter 2 - The Atonement
Background:
It is absolutely essential to recognize that both Protestants and
Catholics agree fallen man needs God's grace to be rescued. Further, both
Protestants and Catholics agree that God doesn’t have to save anyone because
God never can be put in a position of debt. He never owed us anything, His plan
of salvation was purely an act of mercy. This article is meant to be a brief
look at the issue of salvation and wont go into great detail on how God's plan
for salvation works itself out. As you already know the topic of the study of
how salvation occurs (called 'soteriology') has been covered in volumes and
volumes of theological texts. The next issue that will be looked at is the
issue of the Atonement, which basically answers how did the life and death of
Jesus play into God's plan of salvation. Protestants and Catholics both agree
that Jesus came to earth 2000 years ago, that He preached the Gospel, died on
the Cross and was literally Resurrected. As you can probably guess however we
disagree on what exactly Christ's Life, Death and Resurrection accomplished.
Many times we hear the phrase "Jesus died for me," but Protestants
and Catholics understand that phrase very differently.
The Protestant view:
First some quotes from Protestant documents:
We believe that God-- who is perfectly merciful and also very just-- sent his Son to assume the nature in which the disobedience had been committed, in order to bear in it the punishment of sin by his most bitter passion and death.
So God made known his justice toward his Son, who was charged with our sin, and he poured out his goodness and mercy on us, who are guilty and worthy of damnation, giving to us his Son to die, by a most perfect love, and raising him to life for our justification, in order that by him we might have immortality and eternal life.
We believe that Jesus Christ is a high priest forever according to the
order of Melchizedek-- made such by an oath-- and that he presented himself in
our name before his Father, to appease his wrath with full satisfaction
by offering himself on the tree of the cross and pouring out his precious blood
for the cleansing of our sins, as the prophets had predicted.
...
So he paid back what he had not stolen, and he suffered-- the "just for
the unjust," in both his body and his soul-- in such a way that when he
senses the horrible punishment required by our sins his sweat became like
"big drops of blood falling on the ground." He cried, "My God,
my God, why have you abandoned me?" [1]
This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake, which that He might discharge He was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfill it, and underwent the punishment due to us, which we should have born and suffered, being made sin and a curse for us; enduring most grievous sorrows in His soul, and most painful sufferings in His body; was crucified, and died ... ... [2]
Q. 12. Since then, by the righteous judgment of God, we deserve temporal and
eternal punishment, is there no way by which we may escape that punishment,
and be again received into favour?
Answer: God will have his justice satisfied: and therefore we must make this
full satisfaction, either by ourselves, or by another.
Q. 14. Can there be found anywhere, one, who is a
mere creature, able to satisfy for us?
Answer: None; for, first, God will not punish any other creature for the sin
which man has committed; and further, no mere creature can sustain the
burden of God's eternal wrath against sin, so as to deliver others from it.
Q. 17. Why must he in one person be also very God?
Answer: That he might, by the power of his Godhead sustain in his human
nature, the burden of God's wrath; and might obtain for, and restore to us,
righteousness and life. [3]
Q. 27. Wherein did Christ's humiliation consist?
A. Christ's humiliation consisted in his being born, and that in a low condition, made
under the law, undergoing the miseries of this life, the
wrath of God , and
the cursed death of the cross; in
being buried, and continuing under the power of death for a time. [4]
Q. 49. How did Christ humble himself in his death?
A. Christ humbled himself in his death, in that having been betrayed by Judas,
forsaken by his disciples, scorned and rejected by the world, condemned by
Pilate, and tormented by his persecutors; having also conflicted with the
terrors of death, and the powers of darkness, felt and borne the weight of
God's wrath, he laid down his life an offering for sin, enduring the
painful, shameful, and cursed death of the cross. [5]
The important things to focus on here are terms such as "punishment" and "burden of God's wrath.” Protestants and Catholics agree that sinful man deserves both temporal and eternal punishments, however the historical Protestant position teaches that Jesus took this punishment you deserved, in other words instead of God punishing you He punished Jesus in your place.
The Catholic view:
The Catholic position rightly rejects this notion that the Father punished the
Son for reasons which should be obvious. First of all, if man deserves
"eternal punishments," and Jesus took that punishment for you, that
means Jesus would have had to suffer hellfire in your place. Second of all the
Protestant position has the understanding that God will not be satisfied unless
someone is punished, even His own Son. Both of these factors should be
recognized for what they are: heretical and blasphemous. It is very critical to
understand the implications of terms like "punishment" to understand
why the Catholic Church condemns that understanding. Punishment implies justice
being served, yet the New Testament is explicitly clear that the sufferings
Jesus was forced to endure were anything but just, as a matter of fact it was a
mock trial at the hands of a mob. Jesus was innocent, He was the spotless Lamb
from start to finish, He never deserved nor could He receive a
"punishment.” Further the Gospels are clear that the sufferings Jesus
endured were physical and emotional tortures at the hands of wicked humans, the
Gospel writers nowhere teach that Jesus suffered Divine Wrath, which comes from
God alone. To imply that Jesus could JUSTLY be "punished" is anything
but just, and that is not how God operates. The Catholic Encyclopedia says the
following in the section entitled "Atonement":
In their general conception on the atonement the Reformers and their followers happily preserved the Catholic doctrine, at least in its main lines. And in their explanation of the merit of Christ's sufferings and death we may see the influence of St. Thomas and the other great Schoolmen. But, as might be expected from the isolation of the doctrine and the loss of other portions of Catholic teaching, the truth thus preserved was sometimes insensibly obscured or distorted. It will be enough to note here the presence of two mistaken tendencies.
· The first is indicated in the above words of Pattison in which the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God's merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.
· The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious [substitutionary] punishment . This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins. [6]
The Catholic Encyclopedia points out that the erroneous idea that God must
punish someone, especially His own Son, is not a God driven by love but by
revenge. Secondly the encyclopedia points out the error of understanding the
sufferings of Christ to be that of a substitutionary punishment, which as shown
above means the Father punished the Son.
The question still remains: How was God's wrath towards sinful man appeased?
The simple answer is that it was pardoned through an alternative to any
punishment. God does require satisfaction to be made for offences against Him,
but this satisfaction need not come through punishing an innocent party, St
Thomas Aquinas describes the Catholic view of how God’s Wrath towards sin was
satisfied:
He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (46, 6). And therefore Christ's Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." [7]
Jesus offered Himself up to the Father not as a whipping boy but purchasing God's favor by being an obedient servant (Phil 2:5-11) and displaying the greatest act of love possible, obeying God - even if it leads to your death (remember in this case the death was unjust and caused by those who did not want to hear and obey the good news Jesus was sent to preach). Christ did as a man what God originally intended to see Adam do: show perfect love. Jesus demonstrated perfect love for God and neighbor. If this sounds confusing hopefully the following example will explain the difference between the historical Protestant and Catholic position:
Lets say some children are messing around with their Father's expensive artwork after being warned not to touch it. Yet the children through disobedience damage the artwork. The Father's wrath flares up against the children and the children deserve to be punished. However before the children get punished the mother of the home steps in to help, and here is how:
The Protestant would understand this to mean that the mother stepped in and
received the equivalent beating that the children deserved, thus satisfying the
Father's wrath.
The Catholic would understand the mother's intercession in a different matter.
The mother would spend all day preparing the Father’s favorite dinner,
sacrificing her time and energy to please the Father. The Father was so pleased
at this act of love that in turn He would allow the children to get off with a
sincere apology.
The Catholic understanding rightly points out that the Father could never be
justified in beating His wife, and in fact such a "solution" to His
wrath should be deeply disturbing to anyone reading this. The interesting thing
is that more and more Protestants today are moving away from their historical
Protestant roots and some have rightly described their historical Protestant
understanding as "Divine child abuse.” Why the original Protestants taught
substitutionary punishment will become clear in the following chapters.
Brief closing comments:
Now what about those verses in Scripture that Protestants often reference that
mention Christ being "made sin" and such? Reading them carefully AND
through the lens of the Catholic perspective you will see none of those verses
show the Father punishing the Son. See Appendix 1 for more details.
Also, it should be noted that Protestants understand two essential components
in what Christ did for man: First, He took the punishment they deserved, this
was described above. Second, He obeyed the Laws of God perfectly and did so in
the place of those he took the punishment for. The reason for this distinction
will be made clear in the next chapter, also it must be noted that Catholics
reject both of those ideas, again for reasons which will be shown in the next
chapter.
Chapter 3 – Justification Defined:
Background and Definitions of Justification:
This is the chapter you have been waiting for. As with the previous chapters I
ask you to remember this chapter is a general overview, not a theology
textbook. That being said, I believe it is possible to highlight the most
significant points of contention and show clearly why the Catholic
understanding of justification is more historical, logical, and most of all,
more Biblical than the Protestant understanding.
Most of us have heard that Protestants believe man is "justified by faith
alone," and that is true, Protestants really believe this. In fact this
was the main doctrine that got Luther in trouble with the Catholic Church. As I
said at the very start of this article, Luther considered this teaching to be,
"the doctrine by which the Church Stands or falls." On the other side
of the controversy it is often said that Catholics believe justification is by
"faith and works" rather than "faith alone," but is this
really the issue? The correct answer from the Catholic side is "no"
because, as you have seen from the previous chapters, the dispute is really one
step before "faith vs. works," and rather the dispute is really about
what terms like "justification" even mean.
My main goal for this whole article is, at the very least, for both Protestants
and Catholics to walk away realizing the HEART of this controversy is about
what terms like "justification" mean, which, as you might already
know, most apologetics articles out there overlook this important factor, and
thus each side ends up talking past the other.
We will start off by looking at how one of the leading Protestant Reformers
defined justification, here is what John Calvin said in his famous book,
Institutes of the Christian Religion:
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; for as
iniquity is abominable to God, so neither can the sinner find grace in his sight,
so far as he is and so long as he is regarded as a sinner. Hence, wherever sin
is, there also are the wrath and vengeance of God. He, on the other hand, 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 an
innocent man, when charged before an impartial judge, who decides according to
his innocence, is said to be justified by the judge, as a man is said to be
justified by God when, removed from the catalogue of sinners, he has God as the
witness and assertor of his righteousness. In the same manner, a man will
be said to be justified by works, if in his life there can be found a
purity and holiness which merits an attestation of righteousness at the throne
of God, or if by the perfection of his works he can answer and satisfy the
divine justice. On the contrary, a man will be justified
by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith
lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the
sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply
interpret justification, as the acceptance with which
God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we
say that this justification consists in the forgiveness
of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. [1]
In this quote Calvin defines in essence what "justified by faith"
means to Protestants. To Calvin (and Luther) instead of God looking at the
sinner and judging them as such (to be unrighteous), God sees the
"righteousness of Christ" instead, and on this basis declares the
sinner righteous in His presence. These justified individuals are "removed
from the catalogue of sinners" which means in the eyes of the law and
court they are no longer seen as unrighteous. The term "righteousness of
Christ" is a Protestant term that encompasses the two aspects of the
Protestant understanding of the atonement as described in the last chapter [2].
There is another key term used above, the word "imputation.” The word “impute” means, according to almost any dictionary, to reckon or attribute a quality to someone or something. In the context of Protestant theology, imputation strictly means reckoning or attributing the "righteousness of Christ" to a sinner despite the fact the sinner is actually unrighteous. This imputed “Righteousness of Christ” stands as an alternative to and in place of the sinner's own unrighteousness. The controversy surrounding this term is whether the Bible uses “impute” in such a sense as Protestants define it, especially in the context of justification. Catholics would point out that while the term impute does not strictly correspond to the actual status of the someone or something under examination, as a general rule it most often does correspond. For example if the police impute robbery to an individual we would generally assume that is because the individual is actually a robber. If it turns out that the individual is not actually a robber but robbery was imputed to him, then we would generally assume the police made a mistake or were acting unjustly.
What is extremely important here is to note phrases taken from
the above quote such as "clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as
a sinner, but as righteous," and, "God receives us into his favor as
if we were righteous." What this is saying is that justification means God
is considering you to be righteous despite the fact this "righteousness"
is purely external to your soul. The Catholic Church strongly condemned this
Protestant concept justification on the grounds that God is declaring an
individual to be righteous when knowing full well that the individual is not
actually righteous (as if God could be deceived or allow such a contradiction
to stand). This might come as a shock to most Catholics reading this, and even
many Protestants who don’t know the real issues as well, but I assure you this
is fundamental Protestant dogma as can be shown in two major historical
Protestant theological documents:
4) Accordingly, we believe, teach, and confess that our righteousness before
God is (this very thing), that God forgives us our sins out of pure grace,
without any work, merit, or worthiness of ours preceding, present, or
following, that He presents and imputes to us the
righteousness of Christ's obedience, on account of which righteousness we are
received into grace by God, and regarded as righteous.
...
...
12) Therefore we reject and condemn all the following
errors: ... ...
15) That in the sayings of the prophets and apostles where the righteousness of
faith is spoken of the words justify and to be
justified are not to signify declaring or being declared free from sins,
and obtaining the forgiveness of sins, but actually
being made righteous before God, because of love infused by the Holy
Ghost, virtues, and the works following them. [3]
1. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.
2. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love. [4]
The first quote is from a major Lutheran document. The first part of the quote clearly affirms what we read in Calvin's own words, the "righteousness of Christ" is "imputed" to the sinner. Equally important is the second half of the quote. Though it might be hard to read due it the way it is worded, the Lutherans are saying that the term "justify" and "to be justified" does signify a being declared free from sins. What the Lutherans condemn here is a usage of "justify" that means "being made righteous before God.” The second quote is from a major Reformed/”Calvinist” document. In the first half another important term appears, 'infusing', and notes justification is "not by infusing righteousness.” Infusing essentially means to put righteousness (also called infused grace) into the soul so that the soul becomes actually righteous. Infusion is to be seen in direct contrast with imputing the “Righteousness of Christ.” The quote goes onto make clear it is imputation which is the grounds of justification, with faith being the "instrument" by which this imputation is received. It is received by faith alone because logically nothing else should or could be needed to lay hold of “Christ's Righteousness.”
What you have read above is classical Protestant dogma. As a quick recap this is the Protestant teaching in a nutshell: Justification comes about by the imputation of Christ's Righteousness to the sinner's account (though the sinner’s actual account is actually unrighteous), and God declaring sinner to be righteous based on this imputation only, this imputation is received by faith alone. As you have already probably guessed the ideas which the Protestant quotes above condemned are the very ideas which the Catholic Church considers essential and orthodox. Most notably that justification is by infused righteousness, and not on the "righteousness of Christ" basis of Christ taking your punishment and perfectly fulfilling God's commandments in your place. Here is how the Catholic Church defines justification in its essence, from the Council of Trent:
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious [unrighteous] is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
... ...Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema [excommunicated]. [5]
Justification for Catholicism is first and foremost about going from the state of "the first Adam" in which we lack sanctifying grace in our souls, to having that grace put back in our souls resulting in true inner righteousness and adoption as sons of God. This is in direct and irreconcilable contrast to the Protestant view of imputation. It is the difference between being truly righteous ("just") in God's eyes and merely appearing or accounted as righteous in God's eyes though not being so inwardly.
At this point in the article we have reached the heart of the Protestant and Catholic dispute over justification. The issue of infused grace versus imputed grace is truly the decisive issue, and the Council of Trent realized this and laid down clear definitions for Christians to adhere to. Anyone or any apologetics article discussing the topic of justification which fail to focus their energy on the issue of infusion or imputation has, in my opinion, failed to address the heart of the controversy and as a consequence will be unable to make genuine progress in dialogue and especially the hoped for conviction in the heart of the listeners that the Catholic Church has had its teachings right this whole time.
Protestants also believe sanctification inevitably does occur in the Christian's life, however they believe it begins after justification by imputed righteousness by faith alone has taken place. This sanctification is seen as a lifelong process of having your soul purified through the infusion of grace. It is very important not to misrepresent Protestantism in this regard, it is easy to overlook the fact they believe sanctification does take place. The problem however is that Protestantism has severed the link between sanctification and justification such that they have justification by imputation of an external righteousness, and that is unacceptable both Biblically and morally.
Now, let us recall the previous chapters to see how things fit together. Recall that the protestant view of Original Sin is not one in which sanctifying grace is lost and needs to be restored, but rather the corruption of the human nature in which man's soul is like a "contaminated spring" which cannot produce pure water and is unsightly to God. With this in mind you can kind of understand why the Protestants believe in the imputation model, the "contaminated spring" must be overlooked, bypassed, covered, etc, or else God will never be able to see you as “righteous” and save you. The Catholic infusion model makes sense in that the undoing of Adam's sin is restoring to the soul the sanctifying grace, in which the soul is “incomplete” without, and which God looks at to see who His adopted children are. Next fits in the views on the Atonement where for the Protestants using the imputation model need Christ to do for the corrupt man what he cant ever do, while the Catholic infusion model needs Christ to open the floodgates of grace to flow back into our souls to enable us to do what God requires of us.
Finally it is important to realize that when a Protestant uses the term "Justification by faith alone" it more accurately means "Justification by imputation of grace by faith alone,” where as Catholics teach it is by infusion of grace. Again this is NOT essentially a matter of "faith" for Protestants versus "works" for Catholics, but rather what justification means to each side.
Chapter 4: Imputation in Scripture:
Credited to him as righteousness:
Undoubtedly the next important thing to consider is what the Scriptures say
regarding justification. If the Scriptures don’t agree with the Catholic
position then it doesn’t matter how good the Catholic understanding of
salvation sounds, it is un-Biblical, and thus wrong, by definition. I think the
best place to start off is with one of the most popular passages Protestants
look to for their view on justification, Genesis 15:6, and most especially when
it is quoted in Romans 4:
Genesis 15: 1After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a
vision, saying,"Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; Your
reward shall be very great." 2Abram said, "O Lord GOD, what will You give me,
since I am childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?" 3And Abram said,
"Since You have given no offspring to me, one born in my house is my
heir." 4Then
behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, "This man will not be
your heir; but one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your
heir." 5And
He took him outside and said, "Now look toward the heavens, and count the
stars, if you are able to count them " And He said to him, "So shall
your descendants be."
6Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.
Rom 4: 1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness
Clearly the Bible is teaching that Abraham was justified at
this time, Protestants and Catholics both agree here. It is also clear that
Abraham was "justified by faith," and this justification was,
"not by works," but this issue will be discussed later. We now need
to see how a Protestant would interpret that phrase highlighted in red, as well
as how a Catholic would, and see which side is more faithful to Scripture.
Here are John Calvin's thoughts on Genesis 15:6 -
And he
believed in the Lord . None of us would be able
to conceive the rich and hidden doctrine which this passage contains, unless
Paul had borne his torch before us. (Romans 4:3.) But it is strange, and seems
like a prodigy, that when the Spirit of God has kindled so great a light, yet
the greater part of interpreters wander with closed eyes, as in the
darkness of night. I omit the Jews, whose blindness is well known. But it is
(as I have said) monstrous, that they who have had Paul as their luminous
expositor; should so foolishly have depraved this place. However it hence
appears, that in all ages, Satan has labored at nothing more assiduously than
to extinguish, or to smother, the gratuitous
justification of faith, which is here expressly asserted. The words
of Moses are, "He believed in the Lord, and he
counted it to him for righteousness." In the first place, the faith
of Abram is commended, because by it he embraced the promise of God; it is
commended, in the second place, because hence Abram obtained
righteousness in the sight of God, and that by imputation. For the
word חשב ( chashab
,) which Moses uses, is to be understood as relating to the judgment of God,
just as in Psalm 106:31, where the zeal of Phinehas is said to have been
counted to him for righteousness. The meaning of the expression will, however,
more fully appear by comparison with its opposites. In Leviticus 7:18,
it is said that when expiation has been made, iniquity 'shall not be imputed'
to a man. Again, in Leviticus 17:4, 'Blood shall be imputed unto that
man.' So, in 2 Samuel 19:19 , Shimei says, 'Let not the king impute
iniquity unto me.' Nearly of the same import is the expression in 2 Kings
12:15, 'They reckoned not with the man into whose hand they delivered the
money for the work;' that is, they required no account of the money, but
suffered them to administer it, in perfect confidence. Let
us now return to Moses. Just as we understand
that they to whom iniquity is imputed are guilty before God; so those to whom
he imputes righteousness are approved by him as just persons; wherefore Abram
was received into the number and rank of just persons by the imputation of
righteousness. For Paul, in order that he may show us distinctly the
force and nature, or quality of this righteousness, leads us to the celestial
tribunal of God. Therefore, they foolishly trifle who
apply this term to his character as an honest man; as if it meant that Abram
was personally held to be a just and righteous man. They also, no less
unskilfully, corrupt the text, who say that Abram is here ascribing to God the
glory of righteousness seeing that he ventures to acquiesce surely in His
promises, acknowledging Him to be faithful and true; for although Moses does
not expressly mention the name of God, yet the accustomed method of speaking in
the Scriptures removes all ambiguity. Lastly, it is not less the part of stupor
than of impudence, when this faith is said to have been imputed to him for
righteousness, to mingle with it some other meaning, than that the faith of
Abram was accepted in the place of righteousness with God. [1]
Calvin's interpretation is the classical Protestant interpretation. In case
that quote was hard to follow, here is a quick summary: Protestants would
interpret the phrase "it was credited to him as righteousness" to
mean that "it" (Abraham's faith) laid hold of the
"righteousness of Christ" and had this "imputed" (credited)
unto Abraham. Thus Abraham was justified (declared in righteous standing) on
the grounds that instead of God seeing and judging Abraham's unrighteous soul,
God instead focused on the "righteousness of Christ" imputed unto
Abraham and on that basis declared Abraham righteous. The terms “justified” and
"credited [imputed] to him as righteousness" are essentially
equivalent terms.
Of course the Catholic position disagrees vehemently with Calvin’s
interpretation of Genesis 15:6, but I think before we go onto the Catholic
position we take a look at how terms like "justified" and
"credited" [imputed] are used in both the Old and New Testaments.
It is very important to realize that the word "credited"
("counted", "imputed", etc) is an English translation
and interpretation of the Hebrew word "chashab.” Calvin looks in the
Old Testament to see what other verses use the term "chashab" and
after providing a few examples he concludes the proper
interpretation of chashab is “impute” in the Protestant sense of reckoning a
status to someone which does not correspond to their actual status. The
term chashab appears about 120 times in the Old Testament, thus we must look to
see how else chashab is used, because if there can be show to be other usages
besides "impute" then that raises a genuine objection regarding the
Protestant interpretation of chashab in Genesis 15:6. [2] Here is a sample of where chashab (highlighted in red)
is used elsewhere in the Old Testament:
Gen 50: 18Then his brothers also came and fell
down before him and said, "Behold, we are your servants." 19But
Joseph said to them, "Do not be afraid, for am I in God's place?
20"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good
in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.
Lev 17: 3"Any man from the house of Israel who slaughters an ox or a lamb
or a goat in the camp, or who slaughters it outside the camp, 4and has not
brought it to the doorway of the tent of meeting to present it as an offering
to the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD, bloodguiltiness is to be reckoned to that man. He
has shed blood and that man shall be cut off from among his people.
Lev 25: 25'If a fellow countryman of yours becomes so poor he has to sell
part of his property, then his nearest kinsman is to come and buy back what his
relative has sold. 26'Or in case a man has no kinsman, but so recovers
his means as to find sufficient for its redemption, 27then he shall calculate the years since
its sale and refund the balance to the man to whom he sold it, and so return to
his property.
Lev 25: 49or his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or one of his blood relatives from his family may redeem him; or if he prospers, he may redeem himself. 50'He then with his purchaser shall calculate from the year when he sold himself to him up to the year of jubilee; and the price of his sale shall correspond to the number of years. It is like the days of a hired man that he shall be with him. 51'If there are still many years, he shall refund part of his purchase price in proportion to them for his own redemption; 52and if few years remain until the year of jubilee, he shall so calculate with him. In proportion to his years he is to refund the amount for his redemption.
Lev 27: 17'If he consecrates his field as of the year of jubilee, according to your valuation it shall stand. 18'If he consecrates his field after the jubilee, however, then the priest shall calculate the price for him proportionate to the years that are left until the year of jubilee; and it shall be deducted from your valuation.
Lev 27: 22'Or if he consecrates to the LORD a field which he has bought, which is not a part of the field of his own property, 23then the priest shall calculate for him the amount of your valuation up to the year of jubilee; and he shall on that day give your valuation as holy to the LORD.
1 Sam 18: 25Saul then said, "Thus you shall say to David, 'The king does not desire any dowry except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to take vengeance on the king's enemies '" Now Saul planned to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.
1 Kings 10: 21All King Solomon's drinking vessels were of gold, and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon were of pure gold. None was of silver; it was not considered valuable in the days of Solomon.
2 Kings 12: 13But there were not made for the house of the LORD silver cups, snuffers, bowls, trumpets, any vessels of gold, or vessels of silver from the money which was brought into the house of the LORD; 14for they gave that to those who did the work, and with it they repaired the house of the LORD. 15Moreover, they did not require an accounting from the men into whose hand they gave the money to pay to those who did the work, for they dealt faithfully.
Neh 13: 13In charge of the storehouses I
appointed Shelemiah the priest, Zadok the scribe, and Pedaiah of the Levites,
and in addition to them was Hanan the son of Zaccur, the son of Mattaniah; for
they were considered reliable, and it was their task to distribute to their
kinsmen.
Jer 18: 8if that
nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent
concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. ... 11"So now then, speak to the
men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, 'Thus says the
LORD, "Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against
you Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your
deeds."'... 18Then
they said, "Come and let us devise plans against Jeremiah Surely the law is not going to be
lost to the priest, nor counsel to the sage, nor the divine word to the
prophet! Come on and let us strike at him with our tongue, and let us give no
heed to any of his words."
Remember, “impute” to Protestants means to reckon or attribute a status to
something or someone which doesn’t actually correspond to the actual status of
that someone or something. However, if you substitute this Protestant concept
into the above verses where chashab appears you will get an interpretation
contrary to the clearly intended meaning of the verse. Thus chashab does not always
mean “impute” in the Protestant sense, rather, in the above examples, it
clearly means a thought or plan corresponding to actual nature of what was
being thought or planned. In Gn 50:20 the brothers had evil plans that were in
fact evil while God had good plans which were in fact good. Lev 17 clearly
shows the person is considered guilty precisely because he really shed blood
unlawfully. Ironically Calvin in the above quote takes Lev 17:4 to be a
reference to “imputation,” though he only quotes a part of the verse, and
clearly he is incorrect. The passages in Leviticus (25:27, 50, 52; 27:18, 23)
all are in reference to making proper calculations corresponding to the actual
value of land. In 1 Sam 18:25 Saul had a truly evil plan in mind, what he thought
evil was in fact evil. 1 Kings 10:21 shows that silver was considered of little
value in Solomon's days, that is because in those days it truly had little
value (hard to imagine, but it is true). 2 Kings 12:15 shows that the priests
accepted the supervisors' honesty in place of requiring an account of where the
money was spent. This was another poor choice for Calvin to use as one of his
"proofs" because he left off the rest of the verse where the
supervisors' honesty is mentioned. This verse is not proof of imputation
because true honesty excludes the need for accounting (which is only necessary
when dishonesty is suspected). Next is Nehemiah 13:13, it is pretty clear,
Nehemiah put men in charge of the money who were in fact trustworthy, for
“imputation” to be the intended concept then Nehemiah would be considering
those men trustworthy when in reality they really were untrustworthy, clearly
that is contrary to the intent of the passage. In Jeremiah (18:8, 11, 18) the
plans to punish were real punishments and the wicked men who plotted against
Jeremiah had an actual evil plan in mind.
Other passages which exclude the usage of “imputation” in the
Protestant sense include: Num 23:9 (Israel rightly doesnt consider itself one
of the nations, they are set apart); 2 Kg 22:7 (same as 2 Kg 12:15); 2 Chrn
9:20 (same as 1 Kg 10:21). The following passages (quick reference Page1 and Page2 and Page3
) describe thoughts, intentions, plans, etc, that correspond to the actual
nature of the thoughts intentions and plans, in fact most of the following
references are evil men devising truly evil plans: Neh 6:2; Est 8:3; Est
9:24-25; Ps 10:2 Ps 21:11; Ps 35:4,20; Ps 36:4; Ps 41:7; Ps 52:2; Ps
77:5; Ps 140:2, 4 ; Prov 16:30; Prov 24:8; Is 10:7; Jer 11:19; Jer 23:27; Jer
26:3; Jer 29:11; Jer 36:3; Jer 48:2; Jer 49:30; Jer 50:45; Lam 2:8; Eze 11:2;
Eze 38:10; Dan 11:24-25; Hos 7:15; Nah 1:9,11; Zec 7:10; Zec 8:17; Mic 2:1, 3;
Mal 3:16.
The following are passages that DO have “imputation” in the
Protestant sense that does not correspond to the actual status of the object
when chashab is used include: Lev 25:31; Num 18:27,30; Job 18:3; Job 41:27,29;
Ps 44:22; Is 5:28; Is 29:17; Is 32:15; Is 40:15, 17; Lam 4:2. What makes these
verses I singled out above unique is that there is a clear contrast between the
status being imputed and the actual status itself. It is also worth noting that
eight of those above verses have chashab being used in a metaphorical/poetic
context, thus not a strict or real imputation.
Most of the other references to chashab are either neutral (eg "skillful workman" Ex 26:1) or inconclusive (usage does not clearly support either of the above usages) and thus will not cited in this article. [3] There are some popular verses that use chashab which Protestants claim support their understanding of “impute,” these are put in the “inconclusive” category, but in Appendix 2 where I address them it should become clear they don’t help the Protestant case in a concrete way at all.
The approximate breakdown for the usage of chashab in the OT:
2% - Yet to be determined (Gen 15:6, Ps 32:2; Ps 106:31)
29% - Inconclusive
11% - Neutral
11% - Imputed status does not correspond to the actual status of the
object
47% - Imputed status does correspond to the actual status of the object
Thus far it is a fact that chashab does not automatically mean “impute” in the
Protestant sense, and with this evidence we can call into question the
Protestant interpretation of Gen 15:6. Next we note that the Protestant
understanding of "impute" isn’t even the most common usage by far,
and on top of that fact we see Calvin building his case on a mere 4 proof
texts, all shown to be weak and misrepresentation of the wider usage of
chashab. The proper thing to do when approaching Gen 15:6 is to give priority
to the most popular usage, and most importantly to look at the context of Gen
15:6 itself.
First of all we see there is nothing in the context of Gen 15:6 which indicates Abraham was unrighteous, thus the Protestant view of imputation is unwarranted, further the most popular usage of chashab does fit, and does lead to a reasonable interpretation: "His faith was credited to him as righteousness," means that God considered this act of faith as evidence revealing a righteous character of Abraham’s soul, and this made Abraham worthy of a blessing (justification). God imputed/reckoned/credited righteousness because there was evidence of actual righteousness displayed (Catholic view), God did NOT impute/reckon/credit righteousness when in fact there was nothing righteous about Abraham’s soul (Protestant view).
Two other key passages which use the term chashab (highlighted in red below)
should be examined with the above evidence in mind:
Ps 32: 1How blessed is he whose transgression is
forgiven, Whose sin is covered! 2How blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity, And in
whose spirit there is no deceit! 3When I kept silent about my sin, my body wasted away
through my groaning all day long. 4For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me; My
vitality was drained away as with the fever heat of summer. 5I acknowledged my sin
to You, And my iniquity I did not hide; I said, "I will confess my
transgressions to the LORD"; And You forgave the guilt of my sin.
Ps 106: 28They
joined themselves also to Baal-peor, And ate sacrifices offered to the dead. 29Thus they provoked
Him to anger with their deeds, And the plague broke out among them. 30Then Phinehas stood
up and interposed, And so the plague was stayed. 31And it was reckoned to him
for righteousness, To all generations
forever.
Psalm 32 is important in that it is quoted in Romans 4, along with Genesis
15:6. Protestants will often focus on verse 1 where the phrase "sins are
covered" coupled with the “non-imputation” of sin in verse 2 and say this
means the individual (King David) will be seen by God not as a sinner when in
fact he actually is. This is a fair claim on its own, but considering more of
the context and usage of chashab a more consistent and Catholic interpretation
is just as likely, if not more so. First of all in verse 2 the phrase "in
whose spirit is no deceit" means the spirit (soul) itself is obviously
cleansed. Then in verses 3-5 the soul is shown to be suffering until the guilt
is forgiven (obviously resulting in rejuvenation of his spirit). Thus a
Catholic would say God didn’t impute/reckon/consider David a sinner (impute
sin) because he was actually no longer a sinner after having his sins purged.
The next passage to consider is Psalm 106 which is
referencing the event in Numbers 25. Verse 31 has the phrase "credited to
him as righteousness" which is virtually identical to what was said in
Genesis 15:6. Using the same reasoning as with Genesis 15:6, the righteous act by
Phinehas was seen by God as a testimony of his actually righteous soul and he
was blessed because of this. This is logically a reference to justification, as
it was with Abraham. This verse causes serious problems for the Protestant idea
of "justification by faith alone," because in this case it was an
action that is said to have been “reckoned as righteousness” and not “faith
alone.” The proper interpretation of this passage is that Phinehas’ soul grew
more righteous than before as his ability to serve God grew because of his good
works.
At the start of this section it was shown that Genesis 15:6 is quoted by Paul
in Romans 4:3 (as well as in other passages). Now we will take a look at the
Greek term for "credited" which is the Hebrew counterpart to chashab.
The Greek term for "credited" in Romans 4:3 is "logizomai"
and it occurs approximately 40 times in the New Testament. [4]. As with chashab it is undeniable that logizomai is
most often used in reference to considering the actual status of something, and
hardly ever used to convey an imputed status not corresponding to the actual
status. The following are a few examples of logizomai (highlighted in red)
where the thought or reasoning is in reference to the actual status of something:
Mark 11: 31They began reasoning among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,'
He will say, 'Then why did you not believe him?'
Rom 2: 3But do
you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things
and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?
Rom 3: 28For we maintain that a man is
justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
Rom 6: 11Even so consider yourselves to be
dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8: 18For I consider that the
sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory
that is to be revealed to us.
1 Cor 13: 11When
I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I
did away with childish things.
Given this evidence we can conclude that when Paul referenced Genesis 15:6 he did not have the Protestant “imputation of Christ’s Righteousness” in mind, rather, as shown above, that Abraham's faith was an righteous act that God recognized as evidence of a righteous soul. In fact St Paul sheds invaluable light on Genesis 15:6 which further supports the Catholic interpretation:
Rom 4: 18In hope against hope he believed, so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken, "SO SHALL YOUR DESCENDANTS BE." [Gen 15:5] 19Without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb; 20yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, 21and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform. 22Therefore IT WAS ALSO CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. [Gen 15:6]
It couldn’t be more clear that this. Here we have Paul explicitly telling us "why it was credited to him as righteousness," and that is because faith was a righteous act and a widow to Abraham’s righteous soul. He considered the fact that he was very old and that he and his wife were unable to have a son, but despite all this he STILL trusted that God could and would fulfill the promise to give him an heir. God blessed Abraham for this amazing act of faith. There is no hint of imputation of a righteous status to an actually unrighteous Abraham in this insight by Paul. Paul ends by saying something important at the end of Romans 4:
23Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him, 24but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead
Many of us today take faith in the Resurrection for granted, yet in Paul’s time
believing someone was raised from the dead would raise many eyebrows (as it
still does in many non-Christian nations today). Yet we should not take this
for granted because Paul says God will reckon us as righteous if we believe
Jesus was raised from the dead (also note Rom 10:9-10).
In closing of this chapter it should be clear thus far that the Protestant interpretation of Genesis 15:6 is doubtful at the very least, and un-Biblical at most. In contrast, the Catholic interpretation of that same passage is supported both in context and popular usage of the Hebrew and Greek terms that were analyzed.
Chapter 5 – Justification in Scripture
Justification in the Old and New Testament:
The next major issue concerns how the Hebrew and Greek word for
"justified" is used in the Old and New Testaments.
The Hebrew term for "justified" is "tsadaq", this term
appears about 40 times in the OT, and, as with the term chashab, it is
necessary to see how tsadaq is used, and if the usage supports the Protestant
claim. [1] Here is a sample of
where tsadaq (highlighted in red) is used in the Old Testament:
Gen 38: 26Judah recognized them, and said,
"She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son
Shelah." And he did not have relations with her again.
Gen 44: 16So
Judah said, "What can we say to my lord? What can we speak? And how can we
justify
ourselves? God has found out the iniquity of your servants; behold, we are my
lord's slaves, both we and the one in whose possession the cup has been
found."
Ex 23: 7"Keep
far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I
will not acquit the guilty.
Dt 25: 1"If
there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide
their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked,
1 Kg 8: 31"If a man sins against his neighbor and is made to take an
oath, and he comes and takes an oath before Your altar in this house,
32then hear in heaven and act and judge Your servants, condemning the
wicked by bringing his way on his own head and justifying the righteous
by giving him according to his righteousness.
Prov 17: 15He who justifies the wicked and
he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to
the LORD.
The term tsadaq in the above passages means to recognize
something to be righteous or innocent that is in fact righteous or innocent.
The fact "justify" is used in this manner poses a serious problem for
the Protestant understanding of justification because, as shown above,
Protestants believe God declares someone righteous whom He knows is not actually
righteous. On top of this it is clear that calling something righteous that is
not actually righteous is detestable in God's sight (Ex 23:7; Prov 17:15). As
expected, this usage fully supports the Catholic model of justification in
which the soul must be righteous before God can consider it the person
justified (righteous).
The following passages (Page1
and Page2)
are other occurrences of tsadaq which support the Catholic understanding of
justification: 2 Sm 15:4; 2 Chr 6:23 (same as 1 Kg 8:32); Job 4:17; Job 9:2,15,
20 Job 11:2; Job 13:18; Job 22:3; Job 27:5; Job 32:2; Job 33:12, 32; Job 35:7;
Ps 143:2; Is 5:23; Is 43:9, 26; Eze 16: 51, 52; Dan 8:14; Dan 12:3.
Of all the verses I referenced the only one that came close to a Protestant usage is Is 45:25, the other references are either neutral or inconclusive.
The approximate breakdown for the usage of tsadaq in the OT:
70% - Subject is actually righteous.
3% - Subject is not actually righteous.
20% - Inconclusive.
7% - Neutral
As with chashab the evidence shows tsadaq is hardly ever, if
ever, used in support of the Protestant understanding of justification.
The New Testament counterpart to tsadaq is the Greek word "dikaioo,"
this word occurs about 40 times in the New Testament. [2] The interpretation of this verse is highly disputed by
Protestants and Catholics. Protestants insist dikaioo means exclusively to
declare righteous and has nothing to do with being made righteous. To
Protestants justification is not about being made righteous but being declared
righteous through the once and for all time imputation of Christ's
Righteousness which stands in place of your unrighteous soul. This is
significant because the New Testament is where sinners are reconciled to God,
and thus if justification does not entail being made righteous then the
Catholic position has a problem.
The key now is to see how dikaioo (highlighted in red) is used in the New Testament. This is important enough that I will go through every occurrence of dikaioo in the New Testament:
Mat 11: 19"The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they
say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and
sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds."
Lk 7: 35"Yet
wisdom is vindicated by all her children."
Lk 7: 29When
all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God's justice, having been baptized
with the baptism of John.
Rom 3: 4May it
never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as
it is written, "THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED."
1 Tim 3: 6By
common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed
in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the
nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.
These passages don’t say anything about being made righteous, but it should also be noted here that in each of these cases what is being considered righteous is already actually righteous. This does not hurt the Catholic model but it does go against the Protestant model.
Lk 16: 14Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him. 15And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God.
This passage clearly condemns the Protestant idea that justification can be through imputation because it contrasts the outward righteousness before men with "God knows your hearts" which means the heart must be righteous for God to justify you.
Mat 12: 36"But I tell
you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting
for it in the day of judgment. 37"For by your words you will be justified, and by your
words you will be condemned."
Rom 2: 13for it
is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law
will be justified.
1 Cor 4: 3But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or
by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself. 4For I am
conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one
who examines me is the Lord.
These passages show justification to be a future event based on your actions, the Christian's own account is being considered here and clearly it must be found righteous. This is simply incompatible with the Protestant model which states justification is through imputation and is a one time event that occurs when the sinner first converts to Christianity.
Lk 18: 13"But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!' 14"I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."
This is a popular passage Protestants turn to as evidence of justification by faith alone, but the fact is the lesson of this parable shows it is about the inner condition of the heart, humility in this case. The tax collector recognized he was a sinner, he humbly repented and was truly forgiven thus he truly went home exalted (justified before God). There was no Protestant style imputation here, rather there was a real transformation of the heart.
Lk 10: 28And He said to him, "You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE." 29But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
While the Bible usually talks about justifying oneself as a bad thing because of self righteous people justifying themselves, in this case "justify himself" it is a neutral usage. The context says nothing negative about the lawyer’s actions but does note that the lawyer answered correctly (10:30-37).
Acts 13: 38"Therefore
let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is
proclaimed to you, 39and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all
things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.
Rom 3: 20because
by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight;
for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3: 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the
God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through
faith is one.
Gal 2: 15"We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles;
16nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus,
even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in
Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh
will be justified. 17"But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we
ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May
it never be!
Gal 3: 11Now that
no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN
SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."
Gal 3: 23But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being
shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24Therefore the Law
has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
The teaching of Scripture here is straightforward, the Mosaic Law does not lead to justification because that was never its purpose (as passages like Gal 3:16-25 make clear). The Mosaic Law was a figure of what was to come (eg the animal sacrifices pointed to Christ's Sacrifice), also to keep unruly people in check (1 Tim 1:9-11), and to provide guidelines of how to live the Christian life God intended (Rom 13:8-10). Whether this justification by faith is through imputation or infusion is not answered in these passages.
Rom 3: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Romans 5: 8But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
What does the "blood" of Christ do? If you look at other references to blood in the New Testament here are some verses you will find:
Heb 9:
12and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood,
He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
13For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling
those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14how much
more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered
Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works
to serve the living God?
Heb 10: 29How
much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under
foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant
by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
Heb 13: 12Therefore
Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood,
suffered outside the gate.
1 Jn 1: 7but if
we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one
another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
Rev 1: 5To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood
Rev 7: 14I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me,
"These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed
their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
The Blood of Christ "sanctifies" us. Thus "justified by His blood" clearly includes a sanctification component, and that is perfectly in line with Catholic teaching, justification is making our souls righteous by infusing grace into it.
Rom 5: 1Therefore, having been justified by faith, we
have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom also we
have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and
we exult in hope of the glory of God. ... 5and hope does not disappoint, because the
love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who
was given to us.
Romans 5:1 is a popular Protestant passage for justification by faith alone,
yet often the context is ignored. The context sheds light on just what this
justification entails. Verse 5 for example shows this is because the love of
God has been poured into our hearts and the Holy Spirit was given to us. This
is an explicit reference to infusion of sanctifying grace and is quoted in the
Council of Trent a few times, including in the reference to Canon XI earlier in
this article. On top of that, Rom 5:8 was just discussed showing clearly the
link of His Blood resulting in our inner sanctification. Finally Romans 5:19
drives home the point through the obedience of Christ we are "made
righteous," and only infused grace can do that.
Rom 6: 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7for he who has died is freed from sin.
The context of these passages shows justification involves a transformation. In the Rom 6:6 passage the person who has "died" means they died to their old sinful self and are born anew (Romans 8:10-11, among other passages, fits nicely here which states this new life occurs when we receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.), the Protestant concept of imputation is incompatible here. Also note the clear reference to Baptism in this chapter.
Rom 8: 29For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
Rom 8: 33Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; 34who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.
In the Rom 8:29-30 the theme is similar to Rom 6:7 discussed above. Here the context is in reference to being "conformed to the likeness" of Jesus, this again is an inner transformation. The Greek word for "conformed to" also appears in Phil 3:21 which is also in clear reference to transformation. Following into verse 30 the term "conformed to" corresponds to "called", "justified", and "glorified", but inserting a concept of imputation of an external “Righteousness of Christ” in this context doesnt flow with theme of being "conformed to" His image. With this in mind it would likewise be incompatible to see justification as being by imputation in the immediate context of 8:29-30 which is verse 33 where "justifies" also appears.
1 Cor 6: 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Titus 3: 4But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
These are two very important texts clearly showing
justification is not by imputation of an external righteousness (“Christ’s
Righteousness”) but by an inner transformation by infused grace. In the first
passage, the terms "washed" and "sanctified" go right along
with "justified.” To have justification by imputed grace when the
Christian had just been "washed" and "sanctified" is
superfluous and illogical. Again, it is important to remember that Protestants
believe sanctification does occur in the Christian's life, however Protestants
teach sanctification begins after justification (by imputation),
but as we see here there is no warrant for separating them into two
"phases" with no direct bearing on each other. The fact
"sanctified" is listed before "justified" poses even
greater problems for Protestants who insist it begins after.
Next is Titus 3 which I believe is the most important passage proving infused
grace at justification. In verse 5 we see "washing of rebirth and
renewal by the Holy Spirit" which is an undeniable reference to an inner
transformation. This flows into verse 7 where the term "justified by his
grace" is used to sum up this moment of salvation. In other words
"saved by the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit"
corresponds to "justified by His grace" and this can only support the
Catholic view. This "justified by his grace" also appears in Rom
3:24 (listed earlier) and logically carries the same interpretation. Lastly in
verse 7 it mentions this makes us "become heirs" which is precisely
what sanctifying grace does, it makes us adopted sons of God worthy of
inheriting the kingdom (many passages of Scripture link the indwelling of the
Holy Spirit with adoption). Also it is worth noting that verse 5 has
historically been interpreted to mean Baptism, even historical Protestant
documents indicate this is the main interpretation. [3]
Gal 3: 8The
Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to
Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU."
[Genesis 12:3]
Rom 4: 2 2For if
Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before
God. 3For what
does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM
AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." [Genesis 15:6]
James 2: 21Was
not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
[Genesis 22:9-12] 22You
see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith
was perfected; 23and
the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT
WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of
God. 24You see
that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25In
the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out
by another way?
These three passages uncover something that is so decisive that the Protestant
understanding of justification runs into serious problems. In each of the above
passages we see Abraham mentioned, as well as "justification"
mentioned, yet each of these passages reference a different point in Abraham's
life! What this means is that justification is not a one time event in the
Christian's life and it does not occur only upon their conversion to
Christianity. The Protestant imputation understanding can’t explain this
because, in the Protestant model, justification can and only needs to occur
once, and this occurs once and for all time at the moment the sinner converts
to Christianity. Galatians 3:8 is very clearly talking about justification and
that by faith Abraham accepted the OT equivalent to the Gospel when he obeyed
God in Genesis 12. Hebrews 11:8 also references this obedience of Abraham in
Genesis 12 and thus Abraham had to be justified at this point. To suggest,
as Protestantism does, that Abraham was not actually justified until Genesis 15
results in serious problems, that would mean Abraham was pleasing and obeying
God all those years leading up to Genesis 15 yet he was never saved!
For the Catholic model these passages pose no problem at all, the fact is as
Abraham continued to obey God he increased in justification (righteousness)
through the continuous infusion of grace. This is how James 2 above is to be
understood as well, Abraham grew in righteousness as he continued to grow in
God’s love and was justified through his obedience in Genesis 22:9-12. Lastly
comes the most problematic passage for Protestants in the Bible, James 2:24
which explicitly says justification is "not by faith alone."
Protestants offer many excuses at this point (which include changing the
meaning of "justify" in this passage), yet when interpreted in light
of Abraham's justification in Genesis 12 (Gal 3:8; Heb 11:8) and later in Gen
15:6 (Rom 4) the Catholic interpretation of James 2 is the one that best fits
the Biblical evidence (also note Gen 26:4-5).
Rom 4: 4Now to the one who
works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5But to
the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly,
his faith is credited as righteousness, 6just as David also speaks of the
blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7"BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND
WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. 8"BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE
LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT." [Psalm 32]
Mat 23: 25"Woe
to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the
cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.
26"You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and
of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also. 27"Woe
to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed
tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of
dead men's bones and all uncleanness. 28"So you, too, outwardly
appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
Luke 11: 39But the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees clean the
outside of the cup and of the platter; but inside of you, you are full of
robbery and wickedness. 40"You foolish ones, did not He who made
the outside make the inside also? 41"But give that which is within
as charity, and then all things are clean for you.
Romans 4:5 is a protestant
favorite. It might be hard to see, but here is how Protestants interpret it:
God "justifies the wicked" in that the sinner's faith results in
Christ's Righteousness imputed unto the wicked man, making him appear righteous,
and thus God "declares righteous" the wicked man. The problems with
this interpretation should be obvious:
First, God is essentially telling a lie, He is calling something righteous
which He knows is not actually righteous. Look at the Matthew 23 and Luke 11
passages quoted above. Jesus explicitly condemns the idea of appearing
righteous on the outside while leaving the inside filthy. Does it make sense
for God to declare a unrighteous soul to be righteous because they "appear
righteous" on the outside but in fact their soul is actually unrighteous?
Catholics and the Scriptures clearly say such a teaching is unacceptable and
even abominable.
Second, there is no such concept as "Christ's Righteousness" here or
in the context, it is essentially pulled out of thin air. We would imagine a
clear reference to "Christ's Righteousness" mentioned somewhere in
the context (or even in the New Testament), yet this concept and phrase are not
to be found and applied in the manner Protestants claim. This is also unacceptable
and un-Biblical by definition.
Lastly, it fails to take into account how "justify" is used in the
New Testament, especially the sanctification component (see above: Rom 5:9; 1
Cor 6:11; Titus 3:4-7; etc) which would mean the "wicked" is made
righteous. Notice how Ps 32 is mentioned here, this Psalm was already discussed
above and it was shown that David's repentance in this Psalm (32:1-5) resulted
in him being righteous again. Also note how the Matthew and Luke passages above
indicate the need to make righteous again.
This leads to another critical issue, Ps 32 is not talking about David's conversion, he was already a believer (thus already justified), thus this Psalm is saying that David lost his justification through sin, and consequently had to repent to become justified (become actually righteous) again. This is totally incompatible with the Protestant understanding of salvation by imputation which means that, logically, justification cannot be lost because not only do they believe Jesus already took the punishment the Christian deserved, but also that the Christian’s account no longer plays a role in how God views the Christian. Through the imputation of Christ's Righteousness the sinner will always appear righteous before God, regardless of the actual status of his soul because God no longer looks at and judges their soul. This leads us to the next passage:
Gal 5: 4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
This verse goes directly against
the Protestant understanding of justification. Here we see clearly that Paul is
angry with the Galatian Christians who are turning from the Gospel principles
back to legalism. He says those Galatian Christians who do that have become
severed from Christ and have fallen from grace. Thus they lost their
salvation, and yet under the imputation model of Protestantism such a thing is
logically impossible. [4] Only the
Catholic model makes sense here. The Catholic model teaches that through
grave sin sanctifying grace is lost, thus you become unrighteous again and have
lost salvation by definition. This grace needs to be restored through proper
repentance.
At this point all the references to "justify" in the New Testament
have been examined above and it is undeniable that when it comes to God
justifying man there is an inner transformation involved. The heart of the
dispute between Protestants and Catholics has been addressed, and it should be
very clear the Catholic model of justification fits the Biblical evidence,
where as the Protestant model cannot be harmonized with Scripture.
Chapter 6 – A few last thoughts:
By grace you have been saved through faith:
One last passage that should be looked at is Ephesians 2:8-10
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that
not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no
one may boast. 10For
we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God
prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
This is another Protestant favorite, it doesn't use the term
"justified" but it does mention "saved" and Protestants and
Catholics agree this is in reference to justification because justification is
clearly part of salvation and the intent of this passage given the context
(2:1-7). However considering similar passages we again see this salvation is by
infused grace causing an internal transformation, not by imputation of
“Christ’s Righteousness,” for example:
Acts 15: 9and He made no distinction between us
and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10"Now therefore why do you put
God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither
our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11"But we believe that we are saved
through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also
are."
Acts 26: 17rescuing
you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending
you, 18to open
their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion
of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an
inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.'
2 Thes 2: 13But
we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord,
because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through
sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
Clearly salvation is by faith which results in an inner sanctification, there
is neither hint nor room for imputation of “Christ’s Righteousness” here. Catholicism
teaches we are saved by a faith which through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit
leads us to obey God (Gal 5:6; Heb 11:6; Gal 6:7-9; Rom 2:6-8; Rom 8:9-13) and
this leads to actual growth in righteousness before Him with the hope of the
reward of eternal life. Passages like Heb 12:23 mention “righteous men made
perfect,” which can only be in reference to growing in righteousness.
Conclusion:
Only recently did I discover what the real issue was in the dispute over justification,
and it was all due to a few Catholics who recognized the real issues and had a
firm grasp and clear method of explaining it. [1] It is my hope that all reading this will come to
recognize the importance of distinguishing the Protestant and Catholic
positions. The key to recognizing that the Catholic view of salvation makes
sense is because when terms like "chashab" and "logizomai"
and "dikaioo" are examined what is clearly shown is that the
Protestant interpretation of these terms is ultimately unwarranted in that they
fail to consider both the context and popular usage of the terms, where as the
Catholic interpretation makes sure to take into account context and popular
usage which ultimately results in a coherent interpretation of Scripture. Given
that Luther said the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone was “the doctrine
by which the Church stands or falls” means it is time for Protestants to look
into coming into full communion with the Catholic Church.
God Bless,
Nicholas E.
Nicholas42@gmail.com
March 5, 2008
ENDNOTES:
Notes Ch - 1
[1-1] CCC 416-8,
read the whole section for more information. The Catechism of the Catholic
Church can be found online here.
[1-2] CCC
2021, 2023-4.
[1-3] Remember that Original Sin also
includes the consequence of a fallen human nature (pain, suffering, death and
concupiscence), though these effects themselves are not sin, and in this
discussion are not as important as the first consequence (loss of sanctifying
grace).
[1-4] Lutheran - Augsburg Confession,
Article 2: Of Original Sin.
[1-5] Lutheran - Solid Declaration of
the Formula of Concord, Original Sin. Sections
4-5, 11-12.
[1-6] Reformed/Calvinist - Belgic
Confession, Article 15: The Doctrine of Original Sin.
Notes Ch-2
[2-1] Reformed/Calvinist- Belgic Confession, Article 20, 21
[2-2] Reformed/Calvinist - London Baptist Confession, Ch 8
[2-3] Reformed/Calvinist - Heidelberg Catechism
[2-4] Westminster Shorter
Catechism
[2-5] Westminster
Larger Catechism
[2-6] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm
[2-7] Summa Theologica, Part 3, Q48, A2
Notes Ch-3
[3-1] Institutes: Book 3, Ch 11, paragraph 2.
[3-2] Recall that Protestants believe Christ both took the punishment they deserved and perfectly fulfilled all of God's commands in their place.
[3-3] Lutheran, Formula of Concord, Ch 3: Righteousness of Faith
[3-4] Reformed/Calvinist, Westminster Confession, Ch 11
[3-5] Catholic, Council of Trent, Session 6: "On Justification", Ch 4, 7, canon XI
Notes Ch-4
[4-1] Calvin, Commentary on Genesis 15:6
[4-2] This link will take you to a lexicon (a Bible dictionary of Greek and Hebrew words) at crosswalk.com, a Protestant run web page. There you can examine for yourself all the times c