All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. -- First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 32.
I've been leading a study on Justification and the Early Church Fathers, and today it was conducted at a PCA church. One of our regulars is in the process of becoming a Presbyterian, so an associate pastor at this church was glad to allow us to use the church facilities. And it was quite a treat to have the elder sit in on our study, as I was certain he'd contribute solidly Reformed (at least PCA) insights. Naturally the question of the importance of justification came to a head when one in our group asked about whether this doctrine is"up there" with the Trinity, the deity of Christ, etc.
The good Presbyterian minister made it clear, in so many words, that we have to hold to the Protestant doctrine of justification otherwise it's not the saving Gospel of Scripture. I kindly asked him if pre-Reformation Christians could be saved then. His words were, "It's not faith in a doctrine that saves, it's faith in Christ." Well, who could argue with this? I responded that Rome was not teaching anything different in this regard. Of course this is where the rubber meets the road.
It's not surprising that a PCA minister would come down hard against Rome and Trent's view of justification, but I was doing my gut-level best to see if we couldn't set aside the heated rhetoric to calmly survey the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers' use of terms like righteousness, faith alone, grace, and works. If we understand them in their context, then by the time we get to the Medieval (pre-Reformation) Church, we can appreciate the presuppositions leading up to the unrest in the 16th century.
Whether faith alone justifies a man is not so much a controversy to me, because I think it's fairly easy to prove that there is a proper catholic sense to these words which conforms to the teaching of Scripture and the tradition of the Church. The question of the hour, and the one the PCA minister seemed to want to defend the most, was the idea that the justice we receive is legal in nature and not an infused or imparted thing. In other words, there is no participation in the righteousness of God for our justification.
Whenever I read amazingly Protestant-sounding exerpts on this topic, like the opening quote from Clement, I have to resist the temptation of importing the Reformation debate into these texts. For it is not clear from this and passages like it that the writers had a Protestant understanding. It has many of the same components, the language is indeed similar, but what's missing -- and what I've been laboring to discover in my own studies -- is whether justification in the Fathers possesses this legal or forensic understanding, and more importantly, whether Christ's righteousness is seen as accredited to us apart from our participation.
I have to wonder if our situation today demands we hold on to the old anathemas. Is the Gospel in danger of being lost apart from a rigorous adherence to the old Reformed/Lutheran standards? Does the Church have an opportunity to refine and responsibly synthesize the concerns of all parties, to come to a fuller and more ecumenically acceptable solution? I say that it's possible, but the heat needs to be turned down. My Anglican tradition brings a lot of good stuff to the table, as well as the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, and Rome. We need to understand the basis of our differences, and work to dilligently incorporate the valid concerns into a fuller expression of justification.
14 comments:
St. Worm,
Excellent post, brother. Although I'm sure we'd see certain particulars differently, I'm with you all the way in hoping to see the sort of integration and synthesis of the various emphases of which you speak.
Jonathan,
Good to see you around here. I like your new blog look and feel. I've got you linked!
Blessings. See you at RefCath!
What do you think of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine on Justification between the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics? Do you think that it wraps up the justification debate?
My opinion is that it does but it seems there is still a great deal of discussion about it on both sides.
I've read the document, and find lots of good things agreed upon.
I don't know if that it will "wrap" things up -- maybe some more can be done on both sides elaborating on the "forensic" dimension of justification.
But as a bare-bones approach to justification, I think it's an orthodox document over all.
Very interesting post St. Worm and great questions.
You said:
"The question of the hour...was the idea that the justice we receive is legal in nature and not an infused or imparted thing. In other words, there is no participation in the righteousness of God for our justification."
And
"...what's missing -- and what I've been laboring to discover in my own studies -- is whether justification in the Fathers possesses this legal or forensic understanding, and more importantly, whether Christ's righteousness is seen as accredited to us apart from our participation."
As you can tell from my discussions on the Reformed Catholicism site, I certainly affirm the forensic nature of our justication and Christ's perfect righteousness/sinlessness/innocenceaccredited apart from our own real though imperfect good works of faith.
I believe "justification by faith alone"* to be the teaching of both Scripture and Tradition [Both affirm the unique instrumental nature of faith (that is, a living faith) in our justification and both affirm the free forensic imputation of perfect righteousness/sinlessness before God in the clearing or removing of all guilt before the Throne of our Great Judge and God through the covering of Christ's Righteous Blood].
*(i.e. The traditional doctrine of "justification by faith alone" which lacked the innovative additions such as the denial of "One Baptism for the remission of sins" and the reality of falling from Salvation).
Now the Scriptures, as the Reformers noted, certainly seem to use the actual term "justification" more broadly than as a reference exclusively to the "forensic" aspect of our Salvation. (But the Reformers followed the apparent Scriptural (and particularly Pauline) "forensic" emphasis when using the term "justified").
The Church Fathers appear to often apply the term "justification," generally speaking, in this broader sense. Yet, as noted above, even the Church Fathers such as St. Augustine who appear to particularly emphasize the "infused" and "progressive" aspect of our Salvation when using the term "justification"--still affirm our "external" perfect (and non-"progressive") forensic righteousness/sinlessness before God our Judge in the remission of sins in Baptism.
(Affirming the free gift of a perfectly righteous/sinless standing before God apart from the imperfect state of our soul in this life and thus apart from the true deserving of our "progressively sanctified" but always imperfect inward state).
God Bless,
William Scott
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
I should add to my last post that I certainly believe that the Reformational belief of "justification by faith alone" contains "development" just as Anselm's teachings on Atonement were a "development" of the closely related doctrine of Christ's Substitutionary Atonement. But rightly understood they both are (I firmly believe) Scripturally sound development and clarifications of what has always been believed (i.e. in continuity with what has always been believed rather than an innovation in clear discontinuity with the Historic faith as the denial of "One Baptism for the remission of sins" and the denial that falling away from Salvation is possible).
Here are few of the good "justification by faith alone" (or relating to justification by faith alone) quotes in the Church Fathers and from those speaking well before the Reformation.
EPISTLE OF MATHETES TO DIOGNETIUS:
He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!"
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0101.htm
ST. IRENEAUS:
Now this being is the Creator...the Father...by transgressing whose commandment we became His enemies. And therefore in the last times the Lord has restored us into friendship through His incarnation, having become "the Mediator between God and men;" 1 Timothy 2:5 propitiating indeed for us the Father against whom we had sinned, and cancelling (consolatus) our disobedience by His own obedience; conferring also upon us the gift of communion with, and subjection to, our Maker.
...since He was man, and since He was God, in order that since as man He suffered for us, so as God He might have compassion on us, and forgive us our debts, in which we were made debtors to God our Creator. And therefore David said beforehand, "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord has not imputed sin;" pointing out thus that remission of sins which follows upon His advent, by which "He has destroyed the handwriting" of our debt, and "fastened it to the cross;" Colossians 2:14 so that as by means of a tree we were made debtors to God, [so also] by means of a tree we may obtain the remission of our debt.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103517.htm
ST. CHRYSOSTOM:
"For a great thing indeed it were for even a sinner to die for any one whatever; but when He who undergoes this both is righteous and dies for sinners; and not dies only, but even as one cursed; and not as cursed [dies] only, but thereby freely bestows upon us those great goods which we never looked for; (for he says, that "we might become the righteousness of God in Him;") what words, what thought shall be adequate to realize these things? 'For the righteous,' says he, 'He made a sinner; that He might make the sinners righteous.' Yea rather, he said not even so, but what was greater far; for the word he employed is not the habit, but the quality itself. For he said not "made" [Him] a sinner, but "sin;" not, 'Him that had not sinned' only, but "that had not even known sin; that we" also "might become," he did not say 'righteous,' but, "righteousness," and, "the righteousness of God." For this is [the righteousness] "of God" when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is "the righteousness of God."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220211.htm
If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son, (who was himself of no such character,) that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation;
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220211.htm
ST. JEROME:
When an ungodly man is converted, God justifies him through faith alone, not on account of good works, which he possessed not; otherwise, on account of his ungodly deeds, he ought to have been punished. Christ, who 'knew no sin,' the Father 'made sin for us,' that, as a victim offered for sin was in the Law called 'sin,' so likewise Christ, being offered for our sins, received the name of 'sin,' that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him --not our righteousness, nor in ourselves.
"Then are we righteous when we confess ourselves to be sinners, and our righteousness consisteth not in our own merits, but in God's mercy."
ST. AUGUSTINE:
[Quoted in the Lutheran Apology of Augsburg]
"All the commandments of God are fulfilled when whatever is not done, is forgiven."
http://www.bookofconcord.org/augsburgdefense/5_love.html
[Exposition on Psalm 32]
1. To David himself; for understanding; by which it is understood that not by the merits of works, but by the grace of God, man is delivered, confessing his sins.
2. "Blessed are they whose unrighteousness is forgiven, and whose sins are covered" (ver. 1): and whose sins are buried in oblivion. "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord has not imputed sin, nor is there guile in his mouth" (ver. 2): nor has he in his mouth boastings of righteousness, when his conscience is full of sins.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801032.htm
[Exposition of Ps 130]
The Word of God, who was before all things, through whom all things were made. But that He might receive something from you, "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." He received from you, what He might offer for you; as the priest receives from you, what he may offer for you, when you wish to appease God for your sins. It has already been done, it has been done thus. Our Priest received from us what He might offer for us: for He received flesh from us, in the flesh itself He was made a victim, He was made a holocaust, He was made a sacrifice.
But wherefore is there hope? "For there is propitiation with You" (ver. 4). And what is this propitiation, except sacrifice? And what is sacrifice, save that which has been offered for us? The pouring forth of innocent blood blotted out all the sins of the guilty...
"With You," then, "there is propitiation." For if there were not mercy with You, if Thou chosest to be Judge only, and refused to be merciful, You would mark all our iniquities, and search after them. Who could abide this? Who could stand before You, and say, I am innocent? Who could stand in Your judgment?
[Exposition of Ps 40]
He "beheld afar off" the Pharisee, who boasted himself; He was near at hand to succour the Publican, who made confession. Luke 18:9-14 The one extolled his own merits, and concealed his wounds; the other boasted not of his merits, but laid bare his wounds.
ST. BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX:
What can all our righteousness be before God? Shall it not, according to the prophet, be viewed as 'a filthy rag;' and if it is strictly judged, shall not all our righteousness turn out to be mere unrighteousness and deficiency? What, then, shall it be concerning our sins, when not even our righteousness can answer for itself? Wherefore, exclaiming vehemently with the Prophet, 'Enter not into judgment with Thy servant, O Lord!' let us flee, with all humility, to Mercy, which alone can save our souls.... Whosoever, feeling compunction for his sins, hungers and thirsts after righteousness, let him believe in Thee, who 'justifiest the ungodly;' and thus, being justified by faith alone, he shall have peace with God. . . . Thy Passion is the last refuge, the alone remedy. When wisdom fails, when righteousness is insufficient, when the merits of holiness succumb, it succours us. For who, either from his own wisdom, or from his own righteousness, or from his own holiness, shall presume on a sufficiency for salvation?
ST. ANSELM OF CANTERBURY:
Dost thou believe that thou canst not be saved but by the death of Christ? Go to, then, and, whilst thy soul abideth in thee, put all thy confidence in this death alone - place thy trust in no other thing, commit thyself wholly to this death, cover thyself wholly with this alone, cast thyself wholly on this death, wrap thyself wholly in this death. And if God would judge you, say, 'Lord! I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and Thy judgment: otherwise I will not contend, or enter into judgment with Thee.' And if He shall say unto thee, that thou art a sinner, say unto Him, 'I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sins.' If He shall say unto thee, that thou hast deserved damnation, say, 'Lord! I put the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between Thee and all my sins; I offer His merits for my own, which I should have, and have not.' If He say, that He is angry with thee, say, 'Lord! I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and Thy anger.'
God Bless,
William Scott
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
William,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I value the Fathers very much, and the quotes you provide are very informative.
What I don't find explicated from these quotes, however, is if the justifying grace is only forensic. I readily grant the gracious nature of justification apart from our deeds, but simple imputation is not clearly taught from the Fathers (as far as I can tell). Alastair McGrath makes this very point in his "Iustitia Dei".
As it is, I don't see the medieval view that grace is a habit of the soul as necessarily contrary to the doctrine of justification by faith alone. I believe it is a thoroughly catholic doctrine within certain limits, just as sola scriptura can be if constrained by certain things. (I'm of the "material sufficiency" view of Scripture, but Tradition is a necessary interpreter).
Blessings!
Hello St. Worm,
[I apologize ahead of times for the numerous redundancies in this post and the length]
I agree fully (as I noted a couple posts back) that the Historic Church (with the Scriptures, as the Reformers themselves affirmed) certainly does not limit its use of the term justification or justifying grace, etc solely to the "external" forensic aspect of our Salvation (the perfect removal/clearing of our guilt before our God and Judge in Baptism--continually renewed thereafter (and notably renewed in the Eucharist for example) through the instrument of a living faith).
Yet every Church Father, that I am aware of, has recognized this forensic clearing/removal of our guilt by the Blood of Christ before the Throne of our Great Judge and God (and thereby the forensic imputation of righteousness/sinlessness before our God and Judge apart from the the continual "lack of merit" of our works (i.e. the continual lack of a perfect fulfilling of the Law of God in our works)).
From a previous discussion on another thread on this issue:
Clearly the current discussion of justification has a great deal to do with the use of terminology. The way the term “justification” is used by Roman Catholics tends to focus on the process of the “infusion of righteousness” (i.e. sanctification, and spiritual growth) which occurs in those who have a living faith.
But, in the case of the traditional doctrine of “justification by faith alone” the focus is on the perfect “external justification” of the remission of sins by the covering of Christ’s Righteous Blood which we continually and freely partake in through the “non-meritorious” instrument of a living faith. This “external” righteousness or sinlessness or innocence which we have before God through the covering of Christ’s Righteous Blood is not a process, but rather-it is complete or perfect from the moment we freely receive it in Baptism and continually participate in it thereafter by a living faith alone.
Thus, in the case of the Publican he went home with a perfect, and complete covering of Righteousness in Christ’s Righteous Blood which could never by some process be increased, but rather was complete from the moment he received it by a living faith.
Now, as I mentioned in an above post, a living faith (and thus a real “infused righteousness”) is affirmed in the traditional doctrine of justification by faith alone as necessary in all who are reckoned as perfectly righteous and without condemnation or sin before God--but this “internal righteousness” is not understood as the “basis” of our being declared innocent and perfectly righteous before God (for the state of our soul is always imperfect in this life), rather it is the perfect, and “external” righteousness in Christ’s Blood which is understood as the “basis” for our standing innocent and fully just before our Lord.
*Homily of Justification:
Quote:
Nevertheless, this sentence, that we are justified by faith only, is not so meant by them that the said justifying faith is alone in man without true repentance, hope, charity, dread, and the fear of God, at any time and season.
Although Sacred Scripture (and this is a point also noted by prominent Reformers) appears at times to likely use the term “justification” in a broader sense which incorporates the “process” aspect of our Salvation (i.e. our “sanctification” or “spiritual growth” in Christ)--the general use of the term “justification” in the traditional doctrine of “justification faith alone” follows what appears to be the most prominent Scriptural and Pauline focus of the term–namely, on the complete, perfect “external” justification we have in the covering of Christ’s Righteous Blood (which is the remission of sins) by faith:
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
I should also note that the forgiveness of sins is not only the covering of our commissions against God’s Law but also of our omissions to fulfill God’s Law so that by the forgiveness of sins we are imputed as “perfectly” and “positively” righteous and not merely “neutral” before God-
For as Augustine says:
“All the commandments of God are fulfilled when whatever is not done, is forgiven.”
http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/boc/ap/apol06.asc
(As is also seen in the above quotation from St. Paul, that is: “non-imputation of sin” = “imputation of righteousness”(or, “fulfillment of the Law”) without works).
You [That is the person I was responding to] said:
I can look to my baptism, and say, ‘at that moment, I was justified.’ Of course, that doesn’t mean that I cannot ‘undo’ or ‘walk away from’ that justification, which of course, I can.
You won’t find any disagreement on this point from the traditional doctrine of justification by faith alone.
As quoted above, the Homily of Justification:
...we must trust only in God’s mercy, and that sacrifice which our high priest and Savior Christ Jesus, the son of God, once offered for us upon the cross, to obtain thereby God’s grace, and remission, as well of our original sin in baptism, as of all actual sin committed by us after our baptism, if we truly repent and turn unfeignedly to him again.
Our office is not to pass the time of this present life unfruitfully and idly after we are baptized or justified, not caring how few good works we do to the glory of God and profit of our neighbors. Much less is it our office, after that we be once made Christ’s members, to live contrary to the same, making our selves members of the devil, walking after his incitements, and after the suggestions of the world and the flesh, whereby we know that we do serve the world and the devil, and not God.
http://www.geocities.com/curtis_caldwell/bk1hom03_mod.htm
We freely receive our forgiveness/perfect or complete (“external,” forensic) justification before God in Baptism and this perfect justification is continually applied to us by a living/repentant faith (and when we cease from a living/repentant faith we cease to be the members of Christ and instead make ourselves members of the devil--which is sadly the clear state of a large number today).
[/End of previous post]
Again, the Church Fathers frequently affirm the unchanging "external" forensic state of perfect sinlessness, innocence, or righteousness (perfectly white, and without any spot) entered in Baptism and continuing upon all who have a living faith (regardless of the always imperfect and changing state of "infused rightouesness" or "sanctification" in the believer's soul).
Below we see St. Augustine's words regarding this perfect, unchanging or "non-progressive" state of imputed "forensic" righteousness(”forensic” removal/non-imputing of guilt as noted previously) entered in Baptism before God--even while he affirms that the inward state of the soul in the Baptized believer still remains (after the cleansing and justification of Baptism) tainted in this life with sin.
[In other words St. Augustine notes that we who are Baptized are (on account of the "external" forensic justification/remission of sins entered in Baptism) counted or reckoned without guilt (as though perfectly righteous) before God despite the fact that we remain still guilty and sinful according to our actions or inward state].
ST. AUGUSTINE:
“CHAP. 46.2– GUILT MAY BE TAKEN AWAY BUT CONCUPISCENCE REMAIN.
You must not be surprised at what I have said, that although the law of sin remains with its concupiscence, the guilt thereof is done away through the grace of the sacrament. For as wicked deeds, and words, and thoughts have already passed away, and cease to exist, so far as regards the mere movements of the mind and the body, and yet their guilt remains after they have passed away and no longer exist, unless it be done away by the remission of sins; so, contrariwise, in this law of concupiscence, which is not yet done away but still remains, its guilt is done away, and continues no longer, since in baptism there takes place a full forgiveness of sins. Indeed, if a man were to quit this present life immediately after his baptism, there would be nothing at all left to hold him liable, inasmuch as all which held him is released. As, on the one hand, therefore, there is nothing strange in the fact that the guilt of past sins of thought, and word, and deed remains before their remission; so, on the other hand, there ought to be nothing to create surprise, that the guilt of remaining concupiscence passes away after the remission of sin.”
Below St. Ambrose (as the other Church Fathers) speaks to this same "external" forensic justification complete in Baptism by faith apart from the believer's fulfilling of the works of the Law (i.e. apart from the believer's fulfilling of the Two Great Commandments--(its important to remember on this point that the Gentiles have never been under the Ceremonial and National portions of the Law in the O.Cov.--and thus do not need to be cleansed by the Blood from their failure to fulfil the command to be Circumcised, etc)).
ST. AMBROSE:
Moreover, the world was subject to Him by the Law for the reason that, according to the command of the Law, all are indicted, and yet, by the works of the Law, no one is justified, i.e., because, by the Law, sin is perceived, but guilt is not discharged. The Law, which made all sinners, seemed to have done injury, but when the Lord Jesus Christ came, He forgave to all sin which no one could avoid, and, by the shedding of His own blood, blotted out the handwriting which was against us. This is what he says in Rom. 5, 20: "The Law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Because after the whole world became subject, He took away the sin of the whole world, as he [John] testified, saying John 1, 29: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." And on this account let no one boast of works, because no one is justified by his deeds. But he who is righteous has it given him because he was justified after the laver [of Baptism]. Faith, therefore, is that which frees through the blood of Christ, because he is blessed "whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered," Ps. 32, 1. 104]
God Bless,
William Scott
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Ouch, somehow in patching together this post I didn't notice that my first and second "paragraph" were essentially identical in parts.
Sorry for that.
God Bless,
William Scott
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
William,
Thank your follow comments. I don't suppose we are far off from each other in this, as you've nailed the critical matter on the head: the imputation is a remission of sins. The legal judgment against our sin is removed, but the "positive" character is the life of Christ, since in Baptism this is what's received.
I understand the point about our righteousness being negative, neutral, and positive, but I don't believe the Fathers ever talked about remission of sins putting us merely in "neutral" territory (as people like R.C. Sproul is wont to do) -- the judgment of "Not Guilty" is forensic, but rooted in the New Life he grants.
He justifies the ungodly, but not as they are in themelves, but as He makes them to through the remission of sin (forensic) and Newness of Life (participation). This fairs better, I think, with the patristic data.
I do agree, though, that the gracious giving or Christ's righteousness comes to us apart from our works. It's only a question as to whether the boundaries of justification stop at the Court Room, or does it bleed over into the Family Room.
Blessings!
P.S.
Sorry about the typos in the last post! I'm doing two things at once! Arrgh!
Thanks for the comments St. Worm.
My last post was even more of a(repetitive) mess than usual, and it was rather painful to read through after I posted it--Can't guarantee this one will be much better though.
Anyway, the frequent relegating of the remission of sins to only the first half of the "forensic" imputation of righteousness (so that the remission of sins merely makes one "neutral" versus perfectly or "positively" righteous before the Throne of God--requiring an additional, distinct "forensic" imputation in addition to the remission of sins to make one "positively" righteous) is one of the primary innovative beliefs added to the original doctrine of justification by faith alone.
(And there is no "forensic" imputation of righteousness in addition to the remission of sins found in Scripture or the Historic Church).
In contrast, the traditional doctrine of justification by faith alone explicitly affirmed (as seen below), with the Historic Church and the Scriptures, that the whole of the forensic imputation of righteousness is found in the remission of our sins in Christ's Blood (so that our "full justification"* before God is the "the remission of sins" as stated in the quote below).
*[That is, our justification, in the narrower "forensic/external covering" sense, is full and complete before God in the remission of sins. Of course, the "New Life" within the believer will not be full or perfected until after this life--and so "justification" used in a broader sense which incorporates the whole of our Salvation (not only the "external covering"/"forensic" aspect but also the "internal transformative"/"progressive" aspect) will not be completed until after this life as well].
Homily on Justification:
Because all men are sinners and offenders against God, and breakers of his law and commandments, therefore can no man by his own acts, works, and deeds (seem they never so good) be justified, and made righteous before God, but every man of necessity is constrained to seek for another righteousness or justification, to be received at God’s own hands, that is to say, the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses, in such things as he has offended. And this justification or righteousness which we so receive of God’s mercy and Christ’s merits, embraced by faith, is taken, accepted and allowed by God, for our perfect and full justification.
http://www.geocities.com/curtis_caldwell/bk1hom03_mod
The above speaks then to the perfect and full "external" or "forensic" righteousness (the complete fufillment of the Law of God summed up in the Two Great Commandments) which we enjoy through the remission of our sins.
And the "remission of sins"="remission of our lack of fulfillment of God's Law"--Because "All the commandments of God are fulfilled when whatever is not done, is forgiven,” as St. Augustine says (I continue repeating this statement from St. Augustine because it is such an awesome summary of the whole matter).
[Again, when we understand that anyone who fails to perfectly fulfill the Law of God (that is, who fails to be perfectly rightoues) is guilty, and condemned as a sinner before God on the basis of their works--we see how problematic it is to state that the "remission of sins" merely creates some "neutral" (whatever that means) versus perfectly or "positively" righteous/justified standing before the Throne of God our Judge].
[On the issue of Renewal of our forensic justification--this wasn't mentioned in your last post St. Worm but I think it's an important point to address further]
Because we continually fail to fulfill the Two Great Commandments of God (i.e. the Law of God) the remission of sins must continually be renewed upon us as the Scriptures clearly confess--for example in the Lord's Prayer* (not as a "second" forensic justification but as the renewal of our one justification in Christ Jesus).
And thus every time we pray for the remission of sins we pray for our one "forensic" justification/ remission of sins (that is, our covering in the Righteous Blood of Christ) to be renewed upon us and thus for our standing--as those who have perfectly fulfilled the Law of God in Christ (apart from the continual "de-merit" of our works)--to be renewed. And every one who keeps a living faith, and thus the New Life of Christ within them, is continually renewed in the remission of sins--their full (forensic) justification before God. And those who cease from a living faith cease to be renewed in their one perfect justification/remission of sins in Christ (for it is by the effectual instrument of a living faith that we participate continually in the Blood of Christ, which covers all sins--but if our faith ceases to be living it is no longer an effectual instrument to partake in Christ's Blood).
So, while our standing as righteous and without condemnation before God is complete and secured by the remission of sins in Christ--we must always strive to see the "New Life" of Christ within us (and thus our "justification" in the broader sense--as often used by the Fathers) not only continue but also grow and increase within us day by day.
God Bless,
William Scott
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
p.s. It should be noted what a great difference there is between the position of the original doctrine of justification by faith alone (which is in accordance with the Historic Church and even more importantly the Scriptures) on the continual "renewal" (through the instrument of a living faith) of our one forensic justification versus the commonly held views founded on the innovative dogmatic 'Tradition' of "Salvation cannot be lost."
Blessings in Christ,
William Scott
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Bro. William,
I thank you for those helpful words. I don't find much to quibble about with your explanation. Also, I'm glad that you're as much an opponent of "Once Saved Always Saved" as I am.
Blessings.
Post a Comment