Seven Questions on Justification

By

Taylor Marshall

Published: 01 September 2009 5:16 AM PDT

• Comments [6]
• Digg it!
• Facebook
• Edit Post

It seems that the correct doctrine of justification must be able to satisfactorily account for the following seven questions:

1. How does an adult receive justification in relation to Christ our Lord?
2. How does iustitia grow or increase in the justified?
3. How does justification relate the eschatological General Judgment?
4. How does justification relate to the sacraments, particularly baptism and penance?
5. How does justification relate to those who have lapsed from justification? That is, how do we account for “re-justification”?
6. How do we understand justification in relation to sanctification and regeneration?
7. Given that Original Sin is a reality, how do we account for the justification of infants?

Did I miss anything?

               

• Comments [6]
• Digg it!
• Facebook
• Edit Post

About the Author

Taylor was an Episcopal priest in Fort Worth, Texas before being received into the Catholic Church by Bishop Kevin Vann of Fort Worth. Taylor was also formerly the Assistant Director of the Catholic Information Center in Washington, D.C., located three blocks north of the White House, where he lectured regularly. He was served under Archbishop John J. Myers and Msgr. William Stetson for the Pastoral Provision of John Paul II, the canonical structure by which Anglican clergy are received into the Catholic Church and then go on to pursue Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. He is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (M.A.R. Theology), Nashotah Theological House (Certificate in Anglican Studies), and University of Dallas (M.A. Philosophy). He is currently a Ph.D. student in Philosophy at the University of Dallas where he studies the Natural Law theory of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae Ia Iaa qq. 94-108). Taylor and his wife live in Dallas, Texas with their five children. He is the author of The Catholic Perspective on Paul (forthcoming). Visit his personal site at: www.taylormarshall.com Taylor is also the Editor of Christian and American at: www.christianandamerican.com.

6 Comments

1. Mike Gendron

   Posted November 17, 2009 at 6:12 AM

   I would encourage you to study the doctrine of justification from the Scriptures. Since it may be the most important doctrine of the Bible I would like to see where you agree and disagree before we discuss anything else. Here is what I have found in the Scriptures…

   God’s holiness and justice demands perfect righteousness for entrance into heaven. Since a sinner has no hope of attaining perfect righteousness, God offers as a gift, the perfect righteousness of His Son. Justification is the very heart of the Gospel and a doctrine that separates biblical Christianity from Roman Catholicism. It relates the saving significance of Christ’s life and death with God’s holy law. God’s wisdom is displayed in the way He harmoniously exercises His attributes of holiness, justice and righteousness along with His attributes of love, mercy and grace through Jesus.

   The source of justification is God the Father (Romans 8:33). Since it is impossible for man to meet the righteous standard God’s righteousness demands, God offers Christ’s righteousness as a gift. Jesus paid a debt He did not owe, because we owe an infinite debt we can not pay.
   The ground of justification is the righteousness of Christ. His perfect life and sacrificial death satisfied the demands of God’s justice and thus frees God to justify all who believe Him. Christ’s finished work of redemption is the sole ground on which God can pardon sinners (Romans 3:24-26).
   The instrument of justification is faith (Galatians 3:24). A repentant sinner is imputed with the righteousness of Christ when he believes Jesus is the only way of salvation.
   The principle of justification is grace (Romans 3:24). We do not merit or deserve to be justified. It is a precious gift from God given freely by His grace. No one is justified by obeying the law (Galatians 3:11).
   The basis of justification is the blood of Christ (Romans 5:9).
   The recipients of justification are the wicked, ungodly and unjust, not those who deserve it (Rom. 4:5).
   The duration of justification is forever (Romans 8:30, Heb. 10:14).
   The evidence of justification is good works. Abraham was justified by faith (Genesis 15:16), and the evidence before men was his “works” (James 2:21) when he sacrificed his son. Since one’s faith is visible only to God, the evidence to others of justifying faith is good works and obedience to God’s word.
   The fruit of justification is the words that come from the heart (Mat. 12:35,37).
   The position of justification is union with Christ. “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Cor. 5:21) The righteousness of Christ is imputed through His indwelling Spirit.
   The result of justification is peace with God (Romans 5:1,2).
   The proof of a believer’s justification is the resurrection of Jesus (Romans 4:25)
2. Taylor Marshall

   Posted November 17, 2009 at 11:13 AM

   Dear Mike,

   Great comment. As a Catholic, I have very few objection to what you have written. I agree with your sketch.

   Your analysis is strikingly similar to the Council of Trent and the five causes of justification which goes like this:

   1. the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting
   2. the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance
   3. the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father
   4. the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified
   5. lastly, the alone formal cause is the righteousness of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He makes us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation.

   The only two things that I would want to add to your analysis is that justification is eternal for the elect in Heaven, but on earth it still has a past, present, and future manifestation. Secondly, St James does not say that works merely demonstrate justification to other people (it certainly does), but he also says that “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works” (James 2:22).

   Works actually “complete faith” in the believer – they are not merely outward signs – they have an internal role as well.

   So I would ask, as a non-Catholic, what is your objection to the Catholic doctrine of justification. It seems to me that you stand in substantial agreement with us.

   in Christ,
   Taylor

   PS: For more on the five causes of justification in Catholic theology, go here:
   http://pauliscatholic.com/2009/09/the-five-causes-of-justification-in-catholic-theology/
3. Emil Anton

   Posted December 6, 2009 at 7:17 AM

   The 7 questions seem to me to be a bit arbitrary, and formulated from a Catholic framework already assuming the Catholic doctrine to be correct. Eg “how does iustitia grow” – if saving iustitia is a status, then it doesn’t grow! And many more questions could be formulated. Eg how does justification relate to the covenant (generally, or specifically to the Abrahamic or New)? How does it relate to being in the church? (How) can one be a member of the true church and not justified?

   As for Mike’s comment, all the stuff about God’s perfect demands for getting to heaven seems to have been learned not from the Scriptures (zero references) but popular Evangelical methods of evangelization. The questions put by the Bible are totally different, as NT Wright has shown so well. In addition, the comment that the sinner is imputed with the righteousness of Christ when he believes Christ is the only way to salvation is simply Evangelicalism, there is no Bible verse to support it, and none is quoted in the comment. The statement that the righteousness of Christ is imputed through the indwelling of his Spirit is simply mixing categories (again no biblical quotation), taking ideas from verses here and there and trying to make one’s own systematic theology. Also, the classification of the “ground, basis, position, principle”, etc, is arbitrary and not derived from Scripture. Finally, one cannot mix Paul’s, James’, and Jesus’ teachings about justification just like that without taking into account the possible (and actual!) differences in their usage of the terms in the original languages.

   On the one hand it is good to see that even if one tries to make one’s own “what I have learned from Scripture” – theology of justification, one does end up getting pretty close to the authentic understanding. But at the same time one will almost certainly end up mixing ideas heard in sermons with Bible verses taken out of context and thus confusing categories and not reaching the original intent of the biblical authors themselves. We are blessed to have such a great interpretive tradition in the Church that helps us on the way so that we are not left alone figuring out how to harmonize all the divergent passages on justification in the Bible.
4. Spencer

   Posted December 13, 2009 at 9:48 PM

   Taylor,

   You said that “the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father.” I come from an evangelical (somewhat Reformed) background and am just now coming to grips with what Catholic theology actually teaches about justification. What exactly is the difference between what you mean when you say “Christ merited justification for us and made satisfaction for us unto the Father” and when a Reformed believer says, “Christ’s righteousness is credited to our account, and our sins were credited to His account, thus He was punished for our sins and we are seen as if we had His righteousness?” I know that the Catholic Church does not teach that any alien righteousness is imputed to us, but that God actually makes us righteous, and on the basis of what He has actually made us, declares us to be so. How do the merits of Christ play into this, if justification is based on our own righteousness that God gives us?

   Pax Christi,

   Spencer
5. Taylor Marshall

   Posted December 14, 2009 at 11:58 AM

   Spencer,

   Thank you for visiting and thank you for your great comment. You ask:

   What exactly is the difference between what you mean when you say “Christ merited justification for us and made satisfaction for us unto the Father” and when a Reformed believer says, “Christ’s righteousness is credited to our account, and our sins were credited to His account, thus He was punished for our sins and we are seen as if we had His righteousness?”

   The difference is “participation” and how it relates to justice/righteousness. Christ is both 100% divine and 100% human. He also has a divine will and human will. Yet both participate in the one divine Person of the Logos.

   By analogy, human salvation is accomplished in the person of Christ as fully divine and fully human. It’s not an either/or situation. Of course, the divine is prior, as in all things. He’s the creator, we’re not.

   So God makes us righteous (not just declares us so), so that we become what He accomplished. Our righteousness is 100% God’s and 100% ours. Christ merited salvation for us – but that doesn’t leave us a passive bumps on a log.

   Luther said, that the righteousness was “alien” or not ours. This is a failure of Luther to account for the “in Christ” and “in Him” language of the New Testament. If we are “heirs with Christ” then what He has is really ours (not just imputed as ours).

   in Christ,
   Taylor Marshall
6. Russell Grafrath

   Posted December 15, 2009 at 5:55 PM

   Taylor,

   I think a key to this understanding of “participation” can be found in the Catholic concept of Trinitarian “union”. And that final eschatology has something to add to this. Something I have come to learn about the Catholic faith is that we are “radically” Trinitarian. Our understanding of our final destiny has far reaching implications on the here and now.

   If our final state of salvation is “union” with the blessed trinity, it speaks something to our current state of salvation. We are called to union with God in the here and now. We are to become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4)!!! And then again John 14:20 “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.” (John 14:20)

   Christ is “in” us as you say and through Christ we are brought back into “union” with the Father. So it is as the apostles says, “it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me”.

   PAX