Justification

[mikeledes]

The purpose of this series of posts is to demonstrate from Scripture that the Catholic understanding of justification is taught by Scripture. They will specifically deal with the nature of justification (imputation vs. infusion) and not with the role of faith an works.

First, here's a little background. Protestants believe that justification is purely an extrinsic act that deals exclusively with our legal standing before God. According to their version of justification, God legally reckons a person righteous by imputing the alien righteous of Christ and this alien righteousness is subjectively apprehended through faith alone. Since the righteousness given in justification is the perfect rigteousness of Christ Himself, there is no such thing as a progressive justification because this righteousness is outside ourselves.

Protestants do not believe, however, that a person is justified without being made inwardly holy by God. This intrinsic change wrought by God is called sanctification. While they maintain that justification and sanctification occur at the same time, they are two distinct acts that must not be confused. Justification is outside of the person while sanctification is inside the person. Justification cannot be increased, but sanctification is a progressive work.

I also want to point out that Calvinists believe that regeneration occurs prior to faith and justification. Since they believe man is totally depraved and spiritually dead, man cannot chose God or even cooperate with grace. He must first regenerated by God (i.e. born again) so that he can believe and be justified. In regeneration, man is completely passive and there is no cooperation involved, so there can be no resistance. This is called monergism. So for Calvinists, regeneration, justification, and sanctification are distinct but related concepts.

Since Catholics talk about a progressive justification, Protestants accuse us of confusing justification with sanctification. Catholics believe in progressive justification because we believe that in justification righteousness, also called "sanctifying grace", is infused into our souls, removing sin and making us inwardly righteous and adopted sons and daughters of God. So justification is not a forensic declaration, but the actual making of a person righteous. It is the remission of sins and the interior sanctifcation of the person. God does not consider a person righteous unless that person has actually become righteous. So we believe that justification, regeneration, and adoption all refer to the same act.

Before going into the actual biblical evidence for the Catholic understanding of justification, I would like to address some of the arguments in favor of a purely forensic understanding of justification. One argument used in favor of a purely forensic justification is that the Greek word for justification (dikaioo) is a legal concept that was commonly used in a forensic way, as when a judge acquits a person of a crime. It was simply a legal declaration of righteousness or innocence and does not mean to actually make a person righteous.

First of all, the evidence that the word "dikaioo" is a forensic term is not conclusive and I believe there is evidence of this word being used in a non-forensic way. Second of all, even if the word "diakaioo" were an intrinsically forensic term, that does not mean that Paul was using it forensically. Take for example the word "adoption." It is an undisputed fact that the word "adoption" is a legal and intrinsically forensic concept. When you adopt someone, you do not make that person your biological son. However, Paul uses the forensic word "adoption" in a non-forensic way in the following verse:

Romans 8:23

23And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

Here, we have Paul using a forensic word (adoption) to describe a transformative act, namely, the resurrection of the dead. So even if "justification" were a forensic concept, it does not automatically mean that Paul is using it in a forensic way.