Justification - The Reformation v. Rome

I was going through some of my old study notes today and came across this short article by Dr. R. C. Sproul. In reading it through again, I was reminded about the magnitude of the issue as it relates to the very Gospel itself, and the vital differences that still remain between the two sides. Rome believes that justification is by grace, through faith and because of Christ. What Rome does not believe is that justification is by grace alone, or through faith alone, or by Christ alone. For Rome, justification is by grace plus merit, through faith plus works; by Christ plus the sinner's contribution of inherent righteousness. In contrast, the Reformers called the Church back to the one true Biblical Gospel: Salvation is by God's grace alone, received through faith alone, because of Christ alone, based on the Scriptures alone, to the Glory of God alone. Dr. Sproul's article (below) brings out the clear distinctions between the Reformers and Rome concerning justification - which as Martin Luther declared, is the article upon which the church stands or falls. - John Samson

At the heart of the controversy between Roman Catholic and Reformation or Protestant theology is the nature of justification itself. It is a debate not merely about how or when or by what means a person is justified, but about the very meaning of justification itself. Reformed theology insists that the biblical doctrine of justification is forensic in nature.

In the popular jargon of religion, the word forensic is used infrequently. The word is not foreign, however, to ordinary language. It appears daily in the news media, particularly with reference to criminal investigations and trials. We hear of "forensic evidence" and "forensic medicine" as we listen to the reports of criminologists, coroners, and pathologists. Here the term forensic refers to the judicial system and judicial proceedings. The term forensic is also used to describe events connected with public speaking. Schools hold forensic contests or events that feature formal debates or the delivery of speeches. The link between these ordinary usages of forensic and its theological use is that justification has to do with a legal or judicial matter involving some type of declaration. We can reduce its meaning to the concept of legal declaration.

The doctrine of justification involves a legal matter of the highest order. Indeed it is the legal issue on which the sinner stands or falls: his status before the supreme tribunal of God. When we are summoned to appear before the bar of God's judgment, we face a judgment based on perfect justice. The presiding Judge is himself perfectly just. He is also omniscient, fully aware of our every deed, thought, inclination, and word. Measured by the standard of his canon of righteousness, we face the psalmist's rhetorical question that hints at despair: "If you, LORD, should mark iniquities, ...who could stand?" (Psalm 130:3 NKJV). The obvious answer to this query is supplied by the Apostle Paul: "There is none righteous, no, not one...." (Romans 3:10). God commands us to be holy. Our moral obligation coram Deo (before the face of God) is to live perfect lives. One sin mars that obligation and leaves us naked, exposed before divine justice. Once a person sins at all, a perfect record is impossible. Even if we could live perfectly after that one sin, we would still fail to achieve perfection. Our sin may be forgiven, but forgiveness does not undo the sin. The consequences of the sin may be removed, but the sin itself is not undone.

The Bible speaks figuratively about the sin being washed, cleansed, healed, and blotted out. The sin, which is scarlet, may become white as snow, the crimson may become like wool, in God's sight. The sin may be cast into the sea of forgetfulness or purged with hyssop. But these images describe an expiation for sin and divine forgiveness or remission of our sin. Our record does not change, but our guilt does. Hence Paul declares, "Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin" (Romans 4:8 NKJV). In our redemptive forgiveness God does not charge us with what we owe. He does not count our sins against us. If he did, no one (except Jesus) would ever escape his just wrath. No one but Christ would be able to stand before God's judgment. Again, God in his grace may regenerate us, sanctify us, and even glorify us. He might make us perfect in the future. He really does change the elect and will eventually make the justified totally and completely righteous. But even the perfected saint in heaven was once a sinner and has a track record that, apart from the grace of justification, would send him to hell. Thus, where temporal creatures are concerned, everyone who is once imperfect is always imperfect with respect to the whole scope of the person's individual history. This is what Thomas Aquinas meant when he asserted that justification is always of the impious (iustificatio impii). Righteous people have no need of justification, even as the healthy have no need of a physician.

Both Roman Catholic and Reformation theology are concerned with the justification of sinners. Both sides recognize that the great human dilemma is how unjust sinners can ever hope to survive a judgment before the court of an absolutely holy and absolutely just God. If we define forensic justification as a legal declaration by which God declares a person just and we leave it at that, we would have no dispute between Rome and Evangelicalism. Though Rome has an antipathy to the concept of forensic justification, this antipathy is directed against the Protestant view of it. In chapter 7 of the sixth session of the Council of Trent, Rome declared: "...not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure...." Here Rome is jealous to distinguish between being reputed just and actually being just, yet it is still true that God calls the baptismally regenerated just. That is, for Rome justification is forensic in that justification involves God's legal declaration. A person is justified when God declares that person just. The reason or the ground of that declaration differs radically between Roman Catholic and Reformed theology. But both agree that a legal declaration by God is made. Nor is it sufficient merely to say that Rome teaches that justification means "to make just," while Protestants teach that justification means "to declare just."

For Rome God both makes just and declares just. For Protestants God both makes just and declares just -- but not in the same way. For Rome the declaration of justice follows the making inwardly just of the regenerate sinner. For the Reformation the declaration of justice follows the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the regenerated sinner (Rom.4:4-8; 2 Cor. 5:21).

Great find, Harley.

"...In contrast, the sufficient conditions for coming to faith that are presented in John’s Gospel have, quite frankly, proven intractable for Arminians. This may not be something that most Arminians would like to admit, of course, but it seems to me to be a fair estimation of the current situation in Arminian theology. This is not to say that there have been no attempts by Arminians to deal with the relevant statements by Jesus in John’s Gospel. However, the attempts of which I am aware, despite their many other important contributions to the subject, seem to me to reach unsatisfying conclusions when it comes to dealing with the sufficiency conditions placed by Jesus on who will come to faith in him."

It is interesting to me that even though the author admits that the many verses of John's Gospel cannot be satisfactorily argued by Arminians, they still reach the conclusion that Calvinists have to be wrong.Great catch, Harley.

Ultimately Armminianism always falls on its own dull sword of contradiction.

For instance, if God is omniscient and salvation is based on God "looking down the tunnel of time" and "seeing" who would accept or reject Him, and yet he creates and gives birth to those people who reject Him ANYWAY, Arminians still end up with God knowingly and purposefully creating men He KNOWS will end up in hell and which clearly contradicts their contention that God "wants all men to be saved."

Arminianism is a very inconsistent system for understanding theology.

"Those men who at this day obscure, and seek, as far as they can, to extinguish the doctrine of election, are enemies to the human race; for they strive their utmost to subvert every assurance of salvation" - John Calvin, Zech.-Mal.84,85

**I just don’t think God is limited by my thoughts...**

nope. Not at all.

But our proper understanding of God is limited by God.

Or, as usually happens, a proper understanding of God is limited by one's lack of understanding, one's misunderstanding because one doesn't want to give up preconceptions obtained by, say, over-reliance on the musings of someone like Augustine or on someone who over-relied on him in his callow youth like Calvin, or one's willful ignorance.

The "full citation" does not change the words of the citation nor the clear intent of the citation. The words of the RCC catechism say what they mean...

2027 - No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.

If you disagree with the RCC catechism, perhaps you should tell someone who can change it to more closely reflect the truth of Scripture. Because as we all know, NO ONE "CAN MERIT ALL THE GRACES NEEDED TO ATTAIN ETERNAL LIFE" but Jesus Christ who freely and mercifully imputes to His sheep His own righteousness, obedience and good works which are credited to their account as if they were their own.

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." -- 2 Corin. 5:21

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus" -- Romans 3: 24-26

The idea that salvation can be lost is not unique to Catholics. There is a whole segment of Protestantism that shares that idea.

And that idea isn't just held along denominational lines either.

Specifically as to RC theology, I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak with any certainty or authority. I have to follow along with the CCC and then ask questions of RC canon doctors to get clarification.

My best understanding about working to “keep” salvation is that that isn't exactly correct. Salvation is not “chancy”. What RC theology, along with some Protestant as well, is addressing is the body of Bible passages that speak to these things such as apostasy, shipwrecked faith, castaway, and other “dire” warnings in Scripture, especially the New Testament.

I as a conservative, Calvinistic tending, Christian have to admit that there is a tension in Scriptures that doesn't let us take salvation for granted.

And I think that is what is being addressed, but it is a matter of subtle distinctions and that there are lots of misunderstandings about RC theology. I know from my own experience that there is an anti-RC bias that just exists and myths are passed on to succeeding generations without ever being examined.

The part about the only way to be and stay saved being by the ministry of the Church is absolutely correct and that's where I part ways with them. However, in the CCC there is a hint that salvation exists outside those channels, but it's slim.

“they believe they are saved by the sacraments” - RC doctrine declares that they are saved through faith by grace. Period. It is by the ministry of the priesthood that God's grace is dispensed.

I totally disagree with RC doctrine about how they receive grace.

I believe we have one mediator with God: Jesus Christ the righteous.

So the disagreement is not whether they are saved by faith, it is about how they receive grace.

That being said I also believe that it is by grace that we are saved through faith in Christ Jesus, despite some very wrong ideas.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.