If you have studied Catholic apologetics at all, you almost certainly know that one of the biggest differences between Catholicism and Protestantism lies in our divergent understandings of salvation. Usually, when we talk about this topic, we are referring to the question of faith vs. works.
At the risk of oversimplifying it, we Catholics believe that salvation requires both faith and good works, whereas Protestants usually believe that it only requires faith. Granted, there are myriad qualifications we can (and must) make to that statement, but that is the basic gist of the debate.
That is not the only way our understandings of salvation differ, however. We also have different beliefs about what exactly happens when God forgives our sins and makes us right in His eyes (in biblical terms, when He makes us “righteous”) for the first time in our lives.
Most Protestants believe that God simply considers us righteous even though we’re really not. They believe this initial salvation is merely a legal declaration, and only afterwards does God begin to sanctify us and turn us into what He already considers us to be.
In the Catholic view, however, God actually makes us righteous from the very start. We’re made right with Him not simply because He ignores our sinfulness but rather because He infuses us with the grace we need to follow His commands and truly be righteous (and we have to continually grow in this grace throughout our lives).
So which view is correct? Does God start off by merely considering us righteous and then slowly make it so, or does He make us genuinely righteous from the very start?
The Key Term
This controversy essentially revolves around one of the key words St. Paul uses when talking about our salvation: the verb “justify” (see, Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:20). In English, this word normally means something like “vindicate” or “show to be correct,” but that is not what it means in Paul’s letters.
Paul uses the term “justify” the way the Old Testament used it. In ancient Israel, when a judge heard a case, he would either condemn or “justify” the defendant, so the word basically means “acquit.” In fact, that is how a lot of English translations render it elsewhere. Take a look at this passage from Deuteronomy:
If there is a dispute between men, and they come into court, and the judges decide between them, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty, then if the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence with a number of stripes in proportion to his offense. (Deuteronomy 25:2-1)
In the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, the word translated here as “acquitting” is the same verb that English Bibles render as “justify” in St. Paul’s letters.
So when Paul talks about God justifying us, he is using a legal term. He is saying that God acquits us in His divine courtroom, and at first, that seems like a huge point for the Protestant side. If Scripture uses a legal term to refer to our initial salvation, then it seems like the Protestant view has to be right. Justification must simply be a legal declaration that God makes, but it doesn’t actually change who we are on the inside.
God’s Metaphorical Law Court
When I first started studying apologetics, I thought this was a huge problem. I could not figure out how the Catholic view could possibly be right given the meaning of the word “justify,” and it wasn’t until my senior year of college that I finally found a good explanation.
To begin, we have to recognize that when St. Paul uses this legal term, it is just a metaphor. God doesn’t literally have a law court where He dresses in a long, black robe and yells “Order!” every now and then. No, the whole idea of a divine law court is a metaphor, so when Paul says that God “justifies” us, that He acquits us and declares us “righteous,” that is a metaphor too.
If that is the case, then the full truth about God’s initial act of salvation in our lives isn’t limited by the literal meaning of the word “justify.” There could very well be more to it than just what that word implies.
God’s Creative Word
Secondly, we have to remember something about God’s Word. When He says something, it happens. To take just one example, in the very first chapter of the Bible, when God created the world, He did so by speaking it into existence. He said “Let there be light,” and there was light (Genesis 1:3). He said “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night,” and the sun, moon, and stars were created (Genesis 1:14-16).
When God says that we are acquitted, that we are “righteous,” His Word isn’t just a legal fiction. No, His word actually makes it happen. He can make us truly righteous simply by declaring it. Granted, this does not prove that this is actually what happens in justification, but it shows that at least it is possible. It also means that the legal sense of the verb “justify” does not necessitate the Protestant view. The Catholic view is just as plausible.
So, the meaning of this word by no means settles the issue. It is compatible with both the Catholic and Protestant views. To find out which one is correct, we have to look at other considerations. We have to see if Paul gives us any clues to the true nature of justification. Let’s see what else he says about this crucial topic.
Adam and Jesus
Let’s start with a text from his Letter to the Romans:
And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification…For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:16, 19)
In context, Paul is contrasting the results of Adam’s sin with the results of Jesus’ saving death and resurrection. He is saying that Adam’s act of disobedience brought sin, death, and condemnation to the human race, but Jesus’ act of obedience undid all that and reconciled us to God. In verses 15-19, he repeats this five times (once every verse), looking at this central truth from five different angles.
Take the two verses I quoted as examples. In verse 16, he says that Adam’s sin brought “condemnation,” but Jesus’ saving death and resurrection brought “justification.” Then, in verse 19, he tells us that Adam made us “sinners,” but Jesus makes us “righteous.”
By the parallel with verse 16, we know that this “making righteous” is the same thing as justification, and in the original Greek, that makes perfect sense. In Greek, the words “justification,” “justify,” and “righteous” all come from the same root (unlike English), so Paul’s original readers would’ve caught that connection pretty easily.
God Makes Us Righteous
So what does this passage tell us about the nature of justification? Most obviously, Paul explicitly says that justification actually makes us righteous. We are not just considered righteous. God does not simply say it or declare it. No, He makes us righteous, just as the Catholic view says.
And if we dig a bit deeper, we find confirmation of this. Paul’s point isn’t simply that justification makes us righteous. Rather, he is saying that justification makes us righteous just like Adam’s sin made us sinners. That is our smoking gun.
Original sin isn’t just a legal declaration. God does not just declare that we are sinners. No, as Paul himself says earlier in the letter, we truly are sinners, every single one of us (Romans 3:23), and that is the result of Adam’s sin. He truly made us sinners, so for the parallel to hold, the justification that Jesus gives us must truly make us righteous.
Inheriting the Kingdom of God
And in case there is any doubt about that, let’s look at another passage that also supports the Catholic understanding of justification:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? … And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9, 11)
At first glance, this verse may not seem all that relevant to our discussion, but take a closer look. When Paul lists the acts by which God rescues us from being “unrighteous” and allows us to “inherit the kingdom of God,” he puts “sanctified” before “justified.” And in the Protestant view, that is problematic.
According to traditional Protestant theology, justification comes before sanctification, so if that is correct, then St. Paul must have gotten it wrong here. But we know he didn’t. Scripture does not make mistakes, so the traditional Protestant view cannot be right.
The Catholic view, however which says that justification and sanctification are inseparable and happen at the same time, makes perfect sense of this passage. Since one does not come before the other, Paul (or anybody else, for that matter) can list them in any order he wants, so putting sanctification before justification is perfectly legitimate.
In the final analysis, it is clear that the Catholic understanding of our initial salvation is correct. According to the New Testament, justification is a legal declaration, but it is not just a legal declaration. When God declares us righteous, He also makes us righteous. Just like He created the world simply by speaking it into existence in Genesis 1, so too does He make us righteous simply by saying that we are.
21 thoughts on “Justification Makes Us Truly Righteous”
This post just shows the problem with Catholic theology (if indeed what is presented here has the Magisterium’s imprimatur—I mean, do lay Catholic apologists have the authority from the Magisterium to present the teachings of the Catholic church?) At any rate, the Catholic position is that justification can be increased by good works. The problem is: you’re either justified or you’re not justified. You either have this gift from God or you don’t. There’s no “increasing” of a status or standing or gift with God. Catholics conflate justification with growth in holiness. They want to say there’s an “initial” justification and then “another,” ongoing justification after that. St. Paul doesn’t teach this.
In St. Paul’s teaching on justification (i.e. how God forgives—”covers”—our sins and clothes us with Christ, pouring out His Holy Spirit on us and renewing us), righteous deeds are never a part of the equation. They are excluded. Justification is entirely by God’s grace through faith, as he states over and over:
Eph. 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast.
Titus 3:4-7
But when the kindness and generous love
of God our savior appeared,
not because of any righteous deeds we had done
but because of his mercy,
he saved us through the bath of rebirth
and renewal by the holy Spirit,
whom he richly poured out on us
through Jesus Christ our savior,
so that we might be justified by his grace
and become heirs in hope of eternal life.
JP:
Sorry, but we continue to disagree. Does 2 Maccabees really say that his offering for the atonement of the dead was accepted by God for their idol worship? They did not fall asleep in godliness, did they?
According to The Book of Revelation, all of the dead will rise. Some to reward, others to the second death.
Yes, 2 Maccabees says that God accepted their offering. Sure, the text doesn’t say it like that, but if we read what it does say carefully, it’s clear that God did in fact accept the offering. For example, the text tells us that “He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably” (v. 43). Now, if God didn’t accept their offering, why would the text say that this was a good and honorable thing to do? At the very least, this clearly means that their act was worthy of imitation, so we should be praying for the dead too.
Similarly, the text also says that their intention was “holy and pious” (v. 45). Again, if their offering wasn’t acceptable to God, why would Scripture describe it as “holy and pious”? At the very least, this clearly means that their prayer and their offering was worthy of imitation, so we should pray for the dead too.
And finally, the strongest proof comes in the very last sentence of the chapter: “Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin” (v. 45). It doesn’t say that he tried to make atonement for them or that he wanted to make atonement for them. No, it simply says that he did make atonement for them, and that necessarily implies that God accepted the offering.
And I’m not sure what your point about the book of Revelation is. Of course all the dead will rise, but how is that relevant?
JP:
Thanks for taking the time to reply, however, I don’t agree with you.
The 2 Maccabees verse is the sole scripture passage that definitely deals with praying for the dead for their sins and an offering for their offense against God. You have frequently told me that we can’t rely on a sole passage to come to an answer on an issue, yet, you are readily declaring that it is supporting the idea of purgatory. But you are making a supposition about a place where there is purification after death, and prayers and offerings will make a difference for the sinners. Nothing in the passage says that their efforts were effective. No where else in scripture does it tell us to do it.
Then you use your old argument that not everything that Jesus taught is in the Bible. Followed by “His preaching didn’t encompass the entirety of the Christian faith”.
And of course you tell me that I have it all wrong about Revelation 22.
Let me point out that you infer something from the Matthew passage, not that it specifically declares an after death purification process declared by the Catholic Church to exist.
Afraid your explanations don’t offer the answers to make me stop questioning the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
I’ve never said that we can’t rely on just one Scripture passage to demonstrate a doctrine. What I have said is that if there are 2 competing sets of passages that seem to contradict each other, we can’t just ignore one set. For example, if some Scripture passages say we’re saved by faith and others say we’re saved by works, we can’t just ignore the ones that say we’re saved by faith and proclaim that the Bible teaches that we’re saved by works. We have to take into account everything the Bible says about a particular topic. However, if there’s only one passage that mentions a topic at all, then that one passage is enough to establish whatever doctrine it teaches. So even though 2 Maccabees 12 may be the only Scripture passage that explicitly teaches praying for the dead, it’s enough.
You’re also incorrect when you say that the text doesn’t tell us that their efforts were effective. The rest of the chapter makes it clear that they were:
” In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.” (2 Maccabees 12:43-45)
Also, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say in the second paragraph. Yes, I said those things about Jesus’ preaching and Revelation 22. I know what I said, so you don’t need to repeat it to me. If you think I’m wrong, then show me why. Otherwise, you don’t have a leg to stand on.
I’m also not sure what your point is about the Matthew passage. Of course it doesn’t explicitly mention purgatory, but that’s not the argument. Rather, the argument is that the doctrine of purgatory (or at least something very similar to it) is the only way to make sense of the text, so if you want to refute me, you have to show how you can understand that passage in a way that doesn’t involve purgatory. Otherwise, once again, you’re not actually refuting my argument.
JP:
Read the article about purgatory that you suggested, plus others.
Isn’t 2 Maccabees 12: 39-46 the only scripture in the Bible that definitely mentions praying for the dead? Even so, how does that prove the existence of purgatory?
Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 and Galatians 5: 19-21 who will not inherit the kingdom of God. His answer leaves no room for an after death purification.
The author of your article suggests that Rev. 22:27 deals with purification by fire. My Catholic Bible doesn’t; “27 but nothing unclean will enter it, nor any[one] who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”
I would also suggest that you and he take a look at Rev. 21:7-8, as well as review the entire Chapter 22 of Revelation. No suggestion of an after death purification.
Finally, did Jesus command us to pray for the dead, or suggest that there was an after death purification which would allow entry into the kingdom of God? I think not.
Yes, that passage from 2 Maccabees is the only place the Bible explicitly mentions praying for the dead. It supports purgatory because it shows that there is a post-death purgation/forgiveness of sins.
1 Cor 6:9-10 and Gal 5:19-21 say that certain people won’t inherit the kingdom of God, so you’re right that if someone falls under the condemnation of those passages, there’s no room for forgiveness after death. But those passages don’t tell us about the people who don’t fall under their condemnation. They definitely leave room for a post-death forgiveness/purification/purgation for people who aren’t going to lose out on the kingdom.
You’re missing the point about Revelation 22. The point isn’t that the passage mentions a post-death purification. It doesn’t. Rather, the point is that what it does say requires some sort of post-death purification. If we die before we’re perfectly sanctified (and let’s be honest, how often does that actually happen?), then according to Rev 22, we won’t be able to enter the new Jerusalem. We have to be perfectly sanctified to do that, so if it doesn’t happen in this live, there must be a post-death purification.
Finally, you ask if Jesus mentioned praying for the dead or a post-death purification, but that’s not really relevant. For starters, the fact that the Gospels don’t record something doesn’t mean that Jesus never said anything about it. They explicitly tell us that they don’t include everything Jesus did (John 21:25), and it stands to reason that the same would be true of the things He said as well. Secondly, in John, He explicitly tells His disciples:
“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” (John 16:12-15)
So even if the Gospels do contain everything that Jesus taught (which is a highly questionable assumption, at best), you’d still have to contend with the fact that His preaching didn’t encompass the entirety of the Christian faith.
That being said, the Catholic Answers article I pointed you to did in fact cite a passage from the Gospels. It mentioned Matthew 12:32, where Jesus implies that some sins will be forgiven in the next life.
JP Nunez: I agree. Justification or righteousness is not just a judicial act. The result of Adam’s sin wasn’t just judicial. It had a strong effect on his whole being. Righteousness should have the reverse effect on us.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9, 11, it seems like the words ‘washed’, ‘sanctified’, and ‘justified’ are synonyms. This happens by “the name of the Lord Jesus and the Spirit of our God”. The fruit of the Spirit would be included in this (see Galatians 5:22-23).
Paul tells us to “approve things that are excellent; that you may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ. Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God” (Philippians 1:10-11. See also 2Corinthians 9:9-10). It sounds like a generous spirit is also a fruit of righteousness.
100% right.
JP:
Nothing scriptural about the Catholic concept of purgatory, is there?
Yes there is. Here’s some info on it:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-purgatory-in-the-bible
JP:
Just provided it for you to read it.
What do you think of the Methodist doctrine of “perfection”? In Wesley’s view we are saved by faith alone/grace alone; but in the truly saved, the Holy Spirit gives us the power to move toward perfection, rarely in this life, but surely at death.
That’s very similar to the Catholic view. We also believe that our goal is to become perfect and that this process continues until death (and, if needed, after death as well, in purgatory).
Pingback: VVEDNESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
Justification or righteousness starts by faith: and good works follow, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10).
When we view faith as an entrustment to Christ, this entrustment is usually done before we perform good works, unless we view the entrustment itself as a good work. Entrustment to Christ is a simple act of casting all of our burdens on Him. He can then give us His rest. This rest can be received immediately, even prior to performing good works; therefore, in this sense, justification or righteousness is by faith.
Well said!
Ephesians 2:8-9
True enough, but this article isn’t about faith vs works. It’s about the nature of justification.
https://pdf.cgg.org/Berean6757NKJVPhilippians-2-12-13.pdf
If there’s anything from this article you want to discuss, let me know.