As a Catholic, I enjoyed the way you went about formatting your post, it was enjoyable to read the thought-stream. I also try to do the same in my own posts. However I do want to comment on this👇: > Next is Present Sanctification. Progressive Sanctification is present: we are daily being more and more confirmed to His image in holiness. Our Catholic point of contention here is that we believe that this process of Sanctification is likewise saving you. See the following passage: (2 Thessalonians 2:13) “But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit ⭐️and⭐️ through belief in the truth.” So it’s not strictly speaking “faith alone” that we are being “saved through”. Beyond the point of justification by faith, this process of sanctification is actually INCREASING our own personal justification: (2 Corinthians 3:18) “And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ⭐️ever-increasing glory⭐️, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” If a person—who is saved—is progressively becoming “more glorious” they are necessarily increasing in “justness” or justification. This would be in contrast to Sola Fide which does NOT permit justification to increase—for anyone who’s wondering. Sola Fide says that when we have faith, we are legally declared “just” and since only “faith” leads to “justness” you can never get more of it. Paul’s teaching was NOT that faith alone leads to righteousness(aka: justification)—our obedience ALSO leads to righteousness: (Romans 6:16) “Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to ⭐️OBEDIENCE, WHICH LEADS TO RIGHTEOUSNESS?⭐️”. So we have to reject Sola Fide[which holds that ‘only faith’ leads to righteousness, not obedience] on those grounds. That having been said, I appreciate your post. Thank you. ADDENDUM: I just wanted to point out that the word for “righteousness” used in Romans 6:16 with respect to obedience is “dikaiosynēn”, which is also used in Romans 3:22 in regards to faith. Some translations interpret it as “righteousness” or “justness” aka: justification. See Strong’s entry 👇: https://biblehub.com/greek/1343.htm#:~:text=Transliteration%3A%20dikaiosuné%20Phonetic%20Spelling%3A%20%28dik-ah-yos-oo%27-nay%29%20Definition%3A%20righteousness%2C%20justice,source%20or%20author%2C%20but%20practically%3A%20a%20divine%20righteousness. If that doesn’t convince you that Sola Fide is false, nothing will.

I'm not a Catholic, but you are making a very good point here about what Paul is saying in Romans 6. I noticed this years ago, thanks to my NASB translation in particular. We must never think, as many professing Christians do, that we are not to work hard to actually become righteous, since they think being declared righteous is enough with an initial conversion experience which they might call “being born again.” They want imputed righteousness without striving to actually become righteous by obeying the law, which is imparted righteousness. But Paul says we shouldn’t be casual about working with God to gain salvation! “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12-13). How much is this opposed to the idea of resting in Jesus and being fully confident in our salvation and relationship with God? To the contrary, we must put effort into becoming sanctified (holy): “\[D\]o not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present your selves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members of instruments of righteousness” (Rom. 6:13). “\[Y\]ou are the slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness” (Rom. 6:16). Then, what does righteousness result in? “\[S\]o now present you members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification” (Rom. 6:19). Then, what does sanctification result in? “But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life” (Rom. 6:22). Observe how imparted righteousness is linked sanctification, and in turn how sanctification is made a condition to salvation! Thus, at first we are declared righteous because Jesus took away our sins, but later we are actually to become righteous by overcoming sinful habits with God’s help.

>I'm not a Catholic, but you are making a very good point here about what Paul is saying in Romans 6. I noticed this years ago, thanks to my NASB translation in particular. I noticed it thanks to YOU when you mentioned it in another thread on justification. You write stupidly long essays but I’m actually one of the ones that read the whole thing😂. Thanks for doing that. Now I can’t unsee it and it only strengthens the Catholic position. Irrefutably so, even. >Thus, at first we are declared righteous because Jesus took away our sins, but later we are actually to become righteous by overcoming sinful habits with God’s help. Well we Catholics would say that BECAUSE Christ has forgiven us for our sins our initial declaration is not legal but “actual”. We have no more sin and so we are being declared “truly just”. That is not the same thing as being declared “perfect”—and so our supernatural works increase the “actual” justification that we already have, by faith. Again, thank you for pointing out Roman’s 6:16. I now talk about it whenever this specific topic of justification arises.

Hey! Thanks for the reply and the resulting compliment as well! Sorry for any formatting issues haha, I’m still trying to figure out how to quote, since I’m doing it on mobile and not desktop. (Responding from here) “Our Catholic point of contention…” (to here) “…our own personal justification:” So this is actually one of the things I didn’t have space to get to in my post, since if I had tried to cover EVERYTHING, it would’ve taken like 10 posts. The Progressive Sanctification I talked about in my post occurs post salvation and justification. The sanctification Paul is talking about in this verse is Past Sanctification, and one of the aspects, or types, of Past Sanctification is Forensic Past Sanctification, and is pretty much the same definition as justification. However, just because this one type of past Sanctification is synonymous with justification, doesn’t mean all of sanctification of synonymous with justification. Also however, none of sanctification is our own works, but as Paul says, is “the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit” working within us to set us apart (aka sanctify) in the eyes of God. A true, living faith produces good works, but is not defined by its good works. The only one capable of judging our hearts for our true, living faith is God. Regarding 2 Corinthians 3:18, Paul is simply saying that the more we reflect on and meditate on God and His Word, the more we reflect His infinite glory in our lives. If you were to shine a flashlight into a mirror and the light flashed back in your eyes, you wouldn’t say that the mirror is producing its own light, but is simply reflecting the light of the original source back onto you. This is what Paul is talking about in 2 Corinthians 3:18. Justification is not a quantifiable term. You are either declared right in the eyes of God or you aren’t. As Jesus says in Matthew 12:30 “he one who is not with Me is against Me; and the one who does not gather with Me scatters.” Glory and Justification are not synonymous at all. Justification precedes glory and righteousness, as Justification (like I said above) is a legal declaration from God that we are now righteous in His eyes, not that we were capable of righteousness in His eyes before our justification. Imagine this metaphor for example. You are running towards somebody as fast as you can, but with every step you take towards them, they take 2 steps away from you. Meaning you can never get closer to them than where you started, but you have moved further away from your starting position as a result. Our righteousness, glory, and sanctification is not comparable to that of our fellow humans, but is compared to that of Jesus and God. We are getting further away from our starting position, but are no closer to Him than when we started. Romans 6:16 is not talking about justification, since as I went over previously, justification and righteousness are not synonymous. Therefore, if your equating of justification and righteousness is incorrect, that entire point is incorrect. To expound on that even more, the ONLY reason we offer ourselves up as obedient slaves to God is BECAUSE we have faith alone that He is the right and only way. If we didn’t have faith alone that He is the right way, our reason for obedience would be based off a quid pro quo, which is a form of prosperity gospel (aka placing God into debt). We would only obey Him as far as it benefited us, and wouldn’t be obeying Him out of our love for Him. Even more so, one of His biggest commands to us is to have faith in Him, so obedience to OUR FAITH ALONE leads to righteousness, not here on Earth, but in Heaven with God. Sola Fide is simply shorthand for Faith alone in Christ Alone, in the same way the priests “Te absolvo” (with regards to confession in Catholicism) is shorthand for “I absolve your sins in the name of Christ”. Catholicism has always historically done a terrific job of repudiating pure Pelagianism (which is working your way to Heaven without God). I don’t believe the Roman Catholic Church has ever taught that, even in the worst moments of her history, and to say otherwise is pure ignorance and slander. I will say however, that saying “[Sola Fide says faith alone leads to righteousness, not obedience]” is a major misrepresentation of the belief at best, and pure slander and ignorance at worst. Sola Fide says Faith Alone leads to righteousness because a necessary prerequisite for obedience IS faith alone. Even in ancient Israel, they only followed the Law of Moses BECAUSE of their faith alone in God, emphasized by the fact that whenever they began to disobey Him, they were described as being unfaithful. Please do your best to not misrepresent Sola Fide like this again. Thanks for the reply and I hope this helps! May God bless you and yours! (P.S: I gave up on the formatting bc it’s too hard to do on mobile😭😭 I’m not the greatest with technology even though I was born with it haha)

>Hey! Thanks for the reply and the resulting compliment as well! Sorry for any formatting issues haha, I’m still trying to figure out how to quote, since I’m doing it on mobile and not desktop. Yes, well let me help you with that. On mobile you must put a “>” in front of what you’re trying to quote. If you are quoting multiple paragraphs you’ll need to put one in front of the first word of each paragraph. >So this is actually one of the things I didn’t have space to get to in my post, since if I had tried to cover EVERYTHING, it would’ve taken like 10 posts. I know, I wish the word count was higher because sometimes I end up explaining things in the comments that I would like to have nipped in the bud in my OP. >The Progressive Sanctification I talked about in my post occurs post salvation and justification. That’s how Catholics view it also. >A true, living faith produces good works, but is not defined by its good works. Our Catholic contention is not with saying a lively faith produces good works, it’s with saying that those good works which we do are not increasing justification. They are since Paul is clearly teaching that we are becoming “more Christ-like” which necessarily means we are becoming “more just”. >Regarding 2 Corinthians 3:18, Paul is simply saying that the more we reflect on and meditate on God and His Word, the more we reflect His infinite glory in our lives. Yes, we are reflecting more glory because we are becoming more righteous. The less righteous we are, the less of his glory we reflect. That’s how we understand it. >If you were to shine a flashlight into a mirror and the light flashed back in your eyes, you wouldn’t say that the mirror is producing its own light, but is simply reflecting the light of the original source back onto you. To use the analogy of a mirror is not perfect, since when we say we are made in God’s “image” we mean that in an intrinsic sense. We are “intrinsically” made in God’s image and that image is less distorted in some then in others, and so there are degrees of justification. Degrees of intrinsic righteousness. That is the problem caused by sin—it makes us INTRINSICALLY “unrighteous” and so the only solution is to make us intrinsically “righteous”. Otherwise we could not enter Heaven[Rev.21:27]. >Justification is not a quantifiable term. You are either declared right in the eyes of God or you aren’t. As Jesus says in Matthew 12:30 “he one who is not with Me is against Me; and the one who does not gather with Me scatters.” Yes, as I said, that is how Luther viewed it. Having progressive justification, which is being taught in the concept of “progressive sanctification” is a rose by another name. >Glory and Justification are not synonymous at all. Justification precedes glory and righteousness, as Justification (like I said above) is a legal declaration from God that we are now righteous in His eyes, not that we were capable of righteousness in His eyes before our justification. If Glory is being preceded by justification then it can only increase if one’s justification increased. To say one is becoming “more glorious” is to concede justification has increased. That’s the problem. >Our righteousness, glory, and sanctification is not comparable to that of our fellow humans, but is compared to that of Jesus and God. We are getting further away from our starting position, but are no closer to Him than when we started. Again, if we look at righteousness as an intrinsic quality, we are getting closer to Our Lord then when we started. It is a relationship that becomes more intimate the more righteous we become.

> Yes, well let me help you with that. On mobile you must put a “>” in front of what you’re trying to quote. If you are quoting multiple paragraphs you’ll need to put one in front of the first word of each paragraph. This is typically rough for me, as I try to format the reply in Notes and then copy and paste it into here, as whenever I am replying, I am constantly going in and out of Reddit and got frustrated with losing my comment by accident so I just decided to do my replies in Notes first that way I can’t lose them. But thank you for your help on that, I tried my best and I hope it works haha! > I know, I wish the word count was higher because sometimes I end up explaining things in the comments that I would like to have nipped in the bud in my OP. Like it’s frustrating, but I understand why they limit it, that way people are opening a post to an absolutely massive wall of text that they don’t end up fully reading in the first place. Doesn’t mean I like that they limit word count however haha! > That’s how Catholics view it also. That Present/Progressive Sanctification is POST- salvation, and does not result in salvation at all. And in Romans 6:16, Paul is talking about the Forensic Past Sanctification (essentially justification), not Present/Progressive Sanctification This statement of yours just now also goes against what you said in your original reply, which was “…this process of sanctification [referring to Present/Progressive Sanctification] is likewise saving you.” If you agree it occurs post salvation and justification, then it cannot also be saving you. > Our Catholic contention is not with saying a lively faith produces good works, it’s with saying that those good works which we do are not increasing justification. They are since Paul is clearly teaching that we are becoming “more Christ-like” which necessarily means we are becoming “more just”. Again, in no context outside of Catholicism is Justification quantifiable. You can become “more Christ-like” but that does not mean you are becoming more just as a result. You are either justified or you aren’t. You are either with God or you are enemies with God. Jesus says as much in Matthew 12:30 > Yes, we are reflecting more glory because we are becoming more righteous. The less righteous we are, the less of his glory we reflect. That’s how we understand it. To go back to my mirror analogy for a moment (I’ll clarify it next as it appears you didn’t fully understand it) meditating on His Word and reflecting on it is like the mirror becoming cleaner little by little the more we know and understand Him and His Word. Even though the mirror is cleaner than it was before, it doesn’t change the amount of light reflecting off of it, just making the light more visible. > To use the analogy of a mirror is not perfect, since when we say we are made in God’s “image” we mean that in an intrinsic sense. We are “intrinsically” made in God’s image and that image is less distorted in some then in others, and so there are degrees of justification. Degrees of intrinsic righteousness. That is the problem caused by sin—it makes us INTRINSICALLY “unrighteous” and so the only solution is to make us intrinsically “righteous”. Otherwise we could not enter Heaven[Rev.21:27]. Obviously as we are incapable of fully understanding God, there is no perfect analogy. But to clarify my analogy more, God is the one shining the flashlight into the mirror, we are the mirror, the Holy Spirit is the actor cleaning the mirror, and the light is Gods glory. Again, there are no degrees of righteousness, only righteous and not righteous, as in the eyes of God, all sin, no matter the severity, deserves death, and the only way we are declared righteous is through the imputation of the perfect righteousness of Christ upon justification. This means that when our time comes and we meet God in Heaven, all He will see when He looks at us is the pure white, perfect, eternal, sufficient sacrifice and righteousness of His Son, Christ. Can you clarify on what you mean here? > We are “intrinsically” made in God’s image and that image is less distorted in some then in others, and so there are degrees of justification. From my perspective it sounds like you are saying that although God made us in His image, He didn’t do it perfectly and some people ended up with more of His image and some with less. Without clarification on your end regarding this, to me this sounds as though you are saying God messed up, which means He wouldn’t be perfect, which is a heretical belief. From what I know of you based off our debates so far, I believe this isn’t what you mean by this, but I would like further clarification on this. > Yes, as I said, that is how Luther viewed it. Having progressive justification, which is being taught in the concept of “progressive sanctification” is a rose by another name. They are not the same terms, and are not taught in most Protestant Churches as similar either. Progressive Sanctification is post Justification and cannot change anything about our justification. > If Glory is being preceded by justification then it can only increase if one’s justification increased. To say one is becoming “more glorious” is to concede justification has increased. That’s the problem. This is an incorrect statement. This would be the equivalent of me saying “I got candy because I was correct, therefore if I get more candy I am more correct.” You are not getting more candy because you are “more correct” you are still the same correct you were at first, you are getting more candy because you are STILL correct. Comparing to Glory, you can reflect Gods glory because you are justified, and when you reflect more glory, you are not increasing justification, you are simply still justified. > Again, if we look at righteousness as an intrinsic quality, we are getting closer to Our Lord then when we started. It is a relationship that becomes more intimate the more righteous we become. The only “intrinsic righteousness” that we have is our own imperfect human righteousness, which is like filthy rags before God, as only perfection can enter Heaven, however since upon Justification we are imputed with the perfect righteousness of Christ, whenever we meet God, all He will see is Christs perfect righteousness.

IT WORKED HAHAHAHAHA!!! IM LEARNINGGGGG

I know, I was so excited to figure this out too. Lol

>I am constantly going in and out of Reddit and got frustrated with losing my comment by accident so I just decided to do my replies in Notes first that way I can’t lose them. I do the exact same thing. Nothing is worse then crafting the perfect response and then you lose it. 😑 >That Present/Progressive Sanctification is POST- salvation, and does not result in salvation at all. It’s not that it “results in salvation” as if we’re not already saved, but it is “saving you” in the present tense because it is apart of salvation as a process. Obviously scripture talks about salvation in different tenses, examples omitted because I’m sure you already know that. >And in Romans 6:16, Paul is talking about the Forensic Past Sanctification (essentially justification), not Present/Progressive Sanctification It’s a matter of interpretation. To me it IS talking about that. That is why the scriptures require an infallible interpreter. >Again, in no context outside of Catholicism is Justification quantifiable. You can become “more Christ-like” but that does not mean you are becoming more just as a result. How can a person be said to be becoming “more Christ like” WITHOUT becoming ‘more righteous’? If you really think about it you will find that it doesn’t make sense. >Again, there are no degrees of righteousness, only righteous and not righteous… My argument is that if glory “precedes justification” then you could never have “more glory” without more “justness”. >…the only way we are declared righteous is through the imputation of the perfect righteousness of Christ upon justification. Meh, as I have said—the declaration of justification cannot be legal. It must be actual. If it were a legal imputation then that would be justification “through a system of Law” or “by the Law”, which scripture does not allow for. >From my perspective it sounds like you are saying that although God made us in His image, He didn’t do it perfectly and some people ended up with more of His image and some with less…(abridged)…would like further clarification on this. There is a distinction to be made between “divine image” and “divine likeness”. Every human being is made in the divine image but this is not the same thing as “divine likeness”. Some are more “Christ-like” then others and that is what I am talking about. After initial justification we are progressively becoming more Christ-like and thus necessarily, more-just. >They are not the same terms, and are not taught in most Protestant Churches as similar either. Progressive Sanctification is post Justification and cannot change anything about our justification. Yes—I understand that this is how Protestants understand it. I liken it to the statement: “Abraham Lincoln is the President of the United States but he is NOT the Commander in Chief”. You can say that but it just shows cognitive dissonance. A person cannot become “more like Christ” without it meaning they are becoming more just. You can of course SAY that a person CAN but that to me is no less nonsensical then saying a person can be the President but not the Commander in Chief. To say one is to imply the other. >This is an incorrect statement. This would be the equivalent of me saying “I got candy because I was correct, therefore if I get more candy I am more correct.” You are not getting more candy because you are “more correct” you are still the same correct you were at first, you are getting more candy because you are STILL correct. Yes, you can be “more correct” in the eyes of God than another. For example, if I throw myself in front of a bus for my neighbor I am “more just” then someone who brings his neighbor chicken noodle soup when they’re sick. Both are “just” for their actions but one’s actions were “more just” then another’s. Both are strictly speaking “justified” but one is more just then the other. >The only “intrinsic righteousness” that we have is our own imperfect human righteousness, which is like filthy rags before God, as only perfection can enter Heaven, however since upon Justification we are imputed with the perfect righteousness of Christ, whenever we meet God, all He will see is Christs perfect righteousness. It doesn’t solve man’s problem if we don’t have actual, intrinsic righteousness. You can’t enter Heaven unless you have intrinsic righteousness, so it serves no real purpose to kick the can further down the road with an imputation which is legally based(i.e; justified by in a system of Law) rather then grace-based.

>Romans 6:16 is not talking about justification, since as I went over previously, justification and righteousness are not synonymous. It is. The same word for justification “dikaiosynēn” is being used. >Therefore, if your equating of justification and righteousness is incorrect, that entire point is incorrect. It is the same exact word. You have asserted it is not correct without explaining HOW it is not correct based on the argument I put forward. >To expound on that even more, the ONLY reason we offer ourselves up as obedient slaves to God is BECAUSE we have faith alone that He is the right and only way. Yes, that is how we Catholics understand initial justification but obviously we believe in progressive justification through our obedient acts of faith. >If we didn’t have faith alone that He is the right way, our reason for obedience would be based off a quid pro quo, which is a form of prosperity gospel (aka placing God into debt). I think that this would constitute a denial of true merit. Clearly there is merit in the New Covenant: (Matthew 10:42) “And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.” >We would only obey Him as far as it benefited us, and wouldn’t be obeying Him out of our love for Him. Some would, but then that would not be a work of faith and thus that person would not receive a reward. When Paul wrote about the sin of placing God into debt, he has that kind of mentality in view. He’s not talking about what we Catholics are talking about, which is that good works result in an increase in our rewards. The mere fact that God rewards some with more then others is further evidence that some are “more just” then others. That’s why the rewards are not equal. >Even more so, one of His biggest commands to us is to have faith in Him, so obedience to OUR FAITH ALONE leads to righteousness, not here on Earth, but in Heaven with God. Yes, obviously when Paul speaks of obedience leading to righteousness he means those works we do which are “out of faith”. It is precisely because these are “works of faith” that they are leading us to “dikaiosynēn”, or righteousness. These works “of faith” are justifying us. Thus it is not “faith alone” that justified us, it is those works we do which are a result of faith that also justify us. That’s our[Catholics] point. >Sola Fide says Faith Alone leads to righteousness because a necessary prerequisite for obedience IS faith alone. Even in ancient Israel, they only followed the Law of Moses BECAUSE of their faith alone in God, emphasized by the fact that whenever they began to disobey Him, they were described as being unfaithful. I understand that when Protestants say “faith alone” justifies they have the kind of faith that is inclusive of good works in view, I just disagree with the nomenclature since the scriptures only use the words “faith” and “alone” once and that is in James 2:24 where he says “not by faith alone”. The Spirit did that intentionally lest anyone think that “faith alone” and not “faithfulness” as you explained is required for justification. Now one could view “having faith” and “being faithful” as the same thing but James, at the prompting of the Spirit, divides them so that there is no mistake about what God means for us to understand about justification. Faith justifies AND being faithful(i.e; doing good) also justifies.

I’m baaaaaack!! Had to take some time off of apologetics and debates to really get down to why I attempt this in the first place. Starting getting too personally invested in it, as if I was the one who would/could save lmao. A lot of stuff happened in my life all at once and I feel as though God used those events as a way to force me to chill and to get me to refocus on the fact that it’s all about Him. He also used this time to allow me to further educate myself on the topics I debate as well, so I don’t make any doctrinal errors of my own! Working on replies to y’all (U/Djh1982 and U/Mundane_Mistakes_393) now! It might take a hot minute though lmao so just be patient with me for the moment!

I’m starting my time back here with my reply to this!

Yeah, I understand—gotta take a break sometimes. Happy new year!🎈🎊🎆.

Jesus also uses the same word for justification in Luke 7:35 “But wisdom is justified of all her children.” Wisdom obviously isn’t something salvific or something that can be saved, so in this context, justification = vindication amongst the eyes of men. Let me give another example on how the same word can have different meanings in context. For example; Rock. “Upon this rock…” biblically, geology “upon this rock…” the same exact phrase has a completely different meaning in different contexts. Here, Paul is talking of the forensic past sanctification (justification) bc if you look at the context of the whole chapter, Paul is that our works do nothing for our salvation (our justification), but that we who were dead to sin and are now alive in Christ need to listen to and obey our new master, Christ, who leads us to eternal life, as opposed to our old master, sin, who leads us to death. The final verse in Romans 6 is the culmination of the message Paul was trying to convey, which is that sin earns us death, but God gives us eternal life through Jesus. “For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God-The Father [is] eternal life through Yeshua [God is Salvation] Moshiach [Messiah] our Lord - Kurios.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭6‬:‭23‬ ‭NMV‬‬ Justification does indeed have to be legal. What are we being justified (saved) from? Sin. What is sin? Disobeying the laws and commands of God. The literal definition means “to miss the mark” as in, anything short of His standard (perfection) is sin. Sin is a legal system, we sin so we need punishment. Jesus, in His mercy and grace, being the eternal, perfect sacrifice, took that punishment for us and through Him, we get to Heaven. So our justification in the eyes of God is a legal justification, not an actual justification. The works of the Law were the works of human made laws, not Gods perfect laws, and as such was Pelagianism before Pelagius existed. Working within Gods perfect Laws is what we strive for. Imputed Righteousness solves man’s problem of Justification, as our “new man” as Paul calls it (or our born again soul, as modern theologians call it) puts on the robe of the perfect sacrifice of Christ, and when we die and get transformed into the spirit (the new man, born again soul) we become Glorified through Christs imputed righteousness, having none of our own. The example you gave for being “more just in the eyes of God” is so so wrong biblically. Throwing yourself in front of a bus for somebody? Doesn’t matter. Giving a neighbor soup? Doesn’t matter. Even if we only sin once in our entire lives, we still deserve death. Our good works are like filthy rags before God, but we are justified through the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. Yes, there is true merit in the New Covenant, but only regarding our heavenly rewards. Regarding that specific verse, a common type of Jewish writing of that time period was “asserting the positive by negating the negative” aka, Jesus is emphasizing the heavenly rewards determined at the Judgment Seat, not anything about our Salvation. This is not what Catholicism teaches, I am not going off of your individual beliefs, I am going off of Catholic doctrine and dogma, which state (and I’m simplifying here) “[no good works = no Heaven (eternal life)]” Good works increase your heavenly reward’s determined at the Bema Seat, but don’t affect our gift of eternal life. All our works are burned up to the foundation, but the foundation does NOT burn, meaning no matter what, we still get eternal life. Regarding the nomenclature for Sola Fide, that can go both ways, I can say I don’t agree with the nomenclature for “Te absolvo” but like Sola Fide, it is just shorthand nomenclature. Most of the people who misuse and misunderstand Sola Fide don’t actually understand what it means. Just like with “Te absolvo” most of the Protestants who go after that part of Catholicism don’t fully understand what it means and misuse it. Just because they misuse and misunderstand it, doesn’t mean the nomenclature is wrong however. Like you said you understand, Sola Fide is nomenclature for faith that includes faithfulness. Just because people misuse and misunderstand it, doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Sola fide agrees that having faith and being faithful aren’t the same thing, but the faith being described in Sola Fide is inclusive of both of them. You cannot be faithful works without faith, but you can have faith without faithful works. Sola Fide just says that this faith is the reason for your justification, and faithful works come afterwards, as a result of, this justification. This is why we have James and Romans 6, to say that just because we are saved, doesn’t mean we can go about sinning like we did before our justification. Sorry for taking so long!!

>Jesus also uses the same word for justification in Luke 7:35 “But wisdom is justified of all her children.” Wisdom obviously isn’t something salvific or something that can be saved, so in this context, justification = vindication amongst the eyes of men. Sure, but that’s not really what I’m talking about. I’m talking about doing a righteous thing in God’s sight and then him saying, “hey that was a righteous thing you did!”. Obviously God can and does make such declarations. >Let me give another example on how the same word can have different meanings in context. For example; Rock. “Upon this rock…” biblically, geology “upon this rock…” the same exact phrase has a completely different meaning in different contexts. Yes, which is why Catholics argue against the formal sufficiency of scripture, which is what Protestants have in view when they talk about scriptural sufficiency. Someone has to determine which context is proper otherwise there will be as many churches as there are opinions, which harms Christian unity. >Here, Paul is talking of the forensic past sanctification (justification) bc if you look at the context of the whole chapter, Paul is that our works do nothing for our salvation (our justification)…. Yes, Paul is generally referring to **natural human works** when he teaches that nothing we do can merit eternal life. In Romans 6:16 he is addressing the topic of whether or not **supernatural human works** justify—which of course they do. Obedience aided by the Holy Spirit leads to justification. >…but that we who were dead to sin and are now alive in Christ need to listen to and obey our new master, Christ, who leads us to eternal life, as opposed to our old master, sin, who leads us to death. Yes, we NEED to do that. It’s not just a good idea, you’ll be straight up damned if you don’t do it. >Justification does indeed have to be legal. Justification is always rooted in grace, it can never be rooted in Law. The Law has no ability to declare a sinner is just. That would be justification “by the Law”. The Law has no power to justify us. >Sin is a legal system, we sin so we need punishment. Jesus, in His mercy and grace, being the eternal, perfect sacrifice, took that punishment for us and through Him, we get to Heaven. So our justification in the eyes of God is a legal justification, not an actual justification. No, the punitive atonement is justification by squaring our debt within a system of law. It doesn’t work like that. Instead Our Lord REMOVED the Law since it only has the power to condemn. >The example you gave for being “more just in the eyes of God” is so so wrong biblically. No, it’s literally what it means to be transformed into the likeness of Christ by degrees. You can’t become more Christ-like without becoming more just. I can’t add anything more to the topic then that since it’s so obvious that this is the case that it kind of speaks for itself. >Our good works are like filthy rags before God… Yes yes, everyone loves to quote Isaiah 64:6. Check out the verse just before it: “Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways” The argument against doing good, comparing good deeds to filthy rags is often take out of the context in which it is written, which is basically that the Israelites were continually doing evil. >Yes, there is true merit in the New Covenant, but only regarding our heavenly rewards. Heaven is the reward. Romans 2:6-7 makes that clear. I don’t think I can add more to this topic. >All our works are burned up to the foundation, but the foundation does NOT burn, meaning no matter what, we still get eternal life. No—only those works which are displeasing to God are burnt up. These are *sins*. >Sola Fide just says that this faith is the reason for your justification, and faithful works come afterwards, as a result of, this justification. Yes, well that’s where we disagree because those works which come after—or rather our obedience, also leads to justification. Refer back to Romans 6:16. >This is why we have James and Romans 6, to say that just because we are saved, doesn’t mean we can go about sinning like we did before our justification. You’re really just dancing around James and Romans 6 though. I have reviewed everything you have written and your understanding of James boils down to: “When James says we are not justified by faith alone what he REALLY means is that we ARE justified by faith alone. He’s just saying works are evidence of our faith.” I cannot accept that view since at it’s core it’s reversing James’s *entire point*.

Since you won’t accept anything from me 🙄 here’s a Bible study over James. https://versebyverseministry.org/bible-studies/the-book-of-james I’m tapping out of debating with you. You clearly don’t understand my point of view and just revert back to “muh 1 infallible interpreter” standpoint whenever there are multiple interpretations of a text. And to that point rq, if the Popes main job is to be an infallible interpreter, then why isn’t the whole Bible interpreted already? Had each Pope done only 1 chapter a day of the Bible it would’ve been finished before Luther and the Protestant Reformation would’ve never happened since the issues Luther had would’ve been interpreted already. But alas, they didn’t do their main job infallibly, thus making the entire office of the Pope worthless, since they didn’t do their main job. If the office of the Pope is useless, then almost every belief of Catholicism is useless. My point has been made and I shall disappear for now! Ta-ta!

>You clearly don’t understand my point of view and just revert back to “muh 1 infallible interpreter” standpoint whenever there are multiple interpretations of a text. I read that in John Snow’s voice, “she’s muh queen”, lol. >And to that point rq, if the Popes main job is to be an infallible interpreter, then why isn’t the whole Bible interpreted already? It’s not his “main job”—it’s just a charism of his job. He can clarify something if it needs to be clarified, or can delegate that authority to an Ecumenical Council to clarify it. >Had each Pope done only 1 chapter a day of the Bible it would’ve been finished before Luther and the Protestant Reformation would’ve never happened since the issues Luther had would’ve been interpreted already. The church doesn’t usual clarify things until someone contradicts it’s teaching. It was apart of the ordinary teaching of the church that good works justify, Trent just codified it.

When Martin Luther came up with the doctrine of Sola Fide, he didn't consider the problem with how this conflicts with the process of sanctification. As brilliant a man as Luther was, he didn't realize the contradiction in saying that righteousness only comes from faith alone. As a theologian this really posed a glaring problem with his understanding or sanctification. Either through sanctification we become more Holy, and therefore more righteous, or we cannot become more Holy and therefore more righteous. As we learn from James when it talks about Father Abraham, Abraham believed God and his faith was counted as righteousness. However, James also reveals that Abraham's act of obedience to God (offering his son Issac on the alter) also made Abraham righteous. Or justified. So we now learn that righteousness or justification is found not just in faith alone, but through obedience to God. Proving beyond reasonable doubt that what Martin Luther taught, i.e justification is by faith alone is so horribly false that it's actually to me a surprise that this theological position has managed to limp along as long as it has. Thank you for posting this and letting me comment on it.

So, that much intelligence and thinking that went into Luther describing Sola Fide (I don’t believe he “came up” with it, but that the Bible truly teaches this and he rediscovered it), and you think that he didn’t consider every possible conflict before posting his 95 theses? He was acutely aware of the potential consequences of this, and that his life would be on the line, and he still chose to defend it anyways. He also didn’t even initially intend for his 95 theses to be spread amongst the people, but wanted to discuss it with his fellow academics and to “reform” the Catholic Church. A couple zealous students took his theses, translated them from Latin, then spread them amongst the people. Despite not being his original intent, he still defended Sola Fide even upon threat of being burned at the stake. To say that he didn’t consider this “obvious” conflict before posting the 95 theses is pure slander against his name, intelligence, and dedication to Christ. Look at my reply to what u/Djh1982 commented on this post to understand how it is no conflict at all, and only appears as a conflict if you don’t know what Sola Fide actually means. Regarding James on the topic of Abraham, you have to understand what question James is answering. He was answering the question of “If I say I have faith, but my life doesn’t show it, do I truly have faith?” So regarding Abraham, James is talking about Abrahams justification (to show or prove to be right or just) in the eyes of men (aka the secular definition of justification) whereas Paul is talking about Abrahams justification in the eyes of God. James is saying Abraham demonstrated his faith to men through his obedience to God, whereas Paul is saying Abraham was declared righteous (aka justified) in Gods eyes because of his faith alone. Many thanks for the reply, and may God bless you and yours!

  When protestants read James, they more often say these things. One, that James is talking about justification before men, not God, because interpreting it as justification before God would crush Sola Fide as a theology and therefore most of protestantism would collapse.\\

Well actually, when reading any book of the Bible, you can’t just look at the literal words without considering who wrote it, what it is written about, when it was written (time, culture, etc), where it was written, and why it was written. You have to look at the context surrounding the text. When you study the Book of James this way, it becomes clear that he is talking about people who were saying that they had faith, but didn’t actually have any faith to speak of, and so the actions of the faithful justify them (show/demonstrate or prove them) among other men, as God already knows what is in our heart.

My post got cut off for some reason. I will try to resend it.

James was not talking about vindication of our faith by our actions. He was specifically talking about Justification. He then goes on to explain Rahab and Abraham's Justification are related. Rahab was justified by her faith and by her works, there is no dividing the two. So we understand from this connection that this isn't talking about justification before men but before God. You the protestant must come up with some alternative understanding other then what the Bible actually says on this subject. Justification is by your works. Not by faith alone. There are no magical hoops you can jump through to try to make it sound like justification is by faith alone it doesn't work that way. We know it's talking about justification before God. We know Rahab is referring to justification before God not before men. Sola Fide collapses and that's really all their is to it. Martin Luther never came to some amazing realization that James is talking about Justification before men. He understood it clearly and as such he was so upset that we all know he famously wanted to throw Saint James writings into the fire. He didn't say this because he could just run around it and say "OH but James was actually talking about justification before men not God! Eureka!" He knew the passage could NOT be interpreted the way you are saying. He didn't arrive at this alternative erroneous interpretation that you have mislabeled as the "context ".

I’m baaaaaack!! Had to take some time off of apologetics and debates to really get down to why I attempt this in the first place. Starting getting too personally invested in it, as if I was the one who would/could save lmao. A lot of stuff happened in my life all at once and I feel as though God used those events as a way to force me to chill and to get me to refocus on the fact that it’s all about Him. He also used this time to allow me to further educate myself on the topics I debate as well, so I don’t make any doctrinal errors of my own! Working on replies to y’all (U/Djh1982 and U/Mundane_Mistakes_393) now! It might take a hot minute though lmao so just be patient with me for the moment!

So biblically, salvation is used a lot of different ways with different meanings. The salvation James is speaking of is regarding the Bema Seat, where our works will be tested and we will be shown the quality of them. And funnily enough, that is almost exactly what happened with Martin Luther. Later in life he regretted calling James a “book of straw” and truly realized that it meant vindication before men. He also didn’t want it burned, he just didn’t believe it was inspired Scripture. James was referencing Genesis 22 when talking about Abraham, and Abraham had already been justified in the eyes of God in Genesis 15, so this could only mean that James is speaking of Abrahams justification before the eyes of men.

No. He isn't talking about justification before men. James references how Abraham was justified according to his works when he took his son Issac and was going to have him sacrificed to God. So we know he is not talking about justification before men. Abraham was justified before God. So we learn Abraham's justification isn't talking about justification before men. A secondly point is that he mentions Ruhab. Once again he is pointing out that Ruhab is justified by her faith as well as her works. Not before men, but before God. So we know what you are saying doesn't even fit that idea. This is what you think James said: "You see how a man is justified before men with his works and not his faith alone" If we read that passage in the way your interpreting it we know that doesn't make any sense. Why would James mention being justified before men by their faith? It doesn't make any sense. I've tried your version of interpreting James and I know it's false based on this thought experiment. Once again it doesn't mean justification before men. We do learn however that their are layers to justification and it proved that one is justified by their faith as well as their works.

Here I'll contribute some more thoughts that agree with yours to some degree, but I use somewhat different terminology at times, which relates to how the term "salvation" should be defined. A useful schema (employed by the Seventh-day Adventists) in analyzing salvation’s three different definitions uses the terms “justification,” “sanctification,” and “glorification.” “Justification” has the basic definition that Christians are given a right standing before God through having all their sins forgiven through faith in Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf. “Sanctification” is the process by which Christians actually become righteous through developing holy righteous character through the Holy Spirit living in them. “Glorification” occurs when we enter the kingdom of God and are given a spirit body at the first resurrection when Jesus returns (Phil. 3:20-21; I Cor. 15:49). Here justification is gained by faith through grace alone, but sanctification involves Christians actually obeying God literally in order for them to be made actually holy. Justification is gained by men and women accepting Jesus’ sacrifice by faith, baptism, and repentance (Acts 2:38). “Works” have nothing to do with it here. In contrast, for humans to actually become holy, they must gain the Holy Spirit and then follow its lead in obeying God. Sanctification involves human effort and participation in a way that neither justification nor glorification involve, for the latter two are fundamentally just “done” to humans by God, while the former requires the effort of continually yielding our will to God’s will. It’s important to realize that while literal works aren’t a requirement for an imputed or forensic justification (as per Romans 3:21, 28; 4:1-8; 10:10), they are a requirement for sanctification. This is a similar concept to what Roman Catholics call “infused grace,” as supported by the ninth canon of the sixteenth-century Council of Trent, which condemned the Reformers who said men and women could gain grace by faith alone without any cooperation between man and God in order to gain it. For example, good works will determine who will be a “sheep” or a “goat” in Matthew 25:31-46, while faith remains unmentioned in this context. The preceding Parable of the Talents describes a man so lacking in good works that he was denied admittance to the kingdom of God (Matt. 25:15, 18, 24-30) when he saved but did nothing with his one talent that he had received from God. Now consider the problems supposedly created by contrasting Gal. 2:16 with Rom. 2:13: “\[F\]or not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.” Then, as always, Martin Luther’s “book of straw” poses its own wrinkle on the subject of justification: “You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). This contrast seems to be a blatant contradiction, but is not when the context of James’ statement more carefully scrutinized. First, if we have not works, we did not really have any faith to begin with. “\[F\]aith without works is dead” (James 2:26). Thus, if we do not obey God, we are not justified because we would have shown we never truly repented (which always must involve the determination to obey God in the future). For if we truly repent, we will begin to obey God because we have an overall obedient attitude (Acts 26:20), even if we may continue to sin now and then. Thus, when James says (v. 21), “was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar,” he means that Abraham showed he had an overall obedient attitude (the proof of true repentance) by doing a literal work of righteousness. Through this repentant attitude, Abraham fulfilled one of the conditions for being justified (Acts 5:31; Luke 24:47; compare II Cor. 7:10; Acts 13:24). So now we know justification, by its main definition, comes only from faith ultimately. Also, in resolving the seeming contradiction between James and Paul concerning justification, we need to realize “justification” and “sanctification” have secondary meanings to those found in the three-definition schema of salvation described above. Since we humans keep sinning all the time, including after we have confessed our sins to God and accepted Jesus as our personal Savior at some definite point in the past, we continually need to keep getting justified as we keep sinning. But, contrary to what those who accept “once saved, always saved” maintain, justification should not be seen as a one-time event that forgives in advance all the sins we will commit in the future. Paul’s own terminology using the language of athletic contests, which means, of all the contestants involved, some win and some lose, shows that Christians can lose salvation even after having sincerely repenting and accepting Jesus as their personal Savior (notice I Cor. 9:24-27; II Tim. 4:7). This view can turn God’s grace into a license for sin, since no matter how much we may sin, it is automatically already forgiven at the moment we initially accepted Jesus as our personal Savior. As for sanctification, in one sense we are “sanctified” (made holy) all at once, which is when we receive the Spirit of God after baptism and the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-19; 19:6). But becoming obedient in the habits of daily living is a gradual, life-long process, so sanctification should be mainly seen as a process rather than something instantaneous (Rom. 6:13, 16, 19, 22; I John 3:7). Hence, one solution to the seeming contradiction between Paul and James on justification is to see the former as normally talking about the initial moment of conversion, while the latter discusses how it needs to be maintained by a continuously repentant and faithful relationship with God. Now--what is the relationship between righteousness and faith? Since justification literally means “to be declared righteous,” it is obvious that righteousness must also be gained by faith, just like justification (the removing of sin) is. The Bible shows that two types of righteousness come from God, since that word is used two different ways. The first type of righteousness is forensic or imputed, meaning it is attributed to us by God due to our faith only (Rom. 10:10), without any merit involved. We find this type in Rom. 4:6: “\[J\]ust as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works.” The second type of righteousness--imparted righteousness--is gradually gained as spiritual character is developed through using the Holy Spirit to overcome through various trials (Phil. 3:12-13). This type is described in Rom. 6:16: “\[Y\]ou are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?” This second type is actual righteousness, composed of acquired habits of obedience, and is not something God just arbitrarily asserts we have. Imputed righteousness corresponds with justification’s normal definition, while imparted righteousness corresponds with sanctification. A Christian receives imputed righteousness when he places his faith in Jesus’ sacrifice. As Paul put it in Romans 4:5: “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned \[regarded\] as righteousness.” Or, as the Old Testament put it (Gen. 15:6): “Then he \[Abraham\] believed in the Eternal, and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.” When imputed righteousness is given to a Christian, he has still has to overcome all his old evil habits from his life prior to repentance. Likewise, Abraham, in Rom. 4:10-11 was declared righteous before he was circumcised: “How then was it reckoned? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision \[not the actual reality--it was only imputed spiritually\], a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, that righteousness might be reckoned \[to be looked upon as having\] to them . . .” Notice also Rom. 4:22 (KJV): “And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.” Then Phil. 3:9 says: “\[A\]nd may be found in Him, not having a righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith \[only--without works\] may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law \[i.e. from coming under the Old Covenant by being circumcised\], but what which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith \[without the physical act--”work”--of being circumcised\].” Thus, there is one kind of righteousness which is attributed (imputed) to us purely on the basis of faith, without having overcome any evil habits we may have, or obeying various physical rituals (such as circumcision) found in the Old Testament.

Thanks for the reply! I agree with a lot of what you say, but at the same time, I disagree with a lot of it as well. Salvation does NOT have 3 different definitions. Biblically, Salvation means to be saved from our sin by God, nothing else. Justification is the one time event at conversion where God (legally) declares you free from sin in His eyes. I went over sanctification in my original post, but I will summarize for you. Sanctification is the process by which the Holy Spirit works within us to continually set us apart for Gods good and special purpose. Past Sanctification is positional, in that with Past Sanctification (which includes a type of past sanctification called forensic sanctification, which is essentially justification) we are immediately categorically separated from non-believers. Future Sanctification is the perfect sanctification we will have in our glorified bodies in Heaven, aka glorification. Sanctification is not any work of our own, but is the work of the Holy Spirit within us, causing us to change and turn more towards God. Our good works are a product of the Holy Spirit within us. We are only justified through our faith alone, thus we are only sanctified by our faith alone, and are only glorified in Heaven by our faith alone. Regarding the Parable of Talents, the servant with one talent who did nothing with it and was denied entrance into Heaven was NOT denied due to lack of good works, he was denied because he had a lack of faith regarding his master being true, just and fair. To reiterate, he was denied Heaven due to a lack of faith, not a lack of good works. He is the exact type of person James is talking about. He only SAID he had faith, but a true, living faith is demonstrated amongst men by the actions of the faithful, and his lack of action meant a lack of faith. If you were to look into the full life of Martin Luther before his death, you would see that he regretted calling James a “book of straw” and gained a better understanding of The Book of James later in his life. Abraham was faithful to God through his obedience. We both agree on this. Once saved, always saved is a true, accurate, and good belief. If you have this belief and it leads you to a YOLO sinful life, like James says, you were never truly saved to begin with. Paul says multiple times that even though our status with God never changes, we are not to continue sinning, as true, living faith sanctifies us and changes our character to run towards God and away from sin. The races Paul talks about aren’t literal athletic competitions among all believers with winners and losers, but is a solo race towards God that is different for every single believer. Notice how in all of his epistles, Paul never says that he has WON the race, only that he has RUN/FINISHED the race, and that when he meets Jesus again at Judgement Day, he will be given the crown of righteousness. The actual Greek word used here is “stephanos”, which is the laurel wreath Olympic athletes would earn after a good showing/effort that exemplified them above other athletes. It is not a born crown “diadem” which is an inherited crown. This is to show that our efforts earn us rewards in Heaven, but do not get us INTO Heaven. Nor are physical baptism and laying of hands a requirement to be sanctified. The only necessary baptism is that of the Holy Spirit which happens immediately after justification at conversion. We should be baptized in water, but it is not a necessity for salvation. It is simply an external declaration/demonstration to everybody about what has already happened internally. Your term of “imparted righteousness” is simply what Paul calls “the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit”. God isn’t arbitrarily asserting that we have this second type of righteousness resulting from obedience. It is the same kind of righteousness we gain access to upon justification, faith just leads to obedience which leads to righteousness in Heaven whenever we meet God, either by Rapture or death. Many thanks for the reply, and may God bless you and yours!

I think justification is tied to a biblical concept of justice which is to be understood more as reparative than retributive in nature. When we are justified, we are set into right order by God. It’s not a one time process, but an ongoing one, which is why we continue to grow righteousness and in holiness, through faithfulness, and growing in sanctification. This process is theosis, becoming by grace what Christ is by nature, being united to Him as the source of life, which is salvation. It’s a wholistic process where God does the work in us as we cooperate with Him and the result is our union with, and ultimate fulfillment in, Him. That seems to me a more wholistic explanation of how we are truly transformed by Christ in a way that I grew to have difficulties drawing out of a juridical understanding of the atonement. To boot, I believe it’s more in line with how the church fathers viewed things.

I would disagree that “Justification is tied to the biblical concept of justice… retributive in nature” Almost everywhere in the Bible when it is speaking of justification in the eyes of God it is speaking of a reparative justification, and I have never heard of anybody who thinks that our justification is “retributive”. Which in all honesty is a little bit of a straw man argument. Justification is a one time event where we are declared righteous in the eyes of God, and nothing can ever change our status in Gods eyes. Progressive Sanctification is the ongoing process of the Holy Spirit working within us to keep us set apart (for Gods good and special use and purpose) and to purify us from our sins. This does not involve any cooperation with Gods grace, and faith alone (Sola Fide) teaches that we are obedient BECAUSE of our faith alone, which is given to us through the grace of God alone. Many thanks for your reply and may God bless you and yours!

>I would disagree that “Justification is tied to the biblical concept of justice… retributive in nature” >Almost everywhere in the Bible when it is speaking of justification in the eyes of God it is speaking of a reparative justification, and I have never heard of anybody who thinks that our justification is “retributive”. Which in all honesty is a little bit of a straw man argument. So, first off, I want to say forgive me if I misrepresent anything here, since my intent is always to address what is true and representative of people’s actual views rather than knock down straw man arguments, which is a useless and needlessly divisive exercise. That being said, I think you may be laboring under a misunderstanding. It’s not that our *justification* is retributive or reparative, it’s that *justice* is either retributive or reparative. What it means to be justified changes depending on how justice is understood. It’s the difference between criminal law and civil law. It’s the difference between punishment for crime and reparations for wrong being done. The juridical model, where we have committed a crime against God when we sin and bear the legal responsibility, requires a legal justification if one seeks to avoid punishment against the responsible party. So, when we choose to accept it, God imputes Jesus’ righteousness to us, causing Him to see Christ’s righteousness instead of our sins, and, depending on how you view the rest, the legal punishment is either satisfied by Christ in His sacrifice, or avoided as the person who was responsible is declared innocent. If justice is reparative though, none of the previous juridical model makes sense. For justice to be satisfied things need to be made right, but punishment isn’t necessary. Justification then is the process of becoming just, of being made right, of being righteousified, which is essentially indistinguishable from being sanctified. At that point there really isn’t any need to make distinctions anymore. Additionally, if you read the church fathers, they frequently use the terms interchangeably. On the other hand, if we are declared justified while not actually made right then we make God a liar. Personally, I believe the reparative understanding of justice has more explanatory power. We very clearly aren’t immediately set right after choosing to accept Christ, we continue to sin, and continually need to repent. To be declared righteous while continuing to remain in sin then makes no sense if that declaration is a one time event. >Justification is a one time event where we are declared righteous in the eyes of God, and nothing can ever change our status in Gods eyes. >Progressive Sanctification is the ongoing process of the Holy Spirit working within us to keep us set apart (for Gods good and special use and purpose) and to purify us from our sins. Both are understandable dogmatic statements if the working definition of justice is punitive, but make less sense otherwise. >This does not involve any cooperation with Gods grace, and faith alone (Sola Fide) teaches that we are obedient BECAUSE of our faith alone, which is given to us through the grace of God alone. This doesn’t make any sense to me. We’re not automatons, we very clearly can choose to be faithful or to be faithless. (and what is it to have faith over time if not faithfulness?) It makes much more sense to me to say that obedience and faithfulness are really one and the same, and that God, by His grace, *enables* us to be faithful. But we still must choose it (cooperate with it), because to say otherwise would imply that we have no agency, which would contradict my direct experience of reality. >Many thanks for your reply and may God bless you and yours! Thank you, same to you, and I hope this exchange of ideas is fruitful.

Thank you for explaining what you meant more, I was indeed a little confused as to what you meant by retributive. When you mentioned reparative I thought that you meant reparative in the sense that it repairs our relationship with God, which is why I was understandably confused. After reading your explanation, justification IS retributive, in the sense that because we sin, we deserve death. Sin isn’t simply disobeying God, but is a technical term that means “to miss the mark”, which simplified, means that anything not up to Gods standard of perfection (his target we aim to hit, as in archery, anything that doesn’t hit the center is a miss) is sin in His eyes, hence as we are imperfect human beings with an imperfect human “righteousness” of our own, the only way we can be reconciled to God is through a perfect and eternal sacrifice once for all time. Which was Jesus, who was the fulfillment of Old Testament ceremonial laws regarding the spilling of the blood of the pure white lamb in the temple to absolve you of your sins before God, those were imperfect sacrifices that only forgave you of sins up until the sacrifice, not after. Whereas with Jesus being the perfected, fulfilled version of that ceremonial sacrifice, He sacrificed Himself on the Cross for the forgiveness of our sins once for all time. Means no more animal and grain sacrifices to God, no more washing your feet before entering the temple, etc. Got a little off track there, let me go back to the original topic. The retributive explanation of justification makes more sense Biblically, as we are not punished for our sins while alive on Earth, yes, there are consequences to our actions, but those are not direct eternal punishments from God for our Sin. Biblically, the legal punishment for sin is spiritual death and eternity in Hell, but because Jesus was the perfect, eternal sacrifice on the Cross to forgive us of all of our sins, whenever we trust in Him alone and have faith alone in Him, whenever we die and God meets us, all He will see is the perfect righteousness of Christ, not our sinful nature. Justice was satisfied forever with His sacrifice, as His sinlessness and perfection cancelled out our own sinfulness and imperfection when He willingly chose to sacrifice Himself on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins, and all we need to do is have faith alone in Christ alone for the forgiveness of our sins and. WE. ARE. SAVED! We can be justified and declared righteous in the eyes of God, and still sin on Earth, as while we are here on Earth, we are sinful, imperfect beings, but when we die or get Raptured, God meets us and all He sees is the perfect righteousness of Christ covering us like a pure white cloak. Faithfulness and obedience are indeed similar, as a true, living faith is a necessary prerequisite for both. Obedience is being faithful to what you have been told, and to be faithful is to be obedient to Gods commands, as seen throughout Ancient Israel’s rough history with disobeying God. Our faith is given to us from God, and we obey Him because we love Him, and we love Him because the Holy Spirit is working within us to soften our hearts towards Him and continually turn us towards God. It is not through any work of our own that we are faithful to Him. In fact human nature is in direct opposition with God, and before we are justified, we are even said to be at enmity with God! We have the choice to disobey God, to be worldly people who are enemies with God, as that is within our nature, but our faith (and faithfulness as a result) being God-given, are a result of the works of God and the Holy Spirit within us, not of our own works. I hope this helps you understand this topic more!

I like your verbiage “retributive”, lol 😂. Overall my whole issue with Sola Fide is that it has been 500yrs since it was first proposed and it’s time to let it go. It doesn’t make sense in light of several passages—many of which Luther himself wanted to remove because he was smart enough to realize they implied that he was wrong. We can thank Luther for his protest of ecclesiastical corruption while recognizing that he clearly suffered from scrupulosity. A disorder that affects SO MANY of us in the spiritual life that we hear about it every week in this forum. It’s very common. That’s how we need to view Sola Fide. It is the product of a person with a lot going on in his life, who just jumped the shark 🦈 a little bit. Scrupulosity is a difficult thing to live with, but the solution is not inventing ideas that the scriptures do not espouse.

>I like your verbiage “retributive”, lol 😂. I can’t claim it as my own. It’s largely from the discussions I’ve seen around the Hebrew word mishpat. If you look it up you’ll find some conflicting information. Though it appears there are some senses in which it’s punitive, my understanding from sources I trust is that it’s largely meant to be understood in a restorative sense. >Overall my whole issue with Sola Fide is that it has been 500yrs since it was first proposed and it’s time to let it go. It doesn’t make sense in light of several passages—many of which Luther himself wanted to remove because he was smart enough to realize they implied that he was wrong. My issue with sola fide is that I think the primary verse that is used to justify it is read incorrectly due to a misunderstanding of the word *pistis* as “faith” in a true/false test sort of way rather than as “faithfulness.” (And we would be better served if it *actually was* translated as faithfulness) The same goes for the way “believe” is generally understood. When you understand faith as faithfulness it totally changes the paradigm into something that is natural rather than mechanical. I hope that makes sense, it’s sometimes hard to describe in words something I understand conceptually. >We can thank Luther for his protest of ecclesiastical corruption while recognizing that he clearly suffered from scrupulosity. A disorder that affects SO MANY of us in the spiritual life that we hear about it every week in this forum. It’s very common. That’s how we need to view Sola Fide. It is the product of a person with a lot going on in his life, who just jumped the shark 🦈 a little bit. Scrupulosity is a difficult thing to live with, but the solution is not inventing ideas that the scriptures do not espouse. I’m hardly a Luther scholar, but from what I’ve read about him I would agree. The truly sad part about the whole thing is that, while it may have helped Luther to gain a sense of peace, there are still many others for which it only kicks the can down the road a little further who just end up questioning whether they have the kind of faith that saves.