It's kind of wierd to see Orthodoxy viewed through the distorting glasses of a protestant world view.
The article makes much of a big deal about how Orthodoxy confuses justification and sanctification. These two words have become jargon words in the protestant tradition. But for the Greeks reading in the original language, justification is literally "made righteous" and sanctification is literally "made holy" or "set apart".
There's no compelling obvious reason why being made holy should be much different to being made righteous. In fact, if one were going to subscribe to a forensic theology, the more appropriate word for a forensic declaration would be "made holy" as it means to set apart, which might conceivably be forensic. Then justification or "made righteous" would be more appropriate for the process of being really and truely improved.
The believers, the saints in the bible are called "the holy ones" or "the set apart ones", and yet in the protestant understanding they may not yet have been sanctified (in the protestant sense) at all, they have merely been justified (in the protestant sense). It seems from a protestant view the bible has mislabelled them. Instead of the holy ones, they should be called the justified ones.
Here's an exercise: take your bible and substitute all the examples of "sanctified" with "set apart", and now tell me where the bible teaches this protestant understanding of sanctification.
Now substitute "justified" with "made righteous". Is the forensic view now as clear as it was? I don't think so.
Also, as Alister McGrath points out in Iustitia Dei, the original meaning of the word in classical Greek (as found in the writings of Aristotle and others) meant to legally condemn. When the writers of the Septuagint translated zedeka as dikaiosune, they used the word in the exact opposite way as what it meant in classical Greek. From the passages I listed from my website, it's obvious that it means "to declare righteous".
“Who justify the wicked for a bribe, and take away the rights of the ones who are in the right!”-Isaiah 5:23 This is a condemnation of evil judges who declared the wicked to be righteous for a bribe. ***If these judges had made righteous the wicked through a merit system such as community service, then the judges should not and would not have been condemned.***
“Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.”-Romans 8:33-34 Notice the legal terminology. To condemn is to declare someone unrighteous, and justification is made the opposite of 'to condemn'. Thus, it's quite obvious that 'to justify' means a declaration of righteousness.
"The believers, the saints in the bible are called "the holy ones" or "the set apart ones", and yet in the protestant understanding they may not yet have been sanctified (in the protestant sense) at all, they have merely been justified (in the protestant sense). It seems from a protestant view the bible has mislabelled them. Instead of the holy ones, they should be called the justified ones."
This is an all-too-common straw-man of Evangelical teaching. Justification and sanctification are seperate events and happenings, but one never happens without the other.
Orthodox said, "We are not discussing the noun, but the verb."
Oops. My bad. Dikaioo, I believe.
Orthodox said, "I can accept that "made' may not be the best choice. Substitute "found righteous", as a fair criticism. The point remains the same."
This still results in absurdity in Paul's writings. Take for instance Romans 4:5
"But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,"
Does it make sense to say that God "found righteous the ungodly"?
For this verse, you could switch your argument back to "make righteous", but then you have all the other verses that I mentioned.
It has to be a legal declaration of righteousness.
Lastly, I can only speak for myself, but I would like you to know that I have no ill-feelings toward you. I can get sarcastic at times, but I don't hate or even dislike you.
The article makes much of a big deal about how Orthodoxy confuses justification and sanctification. These two words have become jargon words in the protestant tradition. But for the Greeks reading in the original language, justification is literally "made righteous" and sanctification is literally "made holy" or "set apart".
>>Please point us to the correct lexicon that shows us this. Is this what your communion says, or is this what the lexicons say?
>>It's kind of wierd to see Orthodoxy viewed through the distorting glasses of a protestant world view.
Notice how Orthodox says that the article is viewing Orthodoxy via the distortion of Protestantism.
A. Which Protestantism? Reformed Protestantism? Lutheranism? Anglicanism? Generic Arminianism? Weslyanism? Orthodox is trying to lay something at the door of Protestantism, but Protestantism isn't exactly a monolithic entity.
B. Is the article distorting Orthodoxy? Does Orthodoxy not hold to those things which the article alleges? If so, can Orthodox correct them so we can be clear on what Orthodoxy does and does not assert.
Interesting, thanks for posting this. Not bad though from a Protestant perspective. I do like the part where they recognize that Nicea II anathematized sola Scriptura even though this was over 700 years before Luther.
>A. Which Protestantism? Reformed Protestantism? >Lutheranism? Anglicanism? Generic Arminianism? >Weslyanism? Orthodox is trying to lay something at >the door of Protestantism, but Protestantism isn't >exactly a monolithic entity.
Yeah. I presume whichever "ism" it is that these authors subscribe to.
>B. Is the article distorting Orthodoxy? Does >Orthodoxy not hold to those things which the >article alleges? If so, can Orthodox correct them >so we can be clear on what Orthodoxy does and >does not assert.
It's accurate enough in the broad details, but looks rather distorted when examined through the lens of a protestant apologist. I would only suggest reading about Orthodoxy from the Orthodox.
>This still results in absurdity in Paul's writings. Take >for instance Romans 4:5
There's a difference between what it may mean in a context and what it must always mean. Usually someone is declared righteous because that is exactly what they are. Orthodoxy doesn't deny what you see in Ro 4:5. By making it a jargon word you only see a legal fiction righteousness throughout scripture.
1Jn 3:7 "Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous".
Protestants always view verses like 1Jn 3:7 through the lens of legal fiction and Romans 4:5. Orthodoxy says there is no cause for doing that.
We have to distinguish between technical systematic-theological use of terms and the Biblical-linguistic use of terms.
For instance, while in the Bible “sanctify” often simply means “to consecrate,” the word "Sanctification" has a particular definition in systematic theology, involving both definitive and progressive elements. This is fine. It's not wrong to take the teachings of Scripture and arrange them according to modern language, and it's not wrong to assign technical meaning to Biblical terms. We just have to be careful to not read too much theological precision into the Biblical usage.
Debating the Scripture’s use of the terms “justification” and “sanctification” is certainly a relevant discussion. But I’d just point out that the report, when it claimed that Orthodoxy confuses these terms, was referring to the concepts derived from their technical meaning. So even if Scripture does not use these uniformly (which is debatable), the charge still stands against Orthodoxy that it has confused, in a theological sense, two important distinctions.
In short: call them what you want, but the Bible clearly distinguishes between imputed and imparted righteousness; and it clearly teaches that one’s standing before God is on the basis of Christ’s imputed righteousness that is received by faith. This must be distinguished from the process of becoming more righteous in practice (in systematic theology, “sanctification.”).
The report simply used the conventional technical terms to make their point.
Protestants always view verses like 1Jn 3:7 through the lens of legal fiction and Romans 4:5. Orthodoxy says there is no cause for doing that.
Not quite. Orthodoxy is concerned with ontology, not a legal/judicial view. That's standard. The issue here isn't Protestant v. Orthodox but West v. East. I submit you don't understand Orthodoxy nearly as well as you think if you think that's just Protestant/Orthodox or even Protestant/Catholic or non-Protestant view.
>>Yeah. I presume whichever "ism" it is that these authors subscribe to.
And that would be what? You began by laying this accusation at the feet of Protestantism, broadly. But Arminianism happens to be closer to Rome on some items related to justification and sanctification (particularly the Wesleyan tradition) compared to the Reformed tradition.
Why is it that only the Orthodox can speak for Orthodoxy. Do you apply this same standard to Protestants discussing Protestantism? After all, you're the one that can't get the basic defintion of Sola Scriptura correct. If only those in a particular communion should be the ones to whom one listens, because, I presume, only they can get it right, then why do not accept our correction of your statements about Sola Scriptura's definition?
>>> It's accurate enough in the broad details, but looks rather distorted when examined through the lens of a protestant apologist.
You still haven't told us how they distorted the beliefs of your communion. What broad details did they get correct, and which did they get wrong. Now is your chance to correct our understanding. Go for it.
>>>By making it a jargon word you only see a legal fiction righteousness throughout scripture.
A. No, that's not true. The word is used differently in different contexts. James' usage is not identical to Paul's in Romans, for example.
B. As Evan pointed out, now you are conflating exegetical usage and dogmatic usage. They often intersect, but they are not the same thing.
C. How is the imputed righteousness of Christ a legal fiction? It's already been pointed out to you that justification does not occur without sanctification following on. In fact, we have a doctrine of definitive sanctification as well as a doctrine of progressive sanctification. The former precedes the latter in the Reformed ordu salutis. Are you aware of this concept or not? See Robert Reymond's systematic theology text.
D. If what you say is true, then no man can be justified before God, because no man is ever completely made righteous until he passes into the eternal state, so even on your view all you see is a "legal fiction" as well.
>This must be distinguished from the process of >becoming more righteous in practice (in systematic >theology, “sanctification.”).
Convince us that it must be distinguished.
The theory here is God starts out with a legal fiction, then in a whole different plan, he starts to make us righteous. But who said they are done separately?
>But Arminianism happens to be closer to Rome on >some items related to justification and >sanctification (particularly the Wesleyan tradition) >compared to the Reformed tradition.
I didn't note anything in the document peculiar to one of the protestant isms. If you did, more power to you.
>After all, you're the one that can't get the basic >defintion of Sola Scriptura correct. If only those >in a particular communion should be the ones to >whom one listens, because, I presume, only they >can get it right, then why do not accept our >correction of your statements about Sola >Scriptura's definition?
How can there be a "correct" and "incorrect" definition of sola scriptura? You just finished lecturing me that none of the isms speaks authoritatively.
>You still haven't told us how they distorted the >beliefs of your communion. What broad details >did they get correct, and which did they get >wrong. Now is your chance to correct our >understanding. Go for it.
All I'm saying is that the pieces of the puzzle are arranged to correspond to a protestant model. It's like comparing an ostrich to a sparrow and complaining the the ostrich's wings don't work like a sparrow's, when they are not meant to work like that in the ostrich, and totally missing the things that are interesting about ostriches.
>How is the imputed righteousness of Christ a >legal fiction? It's already been pointed out to you >that justification does not occur without >sanctification following on.
Wow, aren't you confusing justification and sanctification? Naughty naughty.
>D. If what you say is true, then no man can be >justified before God, because no man is ever >completely made righteous until he passes into >the eternal state, so even on your view all you >see is a "legal fiction" as well.
Why is "completely made righteous" the standard for righteousness? Is that how scripture uses the word?
I never said they are done separately, as if they could be divorced from each other. Rather, I said that, as theological metaphors, they must be distinguished.
Why must we distinguish things that can't be separated? Convince us that scripture separates them. What verse teaches that we must separate them, Mr Sola Scriptura?
Wow thank you for this post. This is just what I needed (now i need just need a little thing called "time" to read it).
ReplyDeleteAnd I am truly sad about Dr. Beckwith and hopefully he realizes the high cost of His decision.
It's kind of wierd to see Orthodoxy viewed through the distorting glasses of a protestant world view.
ReplyDeleteThe article makes much of a big deal about how Orthodoxy confuses justification and sanctification. These two words have become jargon words in the protestant tradition. But for the Greeks reading in the original language, justification is literally "made righteous" and sanctification is literally "made holy" or "set apart".
There's no compelling obvious reason why being made holy should be much different to being made righteous. In fact, if one were going to subscribe to a forensic theology, the more appropriate word for a forensic declaration would be "made holy" as it means to set apart, which might conceivably be forensic. Then justification or "made righteous" would be more appropriate for the process of being really and truely improved.
The believers, the saints in the bible are called "the holy ones" or "the set apart ones", and yet in the protestant understanding they may not yet have been sanctified (in the protestant sense) at all, they have merely been justified (in the protestant sense). It seems from a protestant view the bible has mislabelled them. Instead of the holy ones, they should be called the justified ones.
Here's an exercise: take your bible and substitute all the examples of "sanctified" with "set apart", and now tell me where the bible teaches this protestant understanding of sanctification.
Now substitute "justified" with "made righteous". Is the forensic view now as clear as it was? I don't think so.
To make dikaiosune mean "to make righteous" results in absurdity:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/meaning_justification.htm
Also, as Alister McGrath points out in Iustitia Dei, the original meaning of the word in classical Greek (as found in the writings of Aristotle and others) meant to legally condemn. When the writers of the Septuagint translated zedeka as dikaiosune, they used the word in the exact opposite way as what it meant in classical Greek. From the passages I listed from my website, it's obvious that it means "to declare righteous".
“Who justify the wicked for a bribe, and take away the rights of the ones who are in the right!”-Isaiah 5:23
This is a condemnation of evil judges who declared the wicked to be righteous for a bribe. ***If these judges had made righteous the wicked through a merit system such as community service, then the judges should not and would not have been condemned.***
“Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.”-Romans 8:33-34
Notice the legal terminology. To condemn is to declare someone unrighteous, and justification is made the opposite of 'to condemn'. Thus, it's quite obvious that 'to justify' means a declaration of righteousness.
"The believers, the saints in the bible are called "the holy ones" or "the set apart ones", and yet in the protestant understanding they may not yet have been sanctified (in the protestant sense) at all, they have merely been justified (in the protestant sense). It seems from a protestant view the bible has mislabelled them. Instead of the holy ones, they should be called the justified ones."
This is an all-too-common straw-man of Evangelical teaching. Justification and sanctification are seperate events and happenings, but one never happens without the other.
See this entry.
ReplyDelete>To make dikaiosune mean "to make righteous
ReplyDeleteWe are not discussing the noun, but the verb.
I can accept that "made' may not be the best choice. Substitute "found righteous", as a fair criticism. The point remains the same.
Orthodox said, "We are not discussing the noun, but the verb."
ReplyDeleteOops. My bad. Dikaioo, I believe.
Orthodox said, "I can accept that "made' may not be the best choice. Substitute "found righteous", as a fair criticism. The point remains the same."
This still results in absurdity in Paul's writings. Take for instance Romans 4:5
"But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,"
Does it make sense to say that God "found righteous the ungodly"?
For this verse, you could switch your argument back to "make righteous", but then you have all the other verses that I mentioned.
It has to be a legal declaration of righteousness.
Lastly, I can only speak for myself, but I would like you to know that I have no ill-feelings toward you. I can get sarcastic at times, but I don't hate or even dislike you.
The article makes much of a big deal about how Orthodoxy confuses justification and sanctification. These two words have become jargon words in the protestant tradition. But for the Greeks reading in the original language, justification is literally "made righteous" and sanctification is literally "made holy" or "set apart".
ReplyDelete>>Please point us to the correct lexicon that shows us this. Is this what your communion says, or is this what the lexicons say?
>>It's kind of wierd to see Orthodoxy viewed through the distorting glasses of a protestant world view.
ReplyDeleteNotice how Orthodox says that the article is viewing Orthodoxy via the distortion of Protestantism.
A. Which Protestantism? Reformed Protestantism? Lutheranism? Anglicanism? Generic Arminianism? Weslyanism? Orthodox is trying to lay something at the door of Protestantism, but Protestantism isn't exactly a monolithic entity.
B. Is the article distorting Orthodoxy? Does Orthodoxy not hold to those things which the article alleges? If so, can Orthodox correct them so we can be clear on what Orthodoxy does and does not assert.
Interesting, thanks for posting this. Not bad though from a Protestant perspective. I do like the part where they recognize that Nicea II anathematized sola Scriptura even though this was over 700 years before Luther.
ReplyDeletewhat about this....
ReplyDelete>A. Which Protestantism? Reformed Protestantism?
ReplyDelete>Lutheranism? Anglicanism? Generic Arminianism?
>Weslyanism? Orthodox is trying to lay something at
>the door of Protestantism, but Protestantism isn't
>exactly a monolithic entity.
Yeah. I presume whichever "ism" it is that these authors subscribe to.
>B. Is the article distorting Orthodoxy? Does
>Orthodoxy not hold to those things which the
>article alleges? If so, can Orthodox correct them
>so we can be clear on what Orthodoxy does and
>does not assert.
It's accurate enough in the broad details, but looks rather distorted when examined through the lens of a protestant apologist. I would only suggest reading about Orthodoxy from the Orthodox.
>This still results in absurdity in Paul's writings. Take
ReplyDelete>for instance Romans 4:5
There's a difference between what it may mean in a context and what it must always mean. Usually someone is declared righteous because that is exactly what they are. Orthodoxy doesn't deny what you see in Ro 4:5. By making it a jargon word you only see a legal fiction righteousness throughout scripture.
1Jn 3:7 "Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous".
Protestants always view verses like 1Jn 3:7 through the lens of legal fiction and Romans 4:5. Orthodoxy says there is no cause for doing that.
We have to distinguish between technical systematic-theological use of terms and the Biblical-linguistic use of terms.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, while in the Bible “sanctify” often simply means “to consecrate,” the word "Sanctification" has a particular definition in systematic theology, involving both definitive and progressive elements. This is fine. It's not wrong to take the teachings of Scripture and arrange them according to modern language, and it's not wrong to assign technical meaning to Biblical terms. We just have to be careful to not read too much theological precision into the Biblical usage.
Debating the Scripture’s use of the terms “justification” and “sanctification” is certainly a relevant discussion. But I’d just point out that the report, when it claimed that Orthodoxy confuses these terms, was referring to the concepts derived from their technical meaning. So even if Scripture does not use these uniformly (which is debatable), the charge still stands against Orthodoxy that it has confused, in a theological sense, two important distinctions.
In short: call them what you want, but the Bible clearly distinguishes between imputed and imparted righteousness; and it clearly teaches that one’s standing before God is on the basis of Christ’s imputed righteousness that is received by faith. This must be distinguished from the process of becoming more righteous in practice (in systematic theology, “sanctification.”).
The report simply used the conventional technical terms to make their point.
Protestants always view verses like 1Jn 3:7 through the lens of legal fiction and Romans 4:5. Orthodoxy says there is no cause for doing that.
ReplyDeleteNot quite. Orthodoxy is concerned with ontology, not a legal/judicial view. That's standard. The issue here isn't Protestant v. Orthodox but West v. East. I submit you don't understand Orthodoxy nearly as well as you think if you think that's just Protestant/Orthodox or even Protestant/Catholic or non-Protestant view.
>>Yeah. I presume whichever "ism" it is that these authors subscribe to.
And that would be what? You began by laying this accusation at the feet of Protestantism, broadly. But Arminianism happens to be closer to Rome on some items related to justification and sanctification (particularly the Wesleyan tradition) compared to the Reformed tradition.
Why is it that only the Orthodox can speak for Orthodoxy. Do you apply this same standard to Protestants discussing Protestantism? After all, you're the one that can't get the basic defintion of Sola Scriptura correct. If only those in a particular communion should be the ones to whom one listens, because, I presume, only they can get it right, then why do not accept our correction of your statements about Sola Scriptura's definition?
>>>
It's accurate enough in the broad details, but looks rather distorted when examined through the lens of a protestant apologist.
You still haven't told us how they distorted the beliefs of your communion. What broad details did they get correct, and which did they get wrong. Now is your chance to correct our understanding. Go for it.
>>>By making it a jargon word you only see a legal fiction righteousness throughout scripture.
A. No, that's not true. The word is used differently in different contexts. James' usage is not identical to Paul's in Romans, for example.
B. As Evan pointed out, now you are conflating exegetical usage and dogmatic usage. They often intersect, but they are not the same thing.
C. How is the imputed righteousness of Christ a legal fiction? It's already been pointed out to you that justification does not occur without sanctification following on. In fact, we have a doctrine of definitive sanctification as well as a doctrine of progressive sanctification. The former precedes the latter in the Reformed ordu salutis. Are you aware of this concept or not? See Robert Reymond's systematic theology text.
D. If what you say is true, then no man can be justified before God, because no man is ever completely made righteous until he passes into the eternal state, so even on your view all you see is a "legal fiction" as well.
>This must be distinguished from the process of
ReplyDelete>becoming more righteous in practice (in systematic
>theology, “sanctification.”).
Convince us that it must be distinguished.
The theory here is God starts out with a legal fiction, then in a whole different plan, he starts to make us righteous. But who said they are done separately?
>But Arminianism happens to be closer to Rome on
ReplyDelete>some items related to justification and
>sanctification (particularly the Wesleyan tradition)
>compared to the Reformed tradition.
I didn't note anything in the document peculiar to one of the protestant isms. If you did, more power to you.
>After all, you're the one that can't get the basic
>defintion of Sola Scriptura correct. If only those
>in a particular communion should be the ones to
>whom one listens, because, I presume, only they
>can get it right, then why do not accept our
>correction of your statements about Sola
>Scriptura's definition?
How can there be a "correct" and "incorrect" definition of sola scriptura? You just finished lecturing me that none of the isms speaks authoritatively.
>You still haven't told us how they distorted the
>beliefs of your communion. What broad details
>did they get correct, and which did they get
>wrong. Now is your chance to correct our
>understanding. Go for it.
All I'm saying is that the pieces of the puzzle are arranged to correspond to a protestant model. It's like comparing an ostrich to a sparrow and complaining the the ostrich's wings don't work like a sparrow's, when they are not meant to work like that in the ostrich, and totally missing the things that are interesting about ostriches.
>How is the imputed righteousness of Christ a
>legal fiction? It's already been pointed out to you
>that justification does not occur without
>sanctification following on.
Wow, aren't you confusing justification and sanctification? Naughty naughty.
>D. If what you say is true, then no man can be
>justified before God, because no man is ever
>completely made righteous until he passes into
>the eternal state, so even on your view all you
>see is a "legal fiction" as well.
Why is "completely made righteous" the standard for righteousness? Is that how scripture uses the word?
But who said they are done separately?
ReplyDeleteI never said they are done separately, as if they could be divorced from each other. Rather, I said that, as theological metaphors, they must be distinguished.
Why must we distinguish things that can't be separated? Convince us that scripture separates them. What verse teaches that we must separate them, Mr Sola Scriptura?
ReplyDelete