Holy scripture uses "justification" and its cognate forms (justify, justified and so on) in a wider sense than is common in Reformed theology so the use of the word as if it is the same in meaning as is "justification" and its cognate forms in holy scripture cannot help but be a source of confusion. Brother Josiah is in the habit of typing "justification narrow" for the narrow sense which appears to be the theological meaning within conservative/confessional Lutheran theology so I wondered if you might want to find an expression or a prefix or suffix that will help readers to distinguish the theological sense(s) in which you use the word from the sense(s) in which is it used in holy scripture. That way confusion may be minimised or avoided altogether.
"Salvation" "Conversion" "Regeneration" "Glorification" "Justification" "Sanctification" ... these all are used variously. When there is no agreement (or effort) to understand how to term is meant, we end up "talking past" each other. Which is why Luther and Calvin (and Lutheran and Reformed Christians today) are CLEAR and careful in their use. The Catholic Church obviously WELL understood how Luther meant the words "justification" and "sanctification" since he explains it at GREAT length in the very works they condemned as "apostate" anathema and heresy.
See posts 2, 3 and 8 here.
I well realize - and I have stated to you since we first met - the RCC is VERY "fuzzy" on this, quite sloppy, and often "all over the map." OFFICIALLY, from Trent on anyway, the RCC has attempted to be more clear (convincing some that actually the RCC was very wrong to condemn Luther and owe Protestants a huge apology, lol) but I have way too high of regard for Catholicism to think it would KNOWINGLY condemn something such a horrible heresy that it knew it was correct, would KNOWINGLY split itself almost in half over an issue where they KNEW the excommunicated were actually right. In POPULAR Catholicism, as I have explained many times (you've always ignored or circumvented it), Justification and Sanctifaction were blurred and blended and entangled in medieval Catholicism - JUST AS LUTHER CLAIMED - and the result is that things TRUE about Sanctification are thus applied to Justification (where they are not only false but destroy Christianity in the process). What often exists in POPULAR Catholicism is a confusing, entangled mixture of things - very synergistic and at times quite Pelagian. I have shared verbatim quotes from our Catholic teachers - you've not only not denied I was taught such, you didn't disagree with them. Not once, not at all.
You raised a valid point in the disagreement between "infused" and "imputed" grace... that is significant.... but in my view, this is a 'side topic' until we decide 'imputed' or 'infused'
for WHAT? Again, IF the point is God helps the unregenerate become Christlike for JUSTIFICATION - then we are saved by works and the Savior is the one we see in the mirror. True - as in Judaism, Islam, LDS and some forms of Hinduism, we do so ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY because of the empowering of God but it's still OUR accomplishment and thus Jesus doesn't save anyone. He may be a HELPER (although the Catholic Church speaks of itself in that role) but not the Savior. IF the point is that God helps Christians become more Christlike for SANCTIFICATION (glorification?) - then Luther was in full agreement. Since Luther was excommunicated for his belief Jesus is WHOLLY responsible in JUSTIFICATION, we have no choice but to conclude that the RCC's enormous, huge disagreement with Luther (and now Protestants) is not about Sanctification (so let's not get sidetracted on that) but exclusively and solely about Justification. And yes, it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to believe all these very learned Catholic theologians - in decades - after talking to and reading Luther's works - had no idea what Luther meant by these things he went to such enormous lengths to define but in absolute ignorance, decided to declare "it" (which they knew nothing about) anathema, apostate, heresy.... and split itself almost in two over. And Trent then went on to officially anathematize.... all because Catholic scholars were SO ignorant, didn't bother to read the works they listed by name and demanded he retract? Seems incredible to me. Nope. JUSTIFICATION is the issue (not Sanctification). And what Catholicism so powerfully denounced was Luther's veiw that in JUSTIFICATION, Christ alone is the Savior: Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide (you know John 3:16) THAT'S what it condemned. THAT'S what you've been condemning. It has nothing to do what what God calls us to do.... and what "interplay" may or may not exist once the soul is given life and receives the Holy Spirit.
hedrick said:
Protestants will read justification as basically forgiveness, restoring our relationship to God.
Catholics will read it as a process by which we slowly become more righteous through improving our lives.
.... as I've noted for years, how. And in POPULAR Catholicism, therein lies the problem. They'll take SOUND things that apply to Sanctification (what the living are called to do as the living) and apply it to Justification (how the dead become alive) and thus end up making self the Savior (Justify'er) and Jesus (if He enters the discussion at all!) the possibility-maker or (less often) the helper. Just as Luther and Calvin pointed out. Blurring, confusing, mixing-up, entangling topics leads to undermining the entire Christian religion - whose Chief Article (Protestants insist) is that Jesus is the Savior (rather than in Catholicism where the Chief Article seems to be that the Roman Catholic Church is the infallible, authoritative, lord in all things). Luther was proclaiming and defending what he regarded as the most important issue: Jesus saves. IMO, the Catholic Church PERFECTLY understood that - and excommunicated him for it and split itself nearly in two over that.
Reality is: There is no significant disagreement in Sanctification.... we all agree God calls us to do and be great things (Lutherans and Calvinists stress this more than Catholics however), and that God empowers believers in this. We may disagree on whether anyone CAN totally out-live St. Paul who called himself the "CHIEF of sinners" and said "the good I want to do I do not do" and "there is no one who is good" .... or Jesus' comment, "there IS no one good except God." BUT that disagreement aside, we both agree we are called and empowered to be Christ-Life. To be as moral as He, as loving as He, as serving as He, as forgiving as He, etc. We even agree that we are rewarded for such, and that such will be reflected in heaven. Our differences on the issue of Sanctification are minor. The RCC was right in the 16th Century and today: the issue is JUSTIFICATION as Luther, Calvin, etc. taught THAT. So, all the efforts by some modern Catholics to switch the topic to Sanctification is either innocent ignorance of the "problem" or a desire to deflect (because I think there are a growing number of Catholics who think Luther was right and the "infallible" Catholic Church was, well, wrong).
- Josiah
.
