Justification

[Arsenios]

It may not justify us but we are still Gods workmanship

Great reply!

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Yup. But let's address the issue of this thread, which is JUSTIFICATION, What CHRISTIANS do, by definition, are done by CHRISTIANS.

The good works a CHRISTIAN does are not what makes him/her a Christian - you keep getting this backwards in your attempt to reject the Gospel. Yes, the living BREATHE but it's not breathing that causes one to be conceived and gain the gift of life.... living and breathing are OFTEN associated, it's even possible to say that generally speaking, one who is living is breathing and one who is breathing is alive (generally speaking) but it is wrong to say that one gives life to self by breathing. Protestants agree with the Ancient Creed that the Holy Spirit is the Lord and GIVER of Life (not the Dead); and we believe that does NOT mean that the Holy Spirit just OFFERS life (and thus is wrong to say He GIVES it, that being a lie worthly of being ex-communicated asc a "apostate heretic") but rather Protestants hold that God GIVES it. And Protestants affirm that Jesus IS (actually) THE (only and all-sufficient) SAVIOR and thus Jesus actually SAVES people and no one else (including self or the RC Denomination). The RCC condemned this view as apostate heresy and split itself over this, viewing it better to split itself nearly in half than to accept this Protestant view of God as the GIVER of spiritual live and Jesus as the SAVIOR.

Now, yes, once with the divine Gift of life - faith - justification, yes there is a life-long, synergistic, progressive process of becoming more Christ-like, increasingly Sanctified in our lives, doing OUR good works (which are rewarded in heaven) but that's a topic not permitted in this thread and a topic where there is general agreement (and always has been). The RC Denomination did NOT repudiate Luthranism for its stance on Sanctification (there was and is largely agreement on that) but on Justification (God GIVES life, Jesus IS the Savior). See posts 2, 3 and 8.

Lutheran Narrow-sense Justification seems to be much the equivalent of Orthodox Salvation, and I haven't seen much opposition, except for the Scripture which reads that we are saved by our works, and not by faith alone in James, which for some reason you have not engaged...

But I do have another question for you:

How do you understand the difference between OT Salvation and NT Salvation, and the role of the Holy Spirit in each?

Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

Lutheran Narrow-sense Justification seems to be much the equivalent of Orthodox Salvation, and I haven't seen much opposition, except for the Scripture which reads that we are saved by our works, and not by faith alone in James, which for some reason you have not engaged...

As I have gathered from my Greek Orthodox friend. I think you will find this on several issues - not always perfectly but quite similar. Which brings up the interesting point: Since the RCC officially condemned Lutheranism for its view on Justification, condemned it as apostate heresy and split itself over this, what does that imply to the Orthodox position which you (I think correctly) indicate is "much the equivalent?"


I look forward to discussing the Eucharist with you, as well..... and whether you agree with the discomfort Lutherans have with the 1551 Dogma of Transubstantiation rather than just holding to Real Presence as Lutherans do? This was not an issue in the Reformation since the RCC did not dogmatize Transubstantiation until after Luther's death, but since 1551 it has been a dividing point between Lutherans and post-Trent modern Catholics. I'd like to discuss, too, at some point, the 1870 De Fide Dogma of the Catholic Church regarding the Infallibility of it's Roman Pontiff. This too was not centrally an issue in the Reformation since this wasn't dogma then, but it WAS a very powerful point. Some historians conclude that while Justification was the GIVEN reason for the split and excommunications, at least as important was Luther's view that the Catholic Bishop in Rome is NOT necessarily INFALLIBLE (even when speaking ex-Cathedra); it is often said that TODAY this is the largest stumbling block between Lutheran and Catholics.... and that the RCC, by making this point DE FIDE DOGMA.... any bridge has been burned. I wonder how the EOC views all this. Ah but another issue for another thread.

But I do have another question for you: How do you understand the difference between OT Salvation and NT Salvation, and the role of the Holy Spirit in each?

Before I give you my opinion, I need to stress AGAIN that while Lutherans welcome questions (from anywhere), we are hesitant to "answer" them (at least in any formal or dogmatic sense) unless Scripture (and under that, the Ecumenical Creeds and 7 Ecumenical Councils) do. We tend to regard speculation as just that.... and we will reject it if it seems to contradict or threaten a biblical and ecumenical teaching.

IMO (and this is NOT - in ANY sense official Lutheran teaching).... there is no essential difference. Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide has ALWAYS been in place since Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden and the promise made of a Savior. The only significant difference being the Saints in the OT had a faith that looked FORWARD to the Messiah whereas the Saints today look BACK to the Messiah.



- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

And you are not righteous unless you are in Christ. You are not justified unless you are in Christ. Only in Christ...correct?

Doing good is Christ's work done in his power by his Spirit; call it self-righteous if you like. Call it any name that pleases you. The truth is that it is what the holy scriptures call the faithful to do. It is God's work and it is God-righteous.

 

[MennoSota]

No one is arguing that we aren't God's workmanship, if we are in Christ.
We are addressing justification. Apart from being in Christ, we cannot be justified and our works are as filthy rags.

It may not justify us but we are still Gods workmanship

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

No one is arguing that we aren't God's workmanship, if we are in Christ.
We are addressing justification. Apart from being in Christ, we cannot be justified and our works are as filthy rags.

Good point.


The RCC has gone to ENORMOUS LENGTHS to make it very, very clear that they condemn the Lutheran (and generally Reformation) view of JUSTIFICATION, and not Sanctification.

In reality, our views of Sanctification are nearly identical - not EXACTLY so, there are minor differences that neither "side" seems too concerned with - but in SANCTIFICATION, we're pretty much all on the same page. We were in 1517, we were in 1521, we were in 1551 and we are today. When one has the Divine Gifts of life - faith - justification, we ALL AGREE on a long, long list of things that apply, a goodly number of divine Calls, things that are now to accompany that divine gift of life - faith - justification. We even agree that God rewards us for such in heaven. And except for a few Calvinists, we even agree that we can "wreck" and destroy the divine gift. We're on the same page on all that. The point of disagreement (and the RCC says the disagreement is ENORMOUS - so big as to justify splitting itself nearly in two, so big as to declare the Lutheran stance as "apostate heresy") is in JUSTIFICATION. The very top Catholic scholars of the day (impressive men) took DECADES to carefully read what Luther and the Lutheran Fathers said and wrote, they spoke personally with Luther and the "Lutheran Fathers" on this, and of course Luther and the "Lutheran Fathers" went to enormous length - over and over and over again - to define terms, to make it absolutely crystal clear what we meant by "Justification"" and the terms we used (so that it was IMPOSSIBLE for those top Catholic theologians to misunderstand). Lutherans spoke of JESUS as the Savior in this sense (not self).... of the Holy Spirit as the GIVER of this life (not just offerer). And after long and careful study, the RCC condemned the Lutheran stance as "apostate heresy" and anathematized Lutherans for this view of JUSTIFICATION. Again, it was uber-clear, the disagreement was NOT in Sanctification. Wasn't then. Isn't now.

SOOOO, why do SOME Catholics insist on doing all they can to DODGE the issue that their denomiantion so powerfully insisted/insists IS the issue? Why do they in stead of taht, in lieu of that, in place of that, insist on always changing the subject to what we're always AGREED upon? Why do some do this? I've never been able to figure that out.... But clearly, they do. Going to great lengths to dodge the entire issue.



- Josiah

 

[Arsenios]

Since the RCC officially condemned Lutheranism for its view on Justification,
condemned it as apostate heresy and split itself over this,
what does that imply to the Orthodox position
which you indicate is "much the equivalent?"

The Latin Church was very much Orthodox for the first thousand years...
She separated from the Eastern Communion of Churches in the 11th century...
So we have differences in many things... Even the meaning of Salvation...
And we certainly do not agree with the Lutherans as affirmed on this thread...

From our point of view only, the fact that you disagree with a doctrine of an apostatic yet Apostolic Church is not a matter of vital concern to us... Indeed, it would be almost expected that you would do so... But the fact that you disagree with someone we disagree with does not mean that we agree with each other... We hold to dogmatic teachings... And your view is well outside these parameters, and your method of approach is well within the the Latin teaching... Because you have swallowed the camel of Scholasticism by arguing from Scripture and devoting so much of your worship service to the sermon, while straining the gnats of apostatic errors... In the process, in YOUR terms, you have been forced into a position where you have to attack Christ's Church in order to Reform Her, whereas from our perespective, the Reformation of Latin Rome must come from Rome... And our only means of enforcement of our disagreement, and the corrective measures toward Rome, is withdrawal of Communion...

As the Authoritarian Church, Rome had to see Herself as enforcing Her Authority over you when She had the Power (or so She thought) to do so, when you strayed from Her Authoritarian teachings... The difference is that weree someone to come up with your teaching in the Orthodox Faith, and it became a teaching, we would but take you out of our Communion, and you would be free to go your own way as long as you did not make trouble for us in our own countries... Banishing has a fairly honorable, if persecutorial, history in Orthodoxy for local troublemakers... Many of our Saints were so persecuted... Arians were often banished, but only after attempting reconciliation...

So that from our perspective, the two views of Salvation, that of the Luthereans and that of the Latin Church, are both pretty much equally removed from our own understanding of what Salvation actually is...

Which is why I asked you the two questions I did, so that we can walk through those minefields together...

So is narrow sense Justification by Christ our Salvation in terms of official Lutheran Dogma?

Do you understand the difference between Latin and Orthodox Salvation?

Do you understand the difference between OT and NT Salvation?

Arsenios

 

[Andrew]

Menno, for future reference it may be a good idea to make that point clear because I got the wrong impression myself.
As far as the RCC goes on that stance, they maybe taking James out of context a bit IMO, its already embedded in their teaching as so. MC agrees that faith produces good works and I can see for example how penance could be a form of 'works' as the RCC would argue that not confessing your sins and doing penance puts you in danger of losing salvation. Im on the same page as you on this?

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Arsenios]

I look forward to discussing the Eucharist with you, as well..... and whether you agree with the discomfort Lutherans have with the 1551 Dogma of Transubstantiation rather than just holding to Real Presence as Lutherans do? This was not an issue in the Reformation since the RCC did not dogmatize Transubstantiation until after Luther's death, but since 1551 it has been a dividing point between Lutherans and post-Trent modern Catholics. I'd like to discuss, too, at some point, the 1870 De Fide Dogma of the Catholic Church regarding the Infallibility of it's Roman Pontiff. This too was not centrally an issue in the Reformation since this wasn't dogma then, but it WAS a very powerful point. Some historians conclude that while Justification was the GIVEN reason for the split and excommunications, at least as important was Luther's view that the Catholic Bishop in Rome is NOT necessarily INFALLIBLE (even when speaking ex-Cathedra); it is often said that TODAY this is the largest stumbling block between Lutheran and Catholics.... and that the RCC, by making this point DE FIDE DOGMA.... any bridge has been burned. I wonder how the EOC views all this. Ah but another issue for another thread.

The doctrine of the Real Presence is one thing...
The HOW is another...
For us, the HOW is Mystery, and any further accounting MAY be but pious opinions... (theologoumenoi)

Before I give you my opinion, I need to stress AGAIN that while Lutherans welcome questions (from anywhere), we are hesitant to "answer" them (at least in any formal or dogmatic sense) unless Scripture (and under that, the Ecumenical Creeds and 7 Ecumenical Councils) do. We tend to regard speculation as just that.... and we will reject it if it seems to contradict or threaten a biblical and ecumenical teaching.

Do you affirm the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? Do you deny Communion to those who do not?

IMO (and this is NOT - in ANY sense official Lutheran teaching).... there is no essential difference (between OT and NT Salvation.)

How would one know the Official Lutheran Dogma on this issue...

Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide has ALWAYS been in place since Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden and the promise made of a Savior. The only significant difference being the Saints in the OT had a faith that looked FORWARD to the Messiah whereas the Saints today look BACK to the Messiah.

The difference between the two Salvations is HUGE...

And it is dogmatic...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Menno, for future reference it may be a good idea to make that point clear because I got the wrong impression myself.
As far as the RCC goes on that stance, they maybe taking James out of context a bit IMO, its already embedded in their teaching as so. MC agrees that faith produces good works and I can see for example how penance could be a form of 'works' as the RCC would argue that not confessing your sins and doing penance puts you in danger of losing salvation. Im on the same page as you on this?

James 2:22

βλέπεις ὅτι
You are seeing that...

ἡ πίστις συνήργει τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ,
The Faith is working together (literally, synergizing) with his works...

καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἔργων
And out of the works

ἡ πίστις ἐτελειώθη
The Faith is being perfected.

How do you understand the above where it clearly states that the Faith is perfected by works, that Faith and works work together, that the relationship is SYNERGY...? συνήργει = SYNERGEI

Synergy between Faith and works where out of works is Faith perfected??

Nobody engages this text...

Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

Lutheran Narrow-sense Justification seems to be much the equivalent of Orthodox Salvation


.

we certainly do not agree with the Lutherans as affirmed on this thread...

So, which is it?




.

 

[MennoSota]

“You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness’” (James*2:22–23).

- James 2:22–24
One of the central issues of the Protestant Reformation was the issue of justification. Luther, Calvin, and all of the other reformers were concerned with the question: “How is a person declared righteous before the judgment seat of God?” With the apostles, the Reformers asserted that a person is declared righteous, that is, a person is justified, by faith alone apart from any of his own good*works.

This teaching is clear in the writings of the apostle Paul (see Gal. 2:15–16). However, many have asserted that James, the brother of our Lord, would include our good works in our justification. The passage most often used to support this contention is James*2:14–26.

At first glance, this passage does seem to raise issues for the Protestant understanding of justification. Yet a second glance shows us that James and Paul are talking about two entirely different things. Paul uses the word justification to refer to the legal declaration that God grants to us by faith on account of the imputed righteousness of Christ. But James uses the same word to mean “show forth.” Paul’s main concern is to show that faith alone sets us right with God. James defines the precise kind of faith that does*this.

Once this is understood, it is easy to see that James is most definitely not contradicting Paul in places like verse 24. He is simply saying that only a person with a living faith demonstrated by good works can be justified and not that these good works can earn merit for*us.

Verses 22 and 23 are a bit more difficult. Verse 22 speaks of faith being completed by works. This might seem a bit strange to us until we consider that faith, like all other Christian virtues, matures over our lifetimes. When we first believe, our faith is immature, and sometimes it is hard to trust God for great things. Nevertheless, this immature faith is real faith, and by it God declares us righteous even before it can produce any tangible evidence of itself in good*works.

However, God does not want this faith to remain immature. He wants it to grow stronger. As we trust Him by obeying Him, we find our trust vindicated. Our works show that He really can be trusted, and thus our faith becomes stronger and therefore more*“complete.”

James 2:22

βλέπεις ὅτι
You are seeing that...

ἡ πίστις συνήργει τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ,
The Faith is working together (literally, synergizing) with his works...

καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἔργων
And out of the works

ἡ πίστις ἐτελειώθη
The Faith is being perfected.

How do you understand the above where it clearly states that the Faith is perfected by works, that Faith and works work together, that the relationship is SYNERGY...? συνήργει = SYNERGEI

Synergy between Faith and works where out of works is Faith perfected??

Nobody engages this text...

Arsenios

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/completed-faith/

 

[MoreCoffee]

And you are not righteous unless you are in Christ. You are not justified unless you are in Christ. Only in Christ...correct?

Generally that is correct. One is baptised into Christ - specifically into his death burial and resurrection - and thus set free from the rule of sin in life.

 

[MoreCoffee]

James 2:22

βλέπεις ὅτι
You are seeing that...

ἡ πίστις συνήργει τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ,
The Faith is working together (literally, synergizing) with his works...

καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἔργων
And out of the works

ἡ πίστις ἐτελειώθη
The Faith is being perfected.

How do you understand the above where it clearly states that the Faith is perfected by works, that Faith and works work together, that the relationship is SYNERGY...? συνήργει = SYNERGEI

Synergy between Faith and works where out of works is Faith perfected??

Nobody engages this text...

Arsenios

You and I engage it. But Martin Luther ran from it calling saint James' letter "an epistle of straw" because it directly contradicted Martin Luther's theology.

 

[Josiah]

You and I engage it. But Martin Luther ran from it calling saint James' letter "an epistle of straw" because it directly contradicted Martin Luther's theology.

His Catholic training was that James was speaking of Justification in the narrow sense. When he realized that the RCC was wrong, and that this is Justification in the broad sense, he fully embraced the letter and commends it. He included it fully in his German translation of the Bible (of course, Luther's translation had more MORE book in it than the current Catholic tome).

 

[MennoSota]

Take away the false salvation and immersion into Christ via water baptism and we might agree. As long as you keep adding human works to the process we will not agree. Your syncretism is not in alignment with scripture.

Generally that is correct. One is baptised into Christ - specifically into his death burial and resurrection - and thus set free from the rule of sin in life.

 

[Albion]

His Catholic training was that James was speaking of Justification in the narrow sense. When he realized that the RCC was wrong, and that this is Justification in the broad sense, he fully embraced the letter and commends it. He included it fully in his German translation of the Bible (of course, Luther's translation had more MORE book in it than the current Catholic tome).

Absolutely.

In response to the claim about Luther and the epistle of James which every Catholic debater has committed to memory, the facts are that Luther did not remove the book from his translation of the Bible and, also, that his reaction to James was focused on the RCCs mistaken interpretation of that epistle. Luther actually agreed with James, correctly understood, even though he called that epistle an "epistle of straw " since, as every Bible scholar knows, it is just about the simplest book in the Bible, with only one rather unremarkable point to make.






.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Apart from Christ they are just self-righteous acts. Generated by God's gift of faith, they glorify God and God alone. Surely you know this. And if you do not, then you do now.

What i'd try to say in a not-so-nice way last evening (my apologies) is that no-one has put forward works apart from Christ. Righteous works are what we do IN Christ. Enabled BY Him for His glory.
And (from what I can gather from early in the thread) the RCC position would be that these works are a form/type/fall within the definition of Justification (am I in the ball-park?)

 

[MennoSota]

I disagree with you regarding what the RC and OC members have said. MC has tried to couch his justification by works in a big general form of grace (the type that merely gives animation to creation), but demands that humans must produce their own works and thus prove they have faith. That is backwards to the gospel in that faith produces good works and thus proves that we have been justified. It's a subtle, yet gospel changing lie being proposed by MC and Arsenios. Their teaching lifts up man and his efforts. The gospel of Christ lifts up God and His efforts. All aspects of being made right with God are accomplished by God with no assistance from man.

What i'd try to say in a not-so-nice way last evening (my apologies) is that no-one has put forward works apart from Christ. Righteous works are what we do IN Christ. Enabled BY Him for His glory.
And (from what I can gather from early in the thread) the RCC position would be that these works are a form/type/fall within the definition of Justification (am I in the ball-park?)

 

[Arsenios]

So, which is it?

One referred to the subject matter, which is union with Christ...

The other referred to your understanding of it...

Arsenios