An honest request

Status
Not open for further replies.

ImaginaryDay2

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
3,967
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]
I've seen, in certain posts, use of the term "Justification (narrow)" as well as statements prefaced by "The Lutheran view/Luther's view on...'XYZ'". These statements are followed by significantly long posts outlining a specific POV that you have identified as the "Lutheran/Luther's view"
Internet searches turn up no such specific terms or views expressed on distinctly Lutheran sites or resources. So... are these your encapsulations of the Lutheran view of different subjects, or can you point me to sources that specifically state "the Lutheran view" that you claim.
Thanks in advance!
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]
I've seen, in certain posts, use of the term "Justification (narrow)" as well as statements prefaced by "The Lutheran view/Luther's view on...'XYZ'". These statements are followed by significantly long posts outlining a specific POV that you have identified as the "Lutheran/Luther's view"
Internet searches turn up no such specific terms or views expressed on distinctly Lutheran sites or resources. So... are these your encapsulations of the Lutheran view of different subjects, or can you point me to sources that specifically state "the Lutheran view" that you claim.
Thanks in advance!


They are my summery. Based on my study and theology classes (I have completed study as a licensed Deacon in the LCMS), my very careful reading and study of the same 3 vol. set of theology books used in the two LCMS seminaries to train pastors (Francis Pieper's Christian Dogmatics) as well as 4 other Lutheran doctrine books, and my study of the Lutheran Confessions. Also, several books I've read about Luther and the Reformation. The one I'm reading now is by Eric Metaxas (a Greek Orthodox theologian) which not only is a biography and history but also stresses the message Luther shared and the reaction of the RCC at the time. As you know, we have several Lutherans here at CH (including you) and so far, none have disagreed with a word I've posted. If you are wondering, I can refer you to our Confessions, to chapters in Pieper's works and to several descriptions in books. And note that I have been careful to include the biblical references that Luther, the Confessions and Lutheran theologians use in this context.

I'm MORE than curious why you chose to create an entire thread on this.... not a PM, not a post in a thread, but an entire thread.... IF you choose to explain, please do so in a PM.
 

ImaginaryDay2

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
3,967
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Thanks for responding. I'd asked in a thread and it wasn't noticed, or was skipped over, or...

It just seemed that the phrase "Justification Narrow" is used quite a bit in your posts, but the "narrow" definition isn't quite so narrow. There are a number of nuances to it that, when unpacked, really paint a broad picture. That's why I'm curious. And, yes, Lutherans (as I assume all Christians) follow Christ, and not Luther; but saying "Lutherans don't follow Luther" should be with a caveat that our faith (the Lutheran faith) is certainly influenced by him, his writings, and that of Lutheran theologians. Reading your response, the influence is clear. As for me, I've begun reading the confessions, and will go from there. I rarely do anything half-way. I'm inquisitive as well. Thus, in presenting what Lutherans believe, I asked for a source rather than a synopsis.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,653
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
If I may interject here...the line of "we don't follow Luther" is because Luther did not write all of our Lutheran confessions. :) And we don't believe every word that Luther wrote or said because he changed his mind on some things a few times during his life.
 

ImaginaryDay2

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
3,967
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
That's fair enough. I appreciated Josiah's response because it does give me a few more resources to go to. I would encourage that a bit more in the threads as well since (imo) sources are always helpful to bolster one's opinion - it gives me something to weigh it against. And, as I said, the issue of Justification does not appear to be quite so narrow - even for Lutherans :D
Theologically, nothing really is.
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
3,577
Location
Pacific North West
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Books I've read about Luther and the Reformation.
The one I'm reading now is by Eric Metaxas (a Greek Orthodox theologian)
which not only is a biography and history but also stresses the message Luther shared
and the reaction of the RCC at the time.

I would be very interested in seeing your response to this book.
Would you do a 'precis' summary and review of it here for us when you finish it?
You know, the condensed Cliff Notes summary and critique?

Arsenios
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
3,577
Location
Pacific North West
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]
I've seen, in certain posts, use of the term "Justification (narrow)" as well as statements prefaced by "The Lutheran view/Luther's view on...'XYZ'". These statements are followed by significantly long posts outlining a specific POV that you have identified as the "Lutheran/Luther's view"
Internet searches turn up no such specific terms or views expressed on distinctly Lutheran sites or resources. So... are these your encapsulations of the Lutheran view of different subjects, or can you point me to sources that specifically state "the Lutheran view" that you claim.
Thanks in advance!

"Justification (narrow)" has not yet been clearly differentiated from "Justification (broad)" that I have seen - The jump is made from "Justification (narrow)" to "Sanctification"... And when I tried to get a definition of Sanctification, I was only told that it is progressive, as opposed to "Justification (narrow)", which is yes or no, and all at once, and permanent if yes, and of unknown permanence when no...

I did offer that Sanctification is the presence of the Holy Spirit...
And Justification is entry by Baptism into the Body of Christ...

To no avail so far...

Arsenios
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
If I may offer a thought:

“Justification (narrow)” is the process of being transformed from ‘an enemy of God’ to ‘one of my sheep’. It would start with being a slave to sin, include repentance and end with being sealed with the Holy Spirit. It would include discussions of things like Jesus’ death on the cross and our forgiveness of sin.

“Sanctification” is the ongoing process of becoming more Christ-like. It begins when we receive the Holy Spirit and it ends when we reach heaven and are “GLORIFIED” (made perfect). Sanctification would include topics like ‘walking in the good works which God prepared in advance’ and renewing our mind and dying daily to self and the struggle to live a holy life.

[I have no doubt that theologians will pick apart my definitions on technical grounds, but they are an accurate picture painted with a wide brush.]
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,208
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
If I may offer a thought:

“Justification (narrow)” is the process of being transformed from ‘an enemy of God’ to ‘one of my sheep’. It would start with being a slave to sin, include repentance and end with being sealed with the Holy Spirit. It would include discussions of things like Jesus’ death on the cross and our forgiveness of sin.

“Sanctification” is the ongoing process of becoming more Christ-like. It begins when we receive the Holy Spirit and it ends when we reach heaven and are “GLORIFIED” (made perfect). Sanctification would include topics like ‘walking in the good works which God prepared in advance’ and renewing our mind and dying daily to self and the struggle to live a holy life.

[I have no doubt that theologians will pick apart my definitions on technical grounds, but they are an accurate picture painted with a wide brush.]

At least you tried.

For me, a Catholic, Justification is the process of being made just by the grace of God and the obedience of faith to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Justification includes repentance and belief of the gospel. Repentance is a life long work and experience. Belief of the gospel is an active assent of the will and work of the will and body it is also a life long work and experience.

For me, a Catholic, baptism is the start of life as one of the faithful of God. It is the start and it marks a person for their life time (and the next life also).

For me, a Catholic, salvation is being saved from sins and brought to Life in Christ. It is a life long work and experience. It is wholly of grace and not earned by works yet good works are the way of life that the gospel sets before us and without doing them no one can say "I am a Christian" and no one is saved apart from living the life of Christ in this world and the next.
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
At least you tried.

For me, a Catholic, Justification is the process of being made just by the grace of God and the obedience of faith to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Justification includes repentance and belief of the gospel. Repentance is a life long work and experience. Belief of the gospel is an active assent of the will and work of the will and body it is also a life long work and experience.

For me, a Catholic, baptism is the start of life as one of the faithful of God. It is the start and it marks a person for their life time (and the next life also).

For me, a Catholic, salvation is being saved from sins and brought to Life in Christ. It is a life long work and experience. It is wholly of grace and not earned by works yet good works are the way of life that the gospel sets before us and without doing them no one can say "I am a Christian" and no one is saved apart from living the life of Christ in this world and the next.
I suspect that Roman Catholic ‘Justification’ (which would include what I call Justification and Sanctification) is what Josiah views as ‘Justification (broad)’ and wants to distinguish from Protestant ‘Justification (narrow)’ ... but only Josiah can answer for sure what he intends by the terms.

As an aside, I have found learning about the RCC views on salvation fascinating. I obviously disagree, but I am glad that I at least understand what you believe a little better. It helps avoid stepping into stupid arguments where communication fails because of radical different assumptions. Being able to talk with Catholics is a good thing. So thanks.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,208
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I suspect that Roman Catholic ‘Justification’ (which would include what I call Justification and Sanctification) is what Josiah views as ‘Justification (broad)’ and wants to distinguish from Protestant ‘Justification (narrow)’ ... but only Josiah can answer for sure what he intends by the terms.

As an aside, I have found learning about the RCC views on salvation fascinating. I obviously disagree, but I am glad that I at least understand what you believe a little better. It helps avoid stepping into stupid arguments where communication fails because of radical different assumptions. Being able to talk with Catholics is a good thing. So thanks.

It is better to know a stranger and learn what can be learned from him rather than to shun the stranger and risk shunning a messenger from God. It is good to be adult about differences. Your beliefs do not make me recoil in shock saying "that's wicked evil heresy and I will hear none of it! away with you! you worker of inequity!" A child may do that, a child may run from some one who is different because they know no better. An adult ought to keep in mind how easy it is to be mistaken, remember his own mistakes, and think that perhaps the stranger is not wrong even though he is different.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
This is a post of mine (#671) in the Justification thread.... Please note the paragraph in blue font:




By "Justification" (narrow) Lutherans mean the ESTABLISHMENT of a new and different relationship with God, the GIVING of the divine gifts of spiritual life, faith in Christ as Savior, the Holy Spirit. We do NOT mean all that results of these gifts and actions by God, what CHRISTIANS (those with the gifts of life, faith and justification) are called to do (that's Sanctification in the narrow sense) - in that, there is (and always has been) essential agreement between Catholicism and (most of) Protestantism.


Lutherans teach that justification (narrow) is Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide as ONE inseparable, united doctrine.





Sola Gratia (Grace Alone). “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and all this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8, see also Romans 6:23, Titus 3:5, etc.). This places emphasis that our salvation (here in the sense of narrow justification) flows from God’s heart – not ours. It is the fruit of God's works/achievements - not ours. Grace in justification is God’s unmerited, unconditional love/favor/gift. Grace means “getting what we don’t deserve.” It is “God’s Riches At Christ’s Expense” It is God's mercy in NOT treating us as we deserve but of God's grace in giving us what we don't deserve and did not merit.


Solus Christus (Christ Alone). “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). “There is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved” (Acts 4:12). “No one comes to the Father except by Me” (John 14:6). Christ IS our Savior and our salvation. It’s CHRIST’s perfect live, CHRIST’s perfect sacrifice, CHRIST’s triumphant resurrection! Christ is the object of our faith. In justification, it is not how much we believe or how good we believe but in Whom we believe; our focus is on the quality of Christ’s work rather than on the quality of our faith; HE is our certainty. We look to the Cross ( not in the mirror) to see the Savior. There is a life GIVER (as the ancient creed stresses) - and it's not dead self (1 John 5:11-12)


Sola Fide (Faith Alone). “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved!” (Acts 16:30-31. Also see John 3:16, Acts 10:43, etc.). This proclaims that His grace and salvation are embraced by God’s gift of faith. Faith in this context means to trust or rely upon. It means to have active confidence or reliance especially upon something “unseen” or “unproven.” It too is the gift of God.



For God so loved the world (Sola Gratia) that He gave His only begotten Son (Solus Christus) that whosoever believes in Him (Sola Fide) will not perish but has everlasting life (Justification, narrow) - John 3:16


"You were dead in your trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1)
“God is love!” (1 John 1:8)
“God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but has everlasting life!” (John 3:16)
“God shows His love for us in that while we were enemies, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8).
"This is our testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life, whoever does not have the Son does not have life" (1 John 5:11-12)
“God saved us not because of deeds done by us but in virtue of His own mercy, that we might be saved by His grace” (Titus 3:5),
“For our sake God made Jesus to be sin who knew no sin so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21).
“The free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 6:23).
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your doing but it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8).
“Everyone that believes in Christ receives forgiveness of sins through His name” (Acts 10:43)
“Sirs, what must we do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.” (Acts 16:30-31)


Our justification (narrow) is the result of GOD’S heart, will and work – not our own. Nor is this a mixture of our works and His works so that Jesus is PARTLY the Savior and we are PARTLY the Savior (synergistic Pelagianism), no, Jesus IS the SAVIOR. If it has to do with salvation (justification, narrow) then it's Jesus' doing and gift. We are to keep our hearts and faith focused squarely and only on Jesus who ALONE is THE Savior.



A word about faith…


“For by grace you have been saved through faith in Christ, and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” Ephesians 2:8
“We are justified by faith” Romans 5:1
“God justifies he who has faith in Jesus Christ. Romans 3:26


The word “faith” in this context means to rely, to trust. In its use here, it means to rely on Christ for Salvation (and beyond). It is the means by which we embrace the promise and the work of Christ.

Faith is not just (or even primarily) a cognitive or mental thing, it means to place our trust, our life in another – to rely. When we ride in an airplane, we may not understand exactly how the plane flies – but we can board the plane and literally entrust our very lives to it. We may submit to surgery and to a surgeon whom we don’t even know (and who doesn’t know us) and have no idea what will happen – literally entrusting our very life to him/her. Trust is a key factor in lives (to not trust is to be paranoid). For a Christian, we trust our soul and much of our life to God. In salvation, we trust in His works rather than in our own, we look to HIS perfect life rather than our sinful one, to His death rather than the one we deserve. We are placing our lives in His loving hands.

Faith is not our doing, it is the ‘gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8)




A word about our works…

On the one hand, Justification is not the result of OUR works but rather JESUS’ works. He is the Savior in this sense; we are not. Because JESUS is the Savior, it is His works that bring about our salvation – not ours (or else, we’d be the Savior!).

On the other hand, Scripture is clear that faith is never alone (James 2:17, Galatians 5:25, John 13:34, Philippians 2:13, Philippians 3:12-14). OUR works do not save us, but they result from our being saved – they are the result of our justification and not the cause of it. We love not so that God will love us, rather we love because God first loved us (Galatians 5:25, John 13:34, Hebrews 11:6). OUR works are not the cause of salvation but the result of salvation, and as such, are to accompany our lives as Christians. CHRISTIANS are called to great things! To absolute divine holiness... to love even as Christ first loved us... to service/ministry.... and much, much more! These are not optional! But these are what the justified are called to do, not what makes one the justified. The unregenerate are dead and can't do anything spiritual (cuz they are dead), but once GIVEN life ("I have come that they may have life....") then (and only then) can they begin to live and grow and mature. It's not the growing that makes one alive, but being alive means we can grow.

Apart from Christ, we are "DEAD in our trespasses and sins." Life is not something the dead give to self, life is the GIFT of God given to the dead so that they have life. Yes, Justification (God's works for us) and Sanctification (our works for God) are inseparable, but association does not even imply causation. Yes, generally speaking, the living breathe but it is not breathing that causes one to be concieved and have life - it's having been given life that causes one to breathe.


Messing this up undermines everything! When Jesus is no longer the Savior, we’ve stepped outside of Christianity. When we are made our own Savior (in whole or in part), the result is not only a conflict with Scripture and the central affirmation of Christianity, but it results in one of two things: A “terror of the conscience” (as we realize we’re not the “savior” of self we need to be) or we become little self-righteous, condemning souls (because we think we are what we need to be). It results in the beauty and comfort of the Gospel being lost and our relationship to God undermined.

In some circles, OUR works are added to the requirements of John 3:16 so that it reads, “For God so loved the world so that those who do “X, Y and Z” will not perish but be given what their works deserve, everlasting life.” The key factor then is not Christ but our performance of “X, Y and Z” – not His work but our work, WE become the Savior, not Christ. And we must worry if we’ve done “X, Y and Z” well enough (remember His call to perfection?), if we’ve done enough, if we’ve done well enough, if we’ve been sufficient. IF we answer “NO” the result is a “terror of the conscience” so that we never know if we are forgiven or saved or heaven-bound or not. IF we answer “YES” the result is often a prideful, self-righteous, condemning modern-day Pharisee. We must not mix our works with Christ’s works, the cause of salvation with the fruit of salvation. The result is the “peace that passes all understanding” and love that isn’t selfish and self-serving but truly of God.

Jesus is the Savior! We are saved by His grace and mercy, by His life and death and resurrection! Our faith, our rest, our certainty are in Christ! Our peace, our confidence, our certainty are in Christ!



The RCC declared this Lutheran position to be heresy and anathematized it and split itself nearly in two over this.




.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
[MENTION=55]ImaginaryDay2[/MENTION]


I have volunteered - more than once here at CH - what "credentials" I bring, both as a former Catholic and (far more significantly) as a Lutheran. I've listed classes I've taken, books I've read, etc., etc., etc. I believe I'm the only one here at CH that has been quite "up front" and open about this since I can't recall anyone else doing this (apart from 2 who have noted that they are seminary trained, although no details where offered). And I think I have been careful to give the Scriptural references that Lutherans typically do, whenever possible. And I have NOT ever labeled myself an "expert" (in fairness, no one at CH has) - with a couple of exceptions, we're laypeople here (many of us converts to our current positions). If you request, I'd be glad to go over all this again for you (and I'm sure more has been added since I last posted), just so that you know the "background" of me as a poster. No problem, glad to do it, upon request.



As for the "narrow" and "broad," while these terms are used in our Confessions, the key point is how they are used. NO ONE denies that many of the words used in theology (and even in the Bible itself) can have various meanings - and yes, narrower or broader meanings. "Salvation" "Justification" "Conversion" "Sanctification" "Glorification" are just a few biggies where this is the case. My Lutheran pastor and teachers and theology books have been pretty honest about that. THUS, in the work done as theologians, it's critical that we understand WHICH meaning is meant in a text, and which meaning we are using in a theological treatise. Lutherans (as well as Catholics, Calvinist and beyond) are pretty good at this. Luther and the Lutheran fathers were EXTREMLY careful to define what Lutherans mean so that it was IMPOSSIBLE for Catholicism to misunderstand. Nonetheless, the RCC anathematized the Lutheran view here.... declared it heresy.... and split Christianity over this. I am NOT one of those very liberal Catholics or Lutherans who believe all Catholic scholars for nearly 500 years were just PROFOUNDLY ignorant and lazy and didn't understand (and actually the Lutheran view and the Catholic one are essentially the same), I have far too high a regard for Catholic scholarship to swallow that, although I know among the "Kumbyah" folks, it's popular.


IMO (and I'm hardly alone in this), what happened in the RCC is a blending and confusing of two DIFFERENT things - BECOMING a Christian and BEING a Christian, gaining the life and living the life, a mixing of Law and Gospel, the work of Christ on the Cross with the work we do on earth - and the result of the entangled MESS that Lutheranism responded to (all NOT official doctrine at the time, Luther TRUELY and SINCERELY believed he was presenting the historic, orthodox, Catholic view that was simply MESSED UP in common, popular Catholicism - the RCC disagreed in the boldest possible way, calling Luther a heretic, anathematizing this Gospel, and IMO creating the MESS taht so many Catholics and former Catholics indicate is commonly taught there. It is important to note, friend, that this whole topic was NOT officially defined in Luthers' time (not until shortly AFTER his death) so that the condemnations are "after the fact". Luther felt he was merely clarifying and proclaiming sound Catholic soteriology (and perhaps he was) but the RCC officially and powerfully disagreed.

IMO, the popular Catholic MESS is simply because the RCC starts with Sanctification, says all good (and correct) things about that, and then just wraps Justification into THAT (applying true things about Sanctification to Justification, where they are not only false but destroy the Gospel of Jesus). Yes, Sanctification is synergistic and progressive and a case of the Holy Spirit speaking to the Life in us - directing and empowering us to grow to be more Christ-like, to be the people we are called to be. EVERYONE AGREES ON THAT (because it's true). We even agree such is rewarded accordingly in heaven.... we even agree that the lack of such can destroy and wreck our faith (all but a few Calvinists).... The problem Luther addressed is when all that is imputed into Justification and becomes the theology of Justification. Luther felt that flately contradicts Scripture, the Fathers, the Councils, the Council of Orange and even the Ecumenical Creeds - and it's basically semi Pelagianism - and on a more practical note - creates a "terror of the conscience" or "terror of the soul" and also it taints our good works since they thus become selfish, done for how it will bless ME. I've stated this view MANY times at CH, always entirely and absolutely ignored (which is okay, it's just one "take")



Blessings on your Pentecost celebration....



- Josiah




PS Still wondering why you created a whole thing.... about ME.... rather than sending me a PM. But okay.




.
 
Last edited:

ImaginaryDay2

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
3,967
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] -
First, I started this as a way to address some things that confused me as a reader (and appeared to be confusing others). To call something "narrow" would necessarily mean (to me) that it is very specific and tight - it has clean and clear borders. While the definition offered has few points, those points, when unpacked, have nuances and meaning that broaden the scope. So, in my view (and also as one who is University trained and enjoys studying/research) the "narrow" no longer applies.

For example, statements such as "...the ESTABLISHMENT of a new and different relationship with God, the GIVING of the divine gifts of spiritual life, faith in Christ as Savior, the Holy Spirit" are things to be unpacked - studied - looked into - and weighed against what I already know. It's no longer a narrow definition.

I had a colleague at one time who drove me crazy, but now (years later) I get it. I would come to him with some work related issue, and give him the "bigger picture" as it were. And he would respond with "DETAILS, DETAILS!" grinning at me the whole time because he knew that drove me nuts. But I got the idea that bigger picture ideas need to be unpacked and understood. I might understand, but another person reading my work will need to know more.

And I take that approach with anything I read. There was a thread a while back where there was a statement about the Virgin Mary. And I bucked it, because it was not true. I studied it. I looked at the issue and unpacked it. That's how my mind works. And I'd think that would be a valuable thing here - it should happen more. Imo, most of the close-minded fights that happen on this site is for that very reason - we don't take time to consider what's beyond our own perceptions and ask if there's another explanation for how we're viewing things. As an example, my process of coming to the Lutheran church did not happen suddenly, but over a few years, because I wanted to know I was taking the right step. And I studied and looked at the RCC as well during that time. I wanted to know I was taking the right step. Some might think I stopped short, and some in my life disagree completely with what I decided. But my decisions don't mean that I've "arrived" anywhere, so I ask questions - sometimes very pointed ones to help me (and maybe help others).

Somehow, I still think it's a good thing to question. And if it seems that it's an attack on your integrity, I apologize. It's not meant that way. All I wanted was a bit more beyond cut-and-paste. While it's fine to a degree, eventually ideas need to be unpacked. And if one has the knowledge to do that (which you've shown you do), I think that would be a good thing.

But, at the very least, you've pointed me to some resources that will be helpful (and, yes, I've looked at them and will be ordering soon)
 
Last edited:

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,653
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I think using terms such as narrow and broad is more of a modern thing to deal with ideas that have popped up since Luther's day that are not in our Confessions, so those terms are used to help clarify our beliefs. Not everyone uses those terms though so it's difficult to search out but I have seen them in some online discussions and a book or two (I don't remember what they were).
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
In the Confessions (and in theology - modern and otherwise), terms are sometimes meant variously. This is true popularly, too. For example, "salvation.' Does that refer to the specific event (something one MIGHT even be able to date)? For example, some Baptists would point to when they came forward for an Altar Call (Lutherans might point to Easter Sunday lol, I'd likely point to my Baptism) - but the term CAN mean all of soteriology, everything from that moment through their eternity in Heaven. There is a narrow and broad meaning. This is true in MUCH of theology. When theologians write of these things.... and especially when they write theology.... MOST are careful to define how they mean it. As am I. My limited training has taught me the importance of that. It IS possible to use terms like Justification, Glorification, Sanctification, Conversion, Salvation to all mean EXACTLY the same thing.... or very different things. It's true in the Bible, as well. Context is important.

At times in the Lutheran Confessions, the terms themselves are used ("Narrow" "Broad") but usually we gather it from the context. When I googled "narrow sanctification" for example, I only noticed the very first thing listed but it was exactly my point.

As I noted, in Luther's time, there was no clear definition of these things and what Luther saw popularly in the church of his day (and has some here at CH have noted about their Catholic experiences in our own time) is that things can get ENORMOUSLY sloppy - and Luther felt that the way things got conveyed (including by those selling Indulgences) was not only clearly contradictory of Scripture and destroying of the Gospel, but as Luther noted, seemed in conflict with Catholic theology, the Fathers and Councils and even the Creed. Luther FIRMLY believed that the RCC of his day - including even the lacking Pope of the time - would appreciate this Doctor of the Church noting the need for clarity and orthodoxy. What he got was pronouncements that actually Luther was heretical on this point (see the Justification thread, post 671). After Luther (and others) were absolutely certain the Catholic theologians involved knew EXACTLY what he was saying - and declared it heresy - did the polemics (we all sadly regret on all sides) come into play on this point. And of course, Trent (a bit after Luther's death) would dogmatize the Catholic confusion in order to repudiate Luther's stance (see Justification thread, post 671) with anathemas and condemnations. Luther's desire was simply to promote and protect the Gospel (Jesus is the Savior, God is the Giver of life, there IS forgiveness) in a way he THOUGHT would be just as much a desire in the church of his day. He was very wrong.

It should be remembers, too, that some had several issues with things the RCC was teaching and doing (few of them dogmas at the time) that Luther too questioned: Indulgences, the RCC's unique take on Purgatory, Transubstantiation, Papal Infallibility, even the primary meaning of "church." But Luther was not excommunicated for those things, the anathema was specific to Justification. And the RCC was very consistent and deliberate is using the word "Justification" (so as to be specific to Luther's view on that topic.... "narrow" if you will allow) and did NOT use words like "Sanctification" or "Soteriology" or even "Salvation" so that it MIGHT be argued Catholicism was simply desiring to focus on a broader or different topic.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I think using terms such as narrow and broad is more of a modern thing to deal with ideas that have popped up since Luther's day that are not in our Confessions, so those terms are used to help clarify our beliefs. Not everyone uses those terms though so it's difficult to search out but I have seen them in some online discussions and a book or two (I don't remember what they were).

Actually, this all predates Luther by centuries. And it IS found in the Confessions - just rarely with those adjectives. The Lutheran Confessions, in my impression, rarely (if ever) uses the term Justification in the broad sense - but Lutheran CERTAINLY agree the term can be used that way (in fact, our entirely handling of James is based on that). The reason is simple: The Confessions were written primarily to the RCC, which didn't disagree with us on Sanctification (what happens WITH the divine gifts of life/faith/justification) - even on the synergism, process and rewards involved in that, the RCC had been clear their hatred was for the divine gift of life and faith, the issue of Jesus as Savior and the Holy Spirit was GIVER of life. So that's what the Confessions address (because that was the issue) - thus "narrow" Justification. Justification/Sanctification/Salvation in the broad sense (everything related to our relationship with God) was mostly not in dispute. Whether Justification is SYNERGISTIC/PELAGIAN in nature - a process of becoming alive and gaining faith and receiving the Holy Spirit - just as Sanctification is, or whether Justification is MONERGISTIC, the work of God, the gift of God, a divine unmerited blessing that ENABLES Sanctification was, in essence, the debate; to put it another way, do we RECIEVE the gift of life and the Holy Spirit BECAUSE we do the works of Sanctification? Luther saw these two things as DIFFERENT ('narrow senses') - so that Jesus is the Savior (and not simply a possibility maker) and so that the Holy Spirit is the Giver of life (and not simply the offerer to those who have earned and achieved it).
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,208
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I think that "justification-narrow" is helpful even if it unpacks as a very large and complex set of concepts because it acknowledges that there is more than one Lutheran concept of justification present in the Justification thread. I do not really know what "justification-narrow" means yet. I haven't got a clue what "justification-broad" means or even if it exists. But I can see that at least two conceptions of justification are present in Josiah's posts.


My own perspective differs significantly from what I have seen written in Josiah's posts.


I think of Justification as "being made righteous" and that is also a set of ideas that can be broken down into components (for the sake of discussion though not for the sake of salvation nor for an understanding of reality).

  • First being made righteous has both passive and active elements in it.
    The wording "being made" suggests passivity. It points to God's activity in human beings who are "spiritually dead". Those who are "spiritually dead" are acted upon by God while they themselves are passive. Baptism is an example of passively being acted upon as a recipient who does not self-apply water and does not self-proclaim that he is baptised "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". God acts and the baptised one is passive at least as far as the act of baptism is concerned.
    I put "spiritually dead" in quotes because that phrase is loaded with meanings that appear to be significantly different in Lutheran thinking from the way I think of the meaning of the phrase. For me the phrase "spiritually dead" means being separated from the life of God in Christ. A "spiritually dead" person walks and talks, is sensible to the world around him, and is capable of affecting the world around him. "spiritually dead" people can hear the gospel preached, read the bible, perform acts of generosity, do evil works, obey legal demands - even demands from the Law of Moses - and they can love, hate, anguish, regret, rejoice and do all the things we see the people around us do and be all the things we see the people around us being regardless of whether they are Christians or something else.
    When Jesus called Lazarus he said "Lazarus come forth" yet Lazarus was dead so what sense is there is giving a command to a dead man who cannot hear or obey? Yet Jesus commands "Lazarus come forth" because the command in itself, coming from the One who gave it, enabled the dead man to hear and obey. The very command itself, spoken by God incarnate, demands a response and the response of the dead mas was to hear and to obey. Lazarus was passive until God commanded him to act. This is the demarcation between passivity and activity. One is "spiritually dead" yet the vocation of God works and the hearer (who was dead) is called to action. At the vocation of God the response is no longer passive.

    The word "righteous" in the phrase "being made righteous" suggests activity. It points to the activities of a man in this world (and in the next when the time comes). Those activities are righteous when they conform to the commandments of God. Human obedience offered by human beings is what righteousness in human beings is. On this side of the resurrection human obedience in this world is offered by human beings touched by and affected by original sin. Yet God accepts human obedience as righteousness. Of course Christians offer human obedience in a new way because they are human beings united to the man Jesus Christ and that brings with it a whole symphony of new things in what it means to be obedient in this world.
    "Conforming to the commandments of God" is yet another phrase that appears to be fraught with different meanings when use by Lutherans in comparison to what I mean by the phrase. I think of the phrase as meaning that a man obeys - within the confines of his abilities - the commandments. His obedience is not faultless. It is human obedience because he is a human being. Angelic obedience is very likely different from human obedience. Angels, I presume, offer a more-perfect-obedience than a man might, especially a man who is touched by original sin. Yet even the angels cannot offer absolutely-perfect-faultless-obedience because God finds fault even in his angels.
    [Job 4:18 If God can put no trust in his servants, if he can charge his angels with error, 19 how much more those who live in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, who are crushed as easily as moths!]​
    So we find God accepting human obedience in the story of Job. For Job is called by God "a perfect man, righteous in his deeds".

I had intended to go on to a "second" and a "third" in my post explaining what "being made righteous" means when it is properly unpacked but I see I have already written more words than many here are likely to read willingly so I shall stop here, with the "first" part. It has enough unpacked to keep a chap busy for a while.


God be with you all.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
At least you tried.

For me, a Catholic, Justification is the process of being made just by the grace of God and the obedience of faith to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Justification includes repentance and belief of the gospel. Repentance is a life long work and experience. Belief of the gospel is an active assent of the will and work of the will and body it is also a life long work and experience.

For me, a Catholic, baptism is the start of life as one of the faithful of God. It is the start and it marks a person for their life time (and the next life also).

For me, a Catholic, salvation is being saved from sins and brought to Life in Christ. It is a life long work and experience. It is wholly of grace and not earned by works yet good works are the way of life that the gospel sets before us and without doing them no one can say "I am a Christian" and no one is saved apart from living the life of Christ in this world and the next.
There is no process of being made just. Your position is works based.
Justification is what God did for us in Christ. Christ justifies us 100% when we are adopted. It isn't something we have to work towards.
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
3,577
Location
Pacific North West
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Justification is what God did for us in Christ.
Christ justifies us 100% when we are adopted.
It isn't something we have to work towards.
?

Got it!

So I know a man dead in his sins who wants to be adopted by Christ...

He wants to be righteously justified by God...

What should I tell him to do?

Arsenios
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom