Justification

[Josiah]

Wikipedia has something to say about Justification. Let me know if your reaction is "it sounds good to me!"

In Christian theology, justification is God's act of removing the guilt and penalty of sin while at the same time making a sinner righteous through Christ's atoning sacrifice.

The means of justification is an area of significant difference between Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism. In Lutheranism and Calvinism, righteousness from God is viewed as being credited to the sinner's account through faith alone, without works.

Broadly speaking, Catholic, Methodist and Orthodox Christians distinguish between initial justification, which in their view ordinarily occurs at baptism, and final salvation, accomplished after a lifetime of striving to do God's will (sanctification).

In Catholic doctrine, forgiveness of sin exists, and in the Protestant doctrine, sin is merely "covered" and not imputed. Catholics believe faith as is active in charity and good works (fides caritate formata) can justify man, Protestants believe faith without works can justify man because Christ died for sinners, but that anyone who truly has faith will produce good works as a product of faith, as a good tree produces good fruit. For Lutherans justification can be lost with the loss of faith, for Catholics justification can be lost by mortal sin.

Justification is often seen as being the theological fault line that divided Catholic from the Lutheran and Reformed traditions of Protestantism during the Reformation​

Wikipedia seems confused .....


Posts 2, 3 and 8 give the Lutheran position. Since the Roman Catholic denomination - after decades of VERY careful evaluation and meetings with Luther and Lutheran theologians - their very best theologians and then the denomination itself formally denounced it in the very boldest way possible, as apostate heresy - worthy of repudiating Luther (albeit after his death) and splitting itself nearly in half over. So the Catholic position (what it is) MUST be very radically DIFFERENT than the Lutheran one.


Lutherans do NOT teach that works play no role, only that Justification is via Christ's works (because Lutherans hold that Jesus is the Savior) and that Sanctification is via our works (empowered and directed by God). Lutherans hold that forgiveness is always in view of Christ - the Blood of the Lamb - and not our works of emotions - and that forgiveness means it does not exist but (to use OT language) is "covered" by the blood.


There are a few liberal Catholics who hold that the disagreement largely fades when the Lutheran definition of justification is remembered (it seems very similar to what Catholics NOW call 'initial grace') and when the Lutheran definition of Sanctifiction is remembered. But the RCC cannot agree with that without declaring that the Council of Trent was very fundamentally WRONG and that the horrible things that denomination did were solely politically and economically motivated and that all those theologians and bishops KNEW Luther was right but split the RCC over what he said anyway, excommunicated Luther for teaching CORRECTLY, all to protect their power and abuses - in a Council that was declared "infallible" and unaccountable. That ain't going to happen. So, the Catholic church is sticking to its story: What Luther taught (you know, John 3:16) is apostate heresy of the worse kind, anathema, worthy of the RCC causing the second largest split in itself in all history, horrible stuff that must be repudiated as Catholic apologists still do 500 years later - usually by evading to say what the Catholic position is (lest it look too Lutheran).


Yes, the RCC insisted the issue was JUSTIFICATION - what Luther wrote about JUSTIFICATION (as he defined it) in the books and works it repudiated and burned. And Lutherans agree, the issue is JUSTIFICATION (what Luther wrote about this and defined it). You can read that position in posts 2, 3 and 8. Lutherans agree that Justification IS the "Chief Article" of Christianity: Jesus is the Savior. But the RCC it calls Lutheranism on this apostate heresy and anathematized the view (see posts 2, 3 and 8)


- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

Indeed, when the Spirit of God immerses us into Christ we have overcome because Christ has overcome.
"I have told you all this so that you may have peace in me. Here on earth you will have many trials and sorrows. But take heart, because I have overcome the world." (John 16:33)

The Church historically has held that this fire is the fire of the temptations of the world...
After Baptism, Christ went into the wilderness fasting for 40 days and nights...
THEN He was tempted by the Devil...
IF we are baptized INTO Christ, then we too ARE ABLE to overcome these temptations...
Because Christ overcame them in His Own Body...
And if NOT baptized INTO Christ...
Then NOT...

Arsenios

 

[Andrew]

In answer to DHoffmann's question, "literal fire?" ... I do not know, does it matter? The story that saint John the Baptist tells is of a threshing floor and winnowing grain and chaff the wind carries away the chaff and leaves the grain so the grain can be gathered and the chaff swept up and burned. The analogy is to baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire. Reading the passage in Greek the reason for the link between winnowing and the Holy Spirit is clear enough and so is the link between fire and the burning of the chaff.

I asked that question "literal fire?" because you mentioned the fire maybe suggesting somewhat relating to purgatory.
I always saw the fire as symbolic, like in Johns letter to the church of Laodicea which suggest we buy things from Christ that are tried and refined in the fire.
When you said "does it matter" it makes me wonder if literal fire makes a difference in purgatory... I believe the Catholic church believes this as literal. I could be wrong tho, that's another reason i asked

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=60]MoreCoffee[/MENTION]

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 in Scripture and among theologians. 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. They knew Luther's position - and condemned it as boldly as possible (in spite of the efforts of a few liberal Catholics to suggest all of Catholicism was just totally ignorant for 5 Centuries about Lutheranism). 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 side-tracted 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.




[MENTION=63]hedrick[/MENTION]

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. It will 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. Luther was proclaiming and defending what he regarded as the most important issue: Jesus saves (in Justification). IMO, the Catholic Church fully and PERFECTLY understood that - and excommunicated him for it and split itself nearly in two over that. It labeled Luther's view on JUSTIFICATION (see posts 2, 3, 8) as apostate heresy - not Luther's view on Sanctification.


Reality is: There is no significant disagreement in Sanctification.... Never has been, isn't now. We all agree God calls Christians to do and be great things (Lutherans and Calvinists stress this more than Catholics however), and that God empowers/directs 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 all agree that Christians are called and empowered to be Christ-Like, 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" as Catholicism states or a desire to deflect from the actual issue.







MennoSota, this thread is not about baptism. The original/historic/ecumenical/orthodox view OR the new invented view of Anabaptists.




- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...I notice there is no talk of water baptism in any of those passages.
Thus, water baptism has nothing to do with salvation or justification. Water baptism must, therefore, be a symbolic ceremony expressing the immersion of sinners into Christ so that Christ is our propitiation that justifies us before God the Father.
Let us not turn water baptism into a mystical means of salvation. It isn't and it certainly is never taught as such in scripture.

"must ... be a symbolic ..." really? I see no must about it. That appears to be something that is desired by some but not something that must be. And what has "immersion of sinners into Christ" to do with "our propitiation" I do not agree that there is a link between these concepts in a discussion about "justification" and its relationship to baptism. And you write "Let us not turn water baptism into a mystical means of salvation" There is nothing especially "mystical" about baptism. It is the washing of regeneration according to holy scripture and the baptism that now saves you is like the waters of the flood that washed away the sinful world in the days of Noah and the flood. Surely the flood has water and the water washed away the corruption of the world and that is why saint Peter says, "1Peter 3:18 Remember how Christ died, once, and for all, for our sins. He, the just one, died for the unjust, in order to lead us to God. In the body, he was put to death, in the spirit, he was raised to life, 19 and it was then, that he went to preach to the imprisoned spirits. 20 They were the generation who did not believe, when God, in his great patience, delayed punishing the world, while Noah was building the ark, in which a small group of eight persons escaped, through water. 21 That was a type of the baptism that now saves you; this baptism is not a matter of physical cleansing, but of asking God to reconcile us, through the resurrection of Christ Jesus. 22 He has ascended to heaven, and is at the right hand of God, having subjected the angels, Dominions and Powers."

The holy scriptures do not leave any room for making everything appertaining to the saving grace attached to baptism into something "symbolic" baptism is not symbolic. It is the washing of regeneration as saint Paul says "Titus 3:1 Remind the believers, to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, and to be ready for every good work. 2 Tell them to insult no one; they must not be quarrelsome, but gentle and understanding with everyone. 3 We ourselves were once foolish, disobedient and misled. We were slaves of our desires, seeking pleasures of every kind. We lived in malice and envy, hateful, and hating each other. 4 But God, our Savior, revealed his eminent goodness and love for humankind, 5 and saved us, not because of good deeds we may have done, but for the sake of his own mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal, by the Holy Spirit 6 poured over us through Christ Jesus our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we should become heirs, in hope of eternal life."

So in this thread we patiently instruct in mildness without insults nor being quarrelsome but with gentleness seeking to help everybody to understand the grace of God that leads to salvation.

 

[MennoSota]

There is no connection between water baptism and grace. There is no connection between water baptism and justification.
There is unity with the Spirit's baptism, Jesus justification and God's grace. The unity is that all are accomplished by God and God alone.

"must ... be a symbolic ..." really? I see no must about it. That's appears to be something that is desired by some but not something that must be. And what has "immersion of sinners into Christ" to do with "our propitiation" I do not agree that there is a link between these concepts in a discussion about "justification" and its relationship to baptism. And you write "Let us not turn water baptism into a mystical means of salvation" There is nothing especially "mystical" about baptism. It is the washing of regeneration according to holy scripture and the baptism that now saves you is like the waters of the flood that washed away the sinful world in the days of Noah and the flood. Surely the flood has water and the water washed away the corruption of the world and that is why saint Peter says, "1Peter 3:18 Remember how Christ died, once, and for all, for our sins. He, the just one, died for the unjust, in order to lead us to God. In the body, he was put to death, in the spirit, he was raised to life, 19 and it was then, that he went to preach to the imprisoned spirits. 20 They were the generation who did not believe, when God, in his great patience, delayed punishing the world, while Noah was building the ark, in which a small group of eight persons escaped, through water. 21 That was a type of the baptism that now saves you; this baptism is not a matter of physical cleansing, but of asking God to reconcile us, through the resurrection of Christ Jesus. 22 He has ascended to heaven, and is at the right hand of God, having subjected the angels, Dominions and Powers."

The holy scriptures do not leave any room for making everything appertaining to the saving grace attached to baptism into something "symbolic" baptism is not symbolic. It is the washing of regeneration as saint Paul says "Titus 3:1 Remind the believers, to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, and to be ready for every good work. 2 Tell them to insult no one; they must not be quarrelsome, but gentle and understanding with everyone. 3 We ourselves were once foolish, disobedient and misled. We were slaves of our desires, seeking pleasures of every kind. We lived in malice and envy, hateful, and hating each other. 4 But God, our Savior, revealed his eminent goodness and love for humankind, 5 and saved us, not because of good deeds we may have done, but for the sake of his own mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal, by the Holy Spirit 6 poured over us through Christ Jesus our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we should become heirs, in hope of eternal life."

So in this thread we patiently instruct in mildness without insults nor being quarrelsome but with gentleness seeking to help everybody to understand the grace of God that leads to salvation.

 

[Josiah]

There is no connection between water baptism and justification.

Then all your posts about it in this thread are inappropriate.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

It also, literally means to submerge or be sunk.
Paul doesn't bring up water when using the word baptizo. The better interpretation is to immerse, be sunk into Christ.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/baptizo.html
Second, when you force water into the context, you also force salvation by works into the passage. Yet God is very, very clear that nothing we do will ever merit his forgiveness of our sins. Thus, your position is entirely contrary to God and His word.

Here's a problem I have with the "Paul doesn't bring up..." issue. The Epistles are directed to an audience of established churches that were already educated in the basics of the Christian faith. Why would the basic issue of the use of water need to be brought up again if the audience already had an understanding that's what he was alluding to? There was no need to "force" it into the context, because they already understood it to be there. Paul also extended the teaching to explain that water isn't just water, but is effectual toward the person to whom it is administered.

The concerning thing is that the study provided in your link essentially does away with any need for (water) baptism outright, and that should set off warning bells. As the author alluded to, making a pickle is a two step process, but he assumes only one step is needed to make a Christian pickle.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

There is no connection between water baptism and grace. There is no connection between water baptism and justification.
There is unity with the Spirit's baptism, Jesus justification and God's grace. The unity is that all are accomplished by God and God alone.

Menno, it doesn't become "more true" the more it's said. Your point is noted.

 

[MennoSota]

Not only should my point be noted, my point should be acknowledged as biblically accurate, while preaching water baptism as a means of grace should be acknowledged as unbiblical denominational dogma.
I will continue to harp on this point as long as false teaching regarding baptism is being shared on the CH.
Will you stop promoting a non-biblical teaching?

Menno, it doesn't become "more true" the more it's said. Your point is noted.

 

[Albion]

.

 

[Andrew]

.

good point

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

...preaching water baptism as a means of grace should be acknowledged as unbiblical denominational dogma.

Your argument against "denominational dogma" should be ignored following that link you sent, supporting your pov via (I'm sure) a very fine non-denom apologist. The truth is, we all commit to a certain dogma - some churches and "non-denoms'" try to avoid this by creating "statements of faith", thereby appearing to avoid all that 'dogma' mess. But the fact that you do rely on external sources to support your claim (just as others do) sort of shows your hand in this whole thing.
The fact is that you (and all of us) have been educated much more fully on the nuances behind Justification in this thread (and baptism in others), and that you ignore it for your preferred narrative (i.e. "dogma")

 

[MennoSota]

Your entire comment ignores scripture and revolves around your denominational talking points.
Baptizo means to immerse. Even the idea of dipping has immersion as its root.
What I do not do, but you force into the word, baptizo, is automatically add water when you see the word.
Why do you do that? There is no contextual reason to do so, yet you do it anyway.

Your argument against "denominational dogma" should be ignored following that link you sent, supporting your pov via (I'm sure) a very fine non-denom apologist. The truth is, we all commit to a certain dogma - some churches and "non-denoms'" try to avoid this by creating "statements of faith", thereby appearing to avoid all that 'dogma' mess. But the fact that you do rely on external sources to support your claim (just as others do) sort of shows your hand in this whole thing.
The fact is that you (and all of us) have been educated much more fully on the nuances behind Justification in this thread (and baptism in others), and that you ignore it for your preferred narrative (i.e. "dogma")

 

[atpollard]

The word "baptise" implies water. Does't it mean to submerge [in water]?

Careful, that argument got ME in a lot of trouble in the baptizing babies thread.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Careful, that argument got ME in a lot of trouble in the baptizing babies thread.

My question was intended to represent the view held by Baptists rather than representing what is true. The definition of "baptism" is more complex than "submerge" but the case for "submerge" is often given great emphasis by people who share a Baptist view of baptism. No matter what level of complexity is given to the word it's indisputable that the word usually means that water is applied with the idea of washing. But it appears that in MennoSota's theology baptism is altogether "spiritual" and the use of water in it is wholly symbolic and ineffective.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Your entire comment ignores scripture and revolves around your denominational talking points.
Baptizo means to immerse. Even the idea of dipping has immersion as its root.
What I do not do, but you force into the word, baptizo, is automatically add water when you see the word.
Why do you do that? There is no contextual reason to do so, yet you do it anyway.

You missed my point. You've presented your own "talking points" into the discussion now, so what my (and other's) comments "revolve around" is a moot point.
Anyway, the thread is an examination of "Justification", per the parameters of the OP. Can we get back to that?

 

[MennoSota]

Sure. Stop bringing up baptism as though it has something to do with justification and I won't need to state why it's not true.

You missed my point. You've presented your own "talking points" into the discussion now, so what my (and other's) comments "revolve around" is a moot point.
Anyway, the thread is an examination of "Justification", per the parameters of the OP. Can we get back to that?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Your argument against "denominational dogma" should be ignored following that link you sent, supporting your pov via (I'm sure) a very fine non-denom apologist. The truth is, we all commit to a certain dogma - some churches and "non-denoms'" try to avoid this by creating "statements of faith", thereby appearing to avoid all that 'dogma' mess. But the fact that you do rely on external sources to support your claim (just as others do) sort of shows your hand in this whole thing.
The fact is that you (and all of us) have been educated much more fully on the nuances behind Justification in this thread (and baptism in others), and that you ignore it for your preferred narrative (i.e. "dogma")

Adding the phrase "the bible teaches" is like playing a trump card; the player who plays it thinks he's won the game. But since the definition of "the bible" is established by tradition that "trump card" is as ineffective for making a point in theology as is appealing to a comment found in saint Thomas Aquinas' works when disputing with a sola scriptura adherent. The truth is that in the holy scriptures the word "baptise" and its other forms usually means to wash with water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. MennoSota's preferred theology denies water any role in salvation. That is a point of view that some hold to. It is not the view that I hold and I doubt it can be show from scripture that it is a view supported by the use of "baptise" in holy scripture. It's a theological view that is applied to the holy scriptures rather than a view that unfolds from the teaching found in holy scripture. But MennoSota's posts are very strong in affirming that theological view and very weak in exposition of holy scripture's use of "baptise".

 

[MennoSota]

If water plays a role in salvation then salvation comes by merited works. Please show us where God declares us justified by our merited works. (I already addressed Romans 2 to show why our works cannot justify us by bringing in Paul's entire argument in Romans rather than clinging to a couple sentences as some odd prooftext.
So, explain to us how water merits God's compulsory extension of grace.

Adding the phrase "the bible teaches" is like playing a trump card; the player who plays it thinks he's won the game. But since the definition of "the bible" is established by tradition that "trump card" is as ineffective for making a point in theology as is appealing to a comment found in saint Thomas Aquinas' works when disputing with a sola scriptura adherent. The truth is that in the holy scriptures the word "baptise" and its other forms usually means to wash with water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. MennoSota's preferred theology denies water any role in salvation. That is a point of view that some hold to. It is not the view that I hold and I doubt it can be show from scripture that it is a view supported by the use of "baptise" in holy scripture. It's a theological view that is applied to the holy scriptures rather than a view that unfolds from the teaching found in holy scripture. But MennoSota's posts are very strong in affirming that theological view and very weak in exposition of holy scripture's use of "baptise".