Bible Alone?

[frangiuliano115]

Guanophore, if every time someone talks about justification, if they are really talking about initial justification, then they should say initial justification.

Guanophore, every good thing we do is a result of grace, that is a given. Buuuuut, James is quite clear marrying works to faith and justification. And he is not talking about sanctification. We know this because he specifically uses the Greek word for justification, if he meant sanctification, he would have used the Greek word for sanctification, one which Paul uses numerous times. And James is clearly not talking about initial justification.

Guanophore, I did not say that works of charity are the only hinge, but an essential hinge. And if works play a part in our salvation, then they are a hinge. Nothing I said was false, or contradicted the teaching of the Catholic Church.

How did I change the basic premise? Are you saying that in the course of our lives (assuming we do not die immediately after coming to faith), we can remain being in a state of justification by not doing works of charity? Because my premise the whole time, is that we will not remain justified, without works of charity. And if you agree that works are essential, then they must be a hinge.

By the way, of course Trent teaches that initial justification happens once. There can only be an initial anything once. I would be worried if they taught it happens more than once.

Two comments, if I may.

I still would like your explanation of the difference between Justification and Sanctification, but so far I see it as being this:

You call Justification - initial justification
You call Sanctification - justification

Is this correct?

Some writers do this, but then how do you explain sanctification?? Which is an ongoing process. To sanctify, to make holy (to set aside for service to God).

I wish we could all use the same words…

Re works. It could mean so many things. It could mean charity, as you’re speaking of - charitable works. Works for the good of the community. It could just mean raising you family to the best of your ability as service to God, it could mean doing your job well and putting up with unsavory persons, it could mean a lot of things and this is something personal which should be taken u p with a priest if some doubt exists. Christians are called to do good works - but the good works could be different things for different persons.

Fran

 

[guanophore]

Two comments, if I may.

I still would like your explanation of the difference between Justification and Sanctification, but so far I see it as being this:

You call Justification - initial justification
You call Sanctification - justification

Is this correct?

Some writers do this, but then how do you explain sanctification?? Which is an ongoing process. To sanctify, to make holy (to set aside for service to God).

I wish we could all use the same words…

As I was following this discussion, it occurred to me that maybe this is the reason the Church uses the phrase “state of grace”. This is what seems to correspond to Duane’s understanding of “ongoing justification” and prevents it from being confused with what occurs in baptism as well as conflating it with sanctification.

There was a Reformed poster here on CAF who used to say that Catholics “conflate sanctification and justification”. I never understood what he meant until I read Duane’s poses, but now I understand.

 

[guanophore]

Guanophore, if every time someone talks about justification, if they are really talking about initial justification, then they should say initial justification.

That would certainly clear up a number of misunderstandings. This is one reason the Joint Declaration on Justification was crafted. It cleared up the misunderstandings that existed between Luther and the CC.

Guanophore, every good thing we do is a result of grace, that is a given.  Buuuuut, James is quite clear marrying works to faith and justification.  And he is not talking about sanctification.

I would say he is talking about both. One cannot help but be sanctified when their good works are married to justification. But I think this is what the Church means when using the phrase “state of grace”. When we walk in the path God has set forth for us, we are transfomred/sanctified. This path also keeps us in right relationship with Him (justification).

Guanophore, I did not say that works of charity are the only hinge, but an essential hinge. And if works play a part in our salvation, then they are a hinge. Nothing I said was false, or contradicted the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Ok. We can agree to disagree on this point. I don’t think there is any other hinge but grace. In HIm, with Him, and Through Him. I would agree there are other planks on the door, so to speak. The works that have been prepared for us are designed to keep us in right relationship with Him (justified) and to become Holy (sanctified).

How did I change the basic premise? Are you saying that in the course of our lives (assuming we do not die immediately after coming to faith), we can remain being in a state of justification by not doing works of charity?

I do not think it is impossible to remain in a state of grace. For example, a person who is paralyzed may have limits on the degree of good works they can do. However, the ergos hagios are intended to shape our souls to conform to Christ.

Because my premise the whole time, is that we will not remain justified, without works of charity. And if you agree that works are essential, then they must be a hinge.

The last peice is the only part I dont’ agree with . Yes, works are essential, but that does not make them a "basis’ for salvation, or that upon which salvation hinges.

By the way, of course Trent teaches that initial justification happens once. There can only be an initial anything once. I would be worried if they taught it happens more than once.

I just wanted to clarify that I thought Fran was thinking of that one time event, while you are talking about an ongoing process.

 

[guanophore]

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭3:16‬ ‭KJV‬‬

The Word of God is the final rule of authority. No pope no priest has any authority over the God-breathed eternal Word of God.

Welcome to CAF Zoe. Is there a verse in your Bible that says this second statement?

 

[Duane1966]

FOR DUANE 1966

I’ve started posting copied things from the CCC and the bible and other docs, but I see that this does no good either.

Yes, I feel your frustration when I post from the Council of Trent which is binding on all Catholics, and it does no good.

It’s really difficult for me to understand how we could b e reading the same piece of paper and come up with two different ideas.

Agreed

frangiuliano115:

7Of course it’s all in the wording. Here’s the thing:

I, to some poster’s chagrin, teach the catholic faith to adults.

That’s great.

So:

You have a group of people in front of you. The discussion turns to
Justification
Sanctification

They want to know the difference - since there are two terms, there must be a difference.

To me it seems as though you use the two terms interchangeably. Then why have two different words?

How would YOU explain the difference?

Fran

Why do I insist? Because I don’t have anything else to do? No. Because understanding the difference helps one in their walk in the faith we share and there are others reading along who might care.

BTW, the idea of " was saved, are being, and will be saved " would be:
justification
sanctification
glorification
You’re reply could touch on all 3 but I’d just be interested in the difference between the first two.

For Catholics, justification and sanctification are inseparable, since each includes the definition of the other. To be justified in God’s sight is to be declared, as well as made holy, and sanctification is this process of receiving, and being transformed by sanctifying grace, i.e. the life of God in our souls.

I would add one more thing. From Matt1618 blog:

In regards to justification, regeneration and sanctification there is an unbliblical separation. Just because the reformers state it, does not have to mean that I have to accept it. In fact Alister McGrath in his two volume doctoral dissertation **admitted that it was a totally new idea to the church in 1500+ years that separated justification from regeneration and sanctification. There is no biblical rational for making such a distinction. **

This is why Trent does not separate the two.

I would ask you a question. If as a teenager I stay out past my curfew on purpose. When I come home, instead of facing the music, I tell a little white lie, to save me from being grounded. Without a doubt, I have just become less righteous in God’s eyes, would you not agree? I am still justified, but has my degree of justification changed? If you say yes, you must agree that justification is ongoing.

 

[frangiuliano115]

That would certainly clear up a number of misunderstandings. This is one reason the Joint Declaration on Justification was crafted. It cleared up the misunderstandings that existed between Luther and the CC.

I would say he is talking about both. One cannot help but be sanctified when their good works are married to justification. But I think this is what the Church means when using the phrase “state of grace”. When we walk in the path God has set forth for us, we are transfomred/sanctified. This path also keeps us in right relationship with Him (justification).

Ok. We can agree to disagree on this point. I don’t think there is any other hinge but grace. In HIm, with Him, and Through Him. I would agree there are other planks on the door, so to speak. The works that have been prepared for us are designed to keep us in right relationship with Him (justified) and to become Holy (sanctified).

I do not think it is impossible to remain in a state of grace. For example, a person who is paralyzed may have limits on the degree of good works they can do. However, the ergos hagios are intended to shape our souls to conform to Christ.

The last peice is the only part I dont’ agree with . Yes, works are essential, but that does not make them a "basis’ for salvation, or that upon which salvation hinges.

I just wanted to clarify that I thought Fran was thinking of that one time event, while you are talking about an ongoing process.

ON EVERYTHING.

 

[Duane1966]

I would say he is talking about both. One cannot help but be sanctified when their good works are married to justification. But I think this is what the Church means when using the phrase “state of grace”. When we walk in the path God has set forth for us, we are transfomred/sanctified. This path also keeps us in right relationship with Him (justification).

I would say the two are inseparable, but there is another word in Greek for sanctification, which Paul uses some 38 times I believe. Why wouldn’t James use it in that famous passage?

Ok. We can agree to disagree on this point. I don’t think there is any other hinge but grace. In HIm, with Him, and Through Him. I would agree there are other planks on the door, so to speak. The works that have been prepared for us are designed to keep us in right relationship with Him (justified) and to become Holy (sanctified).

Can you be justified and not be Holy, or the other way around? If not, then the two are inseparable.

A poor analogy, but one that I will use anyway. Grace has led me to realize that I need to lose weight. I have realized it for some time. I still have not put in the work to actually lose the weight. I have been given Grace, but I have not acted on it. Is it more important for me to realize it, or to actually do something about it? Of course it is both. Or perhaps a better analogy, Grace can cause one to realize they are a sinner, but they say what the heck, it is to hard to change. Is the realization or the repentance more important? You can’t do the repentance without the realization, but realiziation, and then not repenting is no good either.

I do not think it is impossible to remain in a state of grace. For example, a person who is paralyzed may have limits on the degree of good works they can do. However, the ergos hagios are intended to shape our souls to conform to Christ.

Can you show me where I said it is impossible? And I qualified my premise twice by saying in a normal life. The state of being paralyzed, I think you would agree, is not the norm.

The last peice is the only part I dont’ agree with . Yes, works are essential, but that does not make them a "basis’ for salvation, or that upon which salvation hinges.

Can you show me a passage in scripture where our final judgment does not have works associated with them? You do realize that if works is not something where our salvation hinges, then not doing them should not affect salvation at all, correct? And if they do not affect our salvation, why would they be essential?

I just wanted to clarify that I thought Fran was thinking of that one time event, while you are talking about an ongoing process.

If one says they are justified and that is all they say, should I assume that they are talking about initial justification, or final justification, or any point in the process in between? Or, since they have chosen not to qualify their statement, should I take it as the whole process? That is why I can say that works do justify. It is a true statement, in the here and now. You cannot come back and say (which I realize you are not saying), well they didn’t justify you initially so they don’t justify. Again the statement is in the present tense. That is why we say we are, and not we were.

And while that one-time event is extremely important, is God going to judge me on that one-time event, or my life as a whole?

back at ya.

 

[guanophore]

ON EVERYTHING.

Write that down! Someone go get some fireworks! This is one of those rare celebratory events!

:extrahappy::clapping:
:dancing::bounce:
:newidea::harp:
:thankyou:

 

[rfournier103]

ANYONE may answer this…

**“What was the ONLY authority between AD 33 and 393?” **

Just curious…

 

[frangiuliano115]

Yes, I feel your frustration when I post from the Council of Trent which is binding on all Catholics, and it does no good.

Agreed

That’s great.

For Catholics, justification and sanctification are inseparable, since each includes the definition of the other. To be justified in God’s sight is to be declared, as well as made holy, ]and sanctification is this process of receiving, and being transformed by sanctifying grace, i.e. the life of God in our souls.

I would add one more thing. From Matt1618 blog:

This is why Trent does not separate the two.

I would ask you a question. If as a teenager I stay out past my curfew on purpose. When I come home, instead of facing the music, I tell a little white lie, to save me from being grounded. Without a doubt, I have just become less righteous in God’s eyes, would you not agree? I am still justified, but has my degree of justification changed? If you say yes, you must agree that justification is ongoing.

---

Catholic Dictionary Term** SANCTIFICATION Definition Being made holy**. The first sanctification takes place at baptism, by which the love of God is infused by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5). Newly baptized persons are holy because the Holy Trinity begins to dwell in their souls and they are pleasing to God. The second sanctification is a lifelong process in which a person alredy in the state of grace grows in the possession of grace and in likeness to God by faithfully corresponding with divine inspirations. The third sanctification takes place when a person enters heaven and becomes totally and irrevocably united with God in the beatific vision. (Etym. Latin sanctificare, to make holy.) - See more at: catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36271#sthash.5kvtcizY.dpuf

The formal cause of justification

The Council of Trent decreed that the essence of active** justification comprises not only forgiveness of sin, but also “sanctification and renovation of the interior man by means of the voluntary acceptation of sanctifying grace **and other supernatural gifts” (Trent, l. c., cap. vii: “Non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et donorum”). In order to exclude the Protestant idea of a merely forensic absolution and exterior declaration of righteousness, special stress is laid on the fact that we are justified by God’s justice, not that whereby He himself is just but that whereby He makes us just, in so far as He bestows on us the gift of His grace which renovates the soul interiorly and adheres to it as the soul’s own holiness (Trent, l. c., cap. vii: “Unica formalis causa [justificationis] est justitia Dei, non qua ipse justus est, sed qua nos justos facit, qua videlicet ab eo donati, renovamur spiritu mentis nostrae: et non modo reputamur, sed vere justi nominamur et sumus, justitiam in nobis recipientes unusquisque suam”). This inner quality of righteousness and sanctity is universally termed “sanctifying (or habitual) grace”, and stands in marked contrast to an exterior, imputed sanctity, as well as to the idea of merely covering and concealing sin. By this, however, we do not assert that the “justitia Dei extra nos” is of no importance in the process of justification. For, even if it is not the formal cause of justification (causa formalis), it is nevertheless its true exemplar (causa exemplaris), inasmuch as the soul receives a sanctity in imitation of God’s own holiness. The Council of Trent (l. c. cap. vii), moreover, did not neglect to enumerate in detail the other causes of justification: the glory of God and of Christ as the final cause (causa finalis), the mercy of God as the efficient cause (causa efficiens), the Passion of Christ as the meritorious cause (causa meritoria), the reception of the Sacraments as the instrumental cause (causa instrumentalis). Thus each and every factor receives its full share and is assigned its proper place. Hence the Catholic doctrine on justification, in welcome contrast to the Protestant teaching, stands out as a reasonable, consistent, harmonious system. For further explanation of the nature of sanctifying grace, see SUPERNATURAL GRACE. Regarding the false doctrine of the Catholic theologian Hermes, cf. Kleutgen, “Theologie der Vorzeit”, II (2nd ed., Munster, 1872), 254-343.

---

ONE OF TWO

 

[frangiuliano115]

TWO OF TWO

You yourself say sanctification is a process. Justification happens one time, at baptism but must be accepted again as an adult who understands his faith.

So, maybe you understand the intricacy of justification and sanctification. You cannot be sanctified without being justified, if you are justified you are also sanctified.

But how to explain the difference? You didn’t.

This is the difference:

Justification brings you into the family of God. You are justified at baptism and later accept it as an adult.
Sanctification is an ongoing process of being sanctified, being made holy.

I read up there that it can be called the first sanctification, the second sanctification and the third sanctification for the “were saved”, are “being saved” and “will be saved.” This is confusing to someone just learning their faith. The other way is much more understandable and is not incorrect. I forgot to mention that sanctification is also received at the same time as justification.

CCC no. 1266 and 1992 both speak of justification.
No where is the term I’ve read on this thread - “initial” justification ever mentioned. If you could lead me to it, I’d appreciate it. In both Justfcn and Santfcn you are in a state of grace. We are always in a state of grace. Or we wouldn’t be with God!

Your teenager who lied is still justified (is still in the family of God and in right relationship with God - if he’s sorry about lying) but the process of sanctification has just slowed down (he was not very holy in lying to his parents.) CCC no. 1863. The covenant with God has not been broken. Sanctifying grace is not lost - the process will continue (if the person accepts).

Maybe we could say that justfcn removes sin and makes one a part of a family
and sanctfcn keeps one a part of that family. Of course if you’re sanctfd you’re also justfd and the other way around. You’re right that one includes the other, but could we explain them differently since they ARE two different words which appear at different times even in the bible.

Both can be lost if the person so wills it.

Fran

 

[guanophore]

I would say the two are inseparable,

Without question.

but there is another word in Greek for sanctification, which Paul uses some 38 times I believe. Why wouldn’t James use it in that famous passage?

One reason may be that James was writing to Hebrew Christians?
Chapter 1:1*James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion:

I think that James is specifically focused on showing that faith without works is dead. His theses is "20*Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? " (James 2:20)

Can you be justified and not be Holy, or the other way around? If not, then the two are inseparable.

It is a popluar myth among our separated brethren that you can, but this is not apostolic teaching. They did not get “separated” until the Reformation.

  Is it more important for me to realize it, or to actually do something about it?  Of course it is both.

I think this is also James’ point. If we say we believe, then it needs to be evident in our behavior.

Or perhaps a better analogy, Grace can cause one to realize they are a sinner, but they say what the heck, it is to hard to change.  Is the realization or the repentance more important?  You can't do the repentance without the realization, but realiziation, and then not repenting is no good either.

Faith that is not working itself out in love is “dead faith”.

Can you show me where I said it is impossible? And I qualified my premise twice by saying in a normal life. The state of being paralyzed, I think you would agree, is not the norm.

No, it is not the norm, but I put it out there because any conceptualization must be able to integrate the outliers.

Can you show me a passage in scripture where our final judgment does not have works associated with them? You do realize that if works is not something where our salvation hinges, then not doing them should not affect salvation at all, correct? And if they do not affect our salvation, why would they be essential?

Our final judgement involves works.
Failure to complete the works that God has in store for us impacts our salvation.
Works are essential for our salvation.

Works are not the basis or the hinge upon which salvation occurs. That is grace.

If one says they are justified and that is all they say, should I assume that they are talking about initial justification, or final justification, or any point in the process in between?

I suppose that depends upon your audience. If you are talking to a Protestant, then very likely they are talking about what we call “initial” since they reject that justification is ongoing.

I think it might be wise to clarify how the term is being used in the context of the conversation.

 Or, since they have chosen not to qualify their statement, should I take it as the whole process?  That is why I can say that works do justify.  It is a true statement, in the here and now.  You cannot come back and say (which I realize you are not saying), well they didn't justify you initially so they don't justify.  Again the statement is in the present tense.  That is why we say we ***are***, and not we ***were.***

We can say both. We were completely justified in baptism. We continue to be justified as we walk in righteousness on the path that God has ordained.

The Joint Declaration on Justification is helpful in sorting out the language.

 

[frangiuliano115]

ANYONE may answer this…

**“What was the ONLY authority between AD 33 and 393?” **

Just curious…

The only authority between 33 and 393 is too long of a period.

Let’s take 33 to about 90.

Initially the only authority were the apostles. And of the apostles I’d say that Peter and Timothy and Paul (adopted) were the most important. Peter and Paul the top. I do believe it ended up being Paul since he wrote most of the N.T. or a good part of.

But Jesus gave the keys to Peter. He was strong and resilient and fought the good fight till the end. But so did Paul and also all the rest, they all died for what they believed to be true.

Then they started to write things down. The letters we shared. Too bad there was no internet back then - it took a long time for news to get around.

Then the letters got put together into a bible.

There were always bishops. Peter was the first, and then we decided to call them Popes.

This is why we are an apostolic church. We believe in the authority of the apostles. I think the first thing I learned in theology is that we place our trust in the apostles. If I can’t trust them, what am I basing my trust on? I wasn’t there to see the resurrection…

Was that a trick question??


Fran

 

[guanophore]

The only authority between 33 and 393 is too long of a period.

Was that a trick question??


Fran

I think it was, because we are on the Bible Alone thread, and because the Bible was canonized in the year 393. Prior to that, there were many books claiming to be Apostolic that were finally excluded from the Bible.

Another good question might be, who had the authority to decide what books should be included, and where did they get it?

 

[frangiuliano115]

Originally Posted by Duane1966 View Post
but there is another word in Greek for sanctification, which Paul uses some 38 times I believe. Why wouldn’t James use it in that famous passage?

Could you share??

 

[guanophore]

This is the difference:

Justification brings you into the family of God. You are justified at baptism and later accept it as an adult.
Sanctification is an ongoing process of being sanctified, being made holy.

CCC no. 1266 and 1992 both speak of justification.
No where is the term I’ve read on this thread - “initial” justification ever mentioned. If you could lead me to it, I’d appreciate it. In both Justfcn and Santfcn you are in a state of grace.

I think the term “initial” is used in apologetics to clarify what happens at baptism, or as Protestants claim “the hour I first believed”.

Paul uses these terms together in the context of baptism:

“But you are washed: but you are sanctified: but you are justified: in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God.” (I Cor. 6:11).

Sanctified = ἁγιάζω made holy or pure/purified

Justified = δίκη righteous or in right relationship

These both occur initially in baptism.

 

[rcwitness]

ANYONE may answer this…

**“What was the ONLY authority between AD 33 and 393?” **

Just curious…

The same as til this present time… God.

An interesting thing is that we had the Scriptures much earlier than 393. They were Confirmed for us at that time. This was very important for sure. And interestingly, the earliest perfect list of the New Testament Scripture was from Origin around 150!

He was not the authority on matters of faith, but was aware of the Apostolic Tradition in this case.

 

[JonNC]

If you cannot state that a person can remain justified if they purposefully reject works of charity, then I do not see how works of charity cannot play a part in our remaining and growing in justification. And if they play a part, then you cannot say we are justified by faith alone, because remaining in justification (in the normal course of events) hinges on works of charity.

I never said works do not play apart. What we teach is that justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, in the saving work of Christ alone. And while we know that the sole means of accessing Justification is by faith alone, we also know that a saving faith, a true faith, is a faith that works through love.
From here, Duane, I have a question. When I was 15, after three years of catechetical class, I was confirmed. At that confirmation, kneeling before the altar, the pastor placed his hands on my head, and said:

The Father in heaven, for Jesus’ sake, renew and increase in you, Jon, the gift of the Holy Spirit, to your strengthening in faith, to your growth in grace, to your patience in suffering, and to the blessed hope of everlasting life.

Is this prayer speaking of justification?

These words have stuck with me all of my life. They remind me of the grace I have already received in Baptism, 15 years before that event, and the faith that was kindled and grew from then until today. I think, frankly, that the idea of a once-event justification doesn’t fit me. My Justification has strengthened (can’t think of a word that actually fits) as my faith has grown, but not because of anything I have done, or any good work I have performed. My faith has grown and strengthened because of grace, grace found in word and sacrament, the means of grace.
While never well, I have responded to that grace by striving, and often failing, to live a more godly life, to help my neighbor, and share His grace with others when I can. I do so out of joyful thanksgiving, not out of a feeling of obligation. And when I fail, I have the means of grace to return to, to strengthen me again, so I can keep trying to “work out my salvation in fear and trembling.”
All of this, ISTM, adds nothing to my justification, which is a gift of God by grace. Instead, the good works that I do are the result of the Spirit’s sanctifying work in me. Sanctification. In that Confirmation prayer above, the prayers asks God to, " renew and increase … the gift of the Holy Spirit". It is the Spirit working in us that guides us to good works, guides us to confess and receive absolution, and the Eucharist when we falter, as the prayer says, “to your strengthening in faith, to your growth in grace, to your patience in suffering.” And in the end, “to the blessed hope of everlasting life.”

No where will one find in Lutheranism even a speck of belief that works justify, or even add to justification. Similarly, no where will one find in Lutheranism a rejection of the necessity of good works (love and charity), or the absence of hope. "Faith, hope, and love, these three abide, and the greatest of these is love. " Why is love the greatest if faith justifies? My own experience is that God’s grace is because of His love for us, and our response is love towards our fellow man. Faith has no purpose, no meaning, if there is not love. In grace and faith, through the power of the Holy Spirit, love does the great work of His kingdom.

Luther is quoted as saying, **There is no justification without sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow.
**

Amen.

Jon

 

[Vanny]

^^ So well said, JonNC
this is what I have learned as well.

 

[guanophore]

^^ So well said, JonNC
this is what I have learned as well.

What I have learned on CAF from JonNC and other passionate Lutherans is that Catholics are much closer to them theologically and practically than to most of Protesantism.