Bible Alone?

[frangiuliano115]

Wrong Fran, which is why the two are inseparable. Just as a person grows in holiness, the degrees of a person’s justification changes. That is why we say that justification is past, present, and future, and why the Catholic Church specifically says in Trent that justification can increase.

Let’s say I climb Mount Justification, where Jesus is at the top. Do I spend my whole life after I start the climb near the base, or do I actually make progress and come closer to Jesus, conforming myself more to him? In my journey without a doubt, my degrees of justification can change.

It’s not Mt. Justification. It’s Mt. Sanctification.

Listen, I’m on another thread where this came up. Let’s see if I can do this. I’d like to post an answer which explains this well, maybe I just can’t explain it properly. I’m not even sure this is worth all the back and forth posting.

So someone posted:

Quote:
Divine Faith is acceptance of the word of God, and the infused theological virtue whereby a person may “believe that what God has revealed is true – not because its intrinsic truth is seen with the rational light of reason – but because of the authority of God who reveals it, of God who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Vatican I Council).
Justification is a change to a state of grace for those that are spiritually dead, through baptism, absolution, or perfect contrition.
Sanctification is being made holy at baptism, with subsequent growth of grace, or in the beatific vision.

From Modern Catholic Dictionary:

GRACE OF SANCTIFICATION
The supernatural gift whose purpose is the personal sanctification of the one who receives it. It is called the grace that makes one pleasing (gratia gratum faciens) to God either by making the person holy (sanctifying grace), or by preparing him for sanctification, or by preserving and increasing his sanctification (actual grace).

Note that it is actual grace that is “preparing him for sanctification”, at conversion before baptism.

ONE

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

 

[Duane1966]

Can this be why terms are important?

Duane is talking about sanctification and calling it justification.
JonC is talking about justification.

Works increase sanctification.

Nothing can increase justification.
But we insist on calling everything justification so how to distinguish?
Duane is speaking of the second justification which is the same as sanctification.

You’re both saying the same thing using different words!

Thought I read somewhere where someone was ending this coversation.

Perhaps a better analogy is this: I decide to volunteer at a homeless shelter because a girl I like also volunteers there. This is a righteous action. I do this several times. Then I stop volunteering for that reason, and start volunteering with no strings attached. Has my degree of justification changed, in God’s eyes? You say no, because in your eyes justification cannot increase. The Church says, yes, our justification can increase.

 

[frangiuliano115]

TWO

To which came the reply:

Good post.

But I just want to clarify that point (not for you, but for others). For any potential “lurkers” here that may erroneously reduce sanctification down to “preparing ALONE” or somehow otherwise they conclude works or daily duties done IN GRACE cannot be PART of our sanctification.

The “preparing” is God’s prevenient grace that we had discussed earlier on this forum (here and here for example).

Although Sanctification and Justification are not the same thing, they ARE intimately related.

Excerpt from CCC 1989 Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.

We saw earlier that justification is a moment, followed by a lifelong process (therefore we would expect sanctification to be too).

And we did NOT merit this grace in a strict sense.
CCC 1992a Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us . . . .

Certainly God is the “origin and source” of our sanctification.

CCC 190 And so the Creed is divided into three parts: "the first part speaks of the first divine Person and the wonderful work of creation; the next speaks of the second divine Person and the mystery of his redemption of men; the final part speaks of the third divine Person, the origin and source of our sanctification."4 These are “the three chapters of our [baptismal] seal”.5

(But that does NOT get healthy adults off the NEED to work IN GRACE)

Nothing unclean can enter that holy city, the New Jerusalem, Heaven (Revelation 21:27).

No sanctification, no Heaven (for those who are able).

Can “working”, not on our own, but WITH the GRACE OF CHRIST be a means to our sanctification? Yes.

The CCC tells us “yes”.

CCC 2427 excerpt Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God . . . . It can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work in union with Jesus, . . . collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of God in his redemptive work. . . . . Work can be a means of sanctification and a way of animating earthly realities with the Spirit of Christ.

HEBREWS 12:14 14 Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

Sanctification is part of our justification. Working (in a state of grace) is part of that formula (appropriate to our state in life).

We are saved by the work of Christ through sanctification and belief.

We are NOT taught anywhere, that we are saved by the work of Christ through “belief ALONE”.

St. Paul puts it this way . . . .

2nd THESSALONIANS 2:13 13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

Again. We are saved by the work of Christ through sanctification and belief.

And that sanctification may include “working”.

“Human work . . . can also be redemptive. By . . . work(ing) in union with Jesus, . . . Work can be a means of sanctification . . . with the Spirit of Christ.”

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

The highlighted is mine. I wish we could agree on calling:

Initial Justification - Justification (grace and faith which brings to God’s family)
Second Justification - Sanctification (the ongoing process or work toward holiness)
Third Justification - Glorification (at the end of life and upon entering heaven)

But you won’t agree to that because you see the first two as being mixed together, and they are really, but it would be so much easier to understand!

Fran

 

[Duane1966]

It’s not Mt. Justification. It’s Mt. Sanctification.

Listen, I’m on another thread where this came up. Let’s see if I can do this. I’d like to post an answer which explains this well, maybe I just can’t explain it properly. I’m not even sure this is worth all the back and forth posting.

So someone posted:

Quote:
Divine Faith is acceptance of the word of God, and the infused theological virtue whereby a person may “believe that what God has revealed is true – not because its intrinsic truth is seen with the rational light of reason – but because of the authority of God who reveals it, of God who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Vatican I Council).
Justification is a change to a state of grace for those that are spiritually dead, through baptism, absolution, or perfect contrition.
Sanctification is being made holy at baptism, with subsequent growth of grace, or in the beatific vision.

From Modern Catholic Dictionary:

GRACE OF SANCTIFICATION
The supernatural gift whose purpose is the personal sanctification of the one who receives it. It is called the grace that makes one pleasing (gratia gratum faciens) to God either by making the person holy (sanctifying grace), or by preparing him for sanctification, or by preserving and increasing his sanctification (actual grace).

Note that it is actual grace that is “preparing him for sanctification”, at conversion before baptism.

ONE

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

I will post more on this later, as I am heading to work. But this is why we say the two are inseparable.

 

[Duane1966]

TWO

To which came the reply:

Good post.

But I just want to clarify that point (not for you, but for others). For any potential “lurkers” here that may erroneously reduce sanctification down to “preparing ALONE” or somehow otherwise they conclude works or daily duties done IN GRACE cannot be PART of our sanctification.

The “preparing” is God’s prevenient grace that we had discussed earlier on this forum (here and here for example).

Although Sanctification and Justification are not the same thing, they ARE intimately related.

Excerpt from CCC 1989 Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.

We saw earlier that justification is a moment, followed by a lifelong process (therefore we would expect sanctification to be too).

And we did NOT merit this grace in a strict sense.
CCC 1992a Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us . . . .

Certainly God is the “origin and source” of our sanctification.

CCC 190 And so the Creed is divided into three parts: "the first part speaks of the first divine Person and the wonderful work of creation; the next speaks of the second divine Person and the mystery of his redemption of men; the final part speaks of the third divine Person, the origin and source of our sanctification."4 These are “the three chapters of our [baptismal] seal”.5

(But that does NOT get healthy adults off the NEED to work IN GRACE)

Nothing unclean can enter that holy city, the New Jerusalem, Heaven (Revelation 21:27).

No sanctification, no Heaven (for those who are able).

Can “working”, not on our own, but WITH the GRACE OF CHRIST be a means to our sanctification? Yes.

The CCC tells us “yes”.

CCC 2427 excerpt Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God . . . . It can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work in union with Jesus, . . . collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of God in his redemptive work. . . . . Work can be a means of sanctification and a way of animating earthly realities with the Spirit of Christ.

HEBREWS 12:14 14 Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

Sanctification is part of our justification. Working (in a state of grace) is part of that formula (appropriate to our state in life).

We are saved by the work of Christ through sanctification and belief.

We are NOT taught anywhere, that we are saved by the work of Christ through “belief ALONE”.

St. Paul puts it this way . . . .

2nd THESSALONIANS 2:13 13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

Again. We are saved by the work of Christ through sanctification and belief.

And that sanctification may include “working”.

“Human work . . . can also be redemptive. By . . . work(ing) in union with Jesus, . . . Work can be a means of sanctification . . . with the Spirit of Christ.”

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

The highlighted is mine. I wish we could agree on calling:

Initial Justification - Justification (grace and faith which brings to God’s family)
Second Justification - Sanctification (the ongoing process or work toward holiness)
Third Justification - Glorification (at the end of life and upon entering heaven)

But you won’t agree to that because you see the first two as being mixed together, and they are really, but it would be so much easier to understand!

Fran

You do realize this post says justification is a process, which makes it not a one-time event?

 

[frangiuliano115]

Thought I read somewhere where someone was ending this coversation.

Perhaps a better analogy is this: I decide to volunteer at a homeless shelter because a girl I like also volunteers there. This is a righteous action. I do this several times. Then I stop volunteering for that reason, and start volunteering with no strings attached. Has my degree of justification changed, in God’s eyes? You say no, because in your eyes justification cannot increase. The Church says, yes, our justification can increase.

It’s increasing but I’m calling it sanctification!

Justification is an initial moment. It must continue too. It could be stopped.

But it’s sanctification which is an ONGOING process.

You do get both at the same time.

lata…

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

You do realize this post says justification is a process, which makes it not a one-time event?

Where does it say that???

I’m reading that they are two separate things.

Maybe we see what we want to see!!

Fran

 

[Duane1966]

Where does it say that???

I’m reading that they are two separate things.

Maybe we see what we want to see!!

Fran

Fifth paragraph down. Not counting the words good post as a paragraph.

 

[guanophore]

Can this be why terms are important?

Duane is talking about sanctification and calling it justification.
JonC is talking about justification.

Works increase sanctification.

Nothing can increase justification.
But we insist on calling everything justification so how to distinguish?
Duane is speaking of the second justification which is the same as sanctification.

You’re both saying the same thing using different words!

You are right, Fran, terminology can be a block to communication. We do end up talking past each other because we don’t clarify the terms.

You did respond to the analogy of the teen who lied, and made the accurate point that, to remain in the family and in right relationship repentance was necessary. We can grow from “one glory to another” as we grow in His grace. The fruit of righteousness can increase.

Perhaps you consider the council of Trent one of those where “men’s ideas crept into” the infallible teachings of the Church? Denial of the Councils is a dangerous practice for Catholics. The documents of the Councils are designed to keep the faithful from going off the steep and narrow path.

“Excerpt from CCC 1989 Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.”

I think you posted this statement. Can you accept that renewal of the interior man is a process? Here that process is referred to as justification.

TWO

To which came the reply:

Good post.

But I just want to clarify that point (not for you, but for others). For any potential “lurkers” here that may erroneously reduce sanctification down to “preparing ALONE” or somehow otherwise they conclude works or daily duties done IN GRACE cannot be PART of our sanctification.

The “preparing” is God’s prevenient grace that we had discussed earlier on this forum (here and here for example).

Although Sanctification and Justification are not the same thing, they ARE intimately related.

Excerpt from CCC 1989 Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.

We saw earlier that justification is a moment, followed by a lifelong process (therefore we would expect sanctification to be too).

And we did NOT merit this grace in a strict sense.
CCC 1992a Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us . . . .

Certainly God is the “origin and source” of our sanctification.

CCC 190 And so the Creed is divided into three parts: "the first part speaks of the first divine Person and the wonderful work of creation; the next speaks of the second divine Person and the mystery of his redemption of men; the final part speaks of the third divine Person, the origin and source of our sanctification."4 These are “the three chapters of our [baptismal] seal”.5

(But that does NOT get healthy adults off the NEED to work IN GRACE)

Nothing unclean can enter that holy city, the New Jerusalem, Heaven (Revelation 21:27).

No sanctification, no Heaven (for those who are able).

Can “working”, not on our own, but WITH the GRACE OF CHRIST be a means to our sanctification? Yes.

The CCC tells us “yes”.

CCC 2427 excerpt Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God . . . . It can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work in union with Jesus, . . . collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of God in his redemptive work. . . . . Work can be a means of sanctification and a way of animating earthly realities with the Spirit of Christ.

HEBREWS 12:14 14 Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

Sanctification is part of our justification. Working (in a state of grace) is part of that formula (appropriate to our state in life).

We are saved by the work of Christ through sanctification and belief.

We are NOT taught anywhere, that we are saved by the work of Christ through “belief ALONE”.

St. Paul puts it this way . . . .

2nd THESSALONIANS 2:13 13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

Again. We are saved by the work of Christ through sanctification and belief.

And that sanctification may include “working”.

“Human work . . . can also be redemptive. By . . . work(ing) in union with Jesus, . . . Work can be a means of sanctification . . . with the Spirit of Christ.”

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

The highlighted is mine. I wish we could agree on calling:

Initial Justification - Justification (grace and faith which brings to God’s family)
Second Justification - Sanctification (the ongoing process or work toward holiness)
Third Justification - Glorification (at the end of life and upon entering heaven)

But you won’t agree to that because you see the first two as being mixed together, and they are really, but it would be so much easier to understand!

Fran

You are right, especially in an apologetics context, where our separated brethren have been taugth to separate them.

 

[guanophore]

Where does it say that???

I’m reading that they are two separate things.

Maybe we see what we want to see!!

Fran

You can see why referring to it as a “state of grace” has advantages. It is something that needs to be ongoing, and reduces confusion between the two.

Perhaps Duane is seeing this:

Excerpt from CCC 1989 Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.

As “ongoing”? It can also be understood as a one time event.

 

[guanophore]

Where does it say that???

I’m reading that they are two separate things.

Maybe we see what we want to see!!

Fran

Yes, we tend to perceive things through our own framework, which is sometimes very hard to change.

Duane:

Justification is defined by the Council of Trent as “translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.” (Trent VI.4)1 Justification takes place through the sacrament of baptism, and then, if a person falls into mortal sin, through the sacrament of penance. At the instant of justification, the person receives sanctifying grace and the theological (supernatural) virtues of faith, hope and charity (agape). This does not mean that these cannot be received prior to the actual reception of the sacrament of baptism. Even then, however, they come through the sacrament, and anticipate its reception.

An increase in justification is not the same thing as justification. An increase in justification is not the translation from a state in which one is deprived of sanctifying grace to a state in which one has sanctifying grace. An increase in justification is an increase in sanctifying grace from a condition in which one already has sanctifying grace. This is what St. Peter means in exhorting believers to grow in grace.(2 Pet 3:18) An increase in justification is not receiving sanctifying grace where there is none, but a movement of growth from grace to more grace, and thus a growth in conformity to the likeness of Christ, by an increase in the capacity of our participation in the divine nature. (2 Pet 1:4)

The reason this distinction between justification and its increase is important for understanding the Catholic doctrine concerning justification is that although a person can and should prepare for justification (Trent VI.6), he cannot merit justification by any works. But, a person who is already justified and in a state of grace, can merit an increase in justification by doing good works out of love (agape) for God. Among these good works are works in keeping with the moral law, done out of love (agape) for God. God rewards our works done in agape by increasing our capacity to participate in His divine nature, and thus by increasing our participation in His agape. He Himself is our reward, and growth in grace is growth in Him, a reward we receive already in this present life, to be multiplied abundantly in the life to come.

Trent:

CHAPTER X

On the Increase of Justification received

Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and of the household of God, advancing from strength to strength, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the memberss of their own flesh, and by yielding them as instruments of righteousness unto holiness, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works,** increase in the justice received through the grace of Christ, and are still more justified, as is written,—**He that is righteous, let him be made righteous still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Ye see how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification, the Holy Church begs, when she prays, “Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity.”

Fran, you and I think of this process as sanctification (growing in grace) which is not contrary to the articles of Trent. I find it easier to think of justification as a state of grace. I think Duane is saying that it is possible to increase in justification (grow in grace).

 

[frangiuliano115]

Fifth paragraph down. Not counting the words good post as a paragraph.

Yes. But you skipped right over pp 3 where it says that sanctfn and justfcn are different.
See, we post what we want and we see what we want.

Guanophore is right in saying that it’s a problem of terminology and also that we should use “state of grace.” Both of his statements are correct and hardly need to be said. it’s evident from these posts.

Now I posted a lot of stuff back there from the CCC and other sources, I really can’t remember and can’t go back due to time.

Let’s do this. We say that our doctrine is always referred back to, based on, and comes from the bible. So check this out:

You could look up both Justfcn and Sanctfcn.

Justification: Being declared right by God, acceptance by God.
Sanctification: Being holy and becoming holy

Every scripture under Sanctification, says “sancification.”
Some scriptures under Justification say instead “righteousness.” Which means being right with God (as I’m sure you know). So justfcn and righteousness are interchangeable.

There is one scripture which has BOTH words:
1 Corinthians 6:11
So they must mean something different. How could you have two different words in the same sentence that mean the same thing? It wouldn’t make sense.

I don’t have time to check every verse, but the ones I did check were verified with Young’s Literal Translation from the Greek, and I think you know Greek so you’ll be better at this than I am.

JUSTIFICATION

1 Cor 1:30 Romans 5:19 2 Cor 5:21 1 Peter 2:22 Romans 3:24
Romans 5:9 Romans 4:29 Romans 3:28 Romans 9:31 Galatians 2:16
Galatians 3:11 Philippians 3:9 James 2:14 Romans 4.11 /12:16
Galatians 3:6 Acts 13:38 Romans 8:10 Titus 3:7

And many more.

SANCTIFICATION

1 Corinthians 6:11 Uses both words in same sentence
1 Corinthians 1:2
Hebrews 10.29 Romans 15:16 Acts 26:18 2 Corinth 1:1 Philippians 1:1
Acts 20:32 John 17:17 1 Thes 5:23 1 Thes 2:13 1 Peter 1:2 1 Peter 4:3-7

It would have been nice to copy and paste each one but it just takes too long.

So here it is. You want to call it initial justification, second justification and third justification. I want to call it justification, sanctification and glorification.

What’s so wrong with that Duane1966?? Guanophore said a very wise thing. Terminology can be a block to communication. Too bad because then we have to stop there instead of continuing with an idea.

Also, I don’t mind using the Council of Trent. But the CCC took years to put together for the express purpose of putting together all catholic teaching and it’s updated too, so really I’d rather use that.

For instance, pre 1917 divored and remarrieds were ex-communicated and not invited to participate in church liturgies (public). I’m sure you’ll agree that this has changed since 1917. So yes, a recent encyclical or the CCC is much preferable, IMHO. Because we do understand doctrine in more enlightened ways now than 500 years ago althought I know it treated the question of justification.

You never answered my original question, which was: If you had to explain the difference between Justification and Sanctification to a group of people, how would you do it since you are dealing with two different words.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Yes, we tend to perceive things through our own framework, which is sometimes very hard to change.

Trent:

CHAPTER X

On the Increase of Justification received

Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and of the household of God, advancing from strength to strength, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the memberss of their own flesh, and by yielding them as instruments of righteousness unto holiness, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works,** increase in the justice received through the grace of Christ, and are still more justified, as is written,—**He that is righteous, let him be made righteous still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Ye see how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification, the Holy Church begs, when she prays, “Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity.”

Fran, you and I think of this process as sanctification (growing in grace) which is not contrary to the articles of Trent. I find it easier to think of justification as a state of grace. I think Duane is saying that it is possible to increase in justification (grow in grace).

I agree with your last paragraph and everything else you’ve said on this subject. I’d have to say that both justfctn and sanctfcn are a state of grace, no? And we do grow in grace. Our faith is not stagnant - or at least it shouldn’t be.

I think one of the problems, even using Trent, is that it uses the word righteousness sometimes too. It just seems like a big confusion to me and if you separate the words it makes more sense. Maybe we’re adverse to this due to the protestant understanding? In the end, it’s all words. Why should it be so important? We’re all saying the same thing using different words. I do find it easier to explain to people when I use the 3 different meanings. Let’s not forget glorification, which comes at the end of life!

Fran

 

[guanophore]

I agree with your last paragraph and everything else you’ve said on this subject. I’d have to say that both justfctn and sanctfcn are a state of grace, no? And we do grow in grace. Our faith is not stagnant - or at least it shouldn’t be.

These are good points. We cannot progress in being sanctified unless and until we are in a state of grace. We grow in grace by being in right relationship with Christ. Indeed our faith cannot be stagnant (or it is a dead faith!)

I think one of the problems, even using Trent, is that it uses the word righteousness sometimes too. It just seems like a big confusion to me and if you separate the words it makes more sense. Maybe we’re adverse to this due to the protestant understanding?

Fran

I wonder if that is the cause for the confusion. I must confess that it was during my sojourn amongst my separated brethren that I learned about these terms. This was not part of my Catholic Catechesis (which in retrospect seems quite abysmal). I was taught by the Baptists that justification and sanctification were separate, but connected. I was taught about what the Protestants call "the Golden Chain of Salvaiton ". This is used by Calvanist Christians to support OSAS.

“And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.” Rom. 8:30.

Instead of taking this verse in context as a description about the past holy saints, it is applied in the present to those who they believe God has predestined to heaven (as opposed to hell, where the others are predestined),

As it turned out, the Baptist community of which I was a part at the time was quite legalistic, and I never came to understand how we walk with Christ by grace, through faith to become sanctified. Within a year, half the community chose to receive the baptism of the HS, splitting the community in two. At that point I began to learn about the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and I finally understood what sanctification was all about.

It was not until many years later I came to understand what it means to be in a state of grace. I bought a lot of the anti-Catholic Baptist rhetoric and turned my back on the faith in which I was baptized.

So for myself I can say that the Protestant theology helped me to understand what it means to be a disciple much better than my cradle Catholic formation.

 

[JonNC]

=Duane1966;13490144]So God did not pour more grace in your heart from any good work that you might have done, thereby strengthening your faith?

God’s pouring grace on my heart is the only reason I am able to submit to the will of the Spirit in ding those good works.

So, as a Christian, you do not feel obligated to help your brother in need? I too do them in joyful thanksgiving, but I definitely feel obligated to my neighbor, after all, I am my brother’s keeper.

I absolutely feel obliged. The confessions tell us we are obliged, not because they add to our justification, but because we are commanded by Christ to do them. Who benefits, Duane, from our good works? If we do them from a free spirit, a joyful willingness, the recipients of those good works benefit. We, as the regenerate, are already abundantly blessed by the forgiveness of sins we receive through word and sacrament.

Jon, if works do not increase our justification, then in reality it does not matter whether we do them or not. If works have no bearing on justification, lack of them has no bearing either.

Lack of good works have a bearing of faith.

1. Nevertheless, by the words mentioned, necessitas, necessarium, necessity and necessary, if they be employed concerning the regenerate, not coercion, but only due obedience is to be understood, which the truly believing, so far as they are regenerate, render not from coercion or the driving of the Law, but from a voluntary spirit; because they are no more under the Law, but under grace, Rom. 6:14; 7:6; 8:14.

11] 6. Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins.

12] 7. Yet this is not to be understood otherwise than as the Lord Christ and His apostles themselves declare, namely, regarding the liberated spirit, that it does not do this from fear of punishment, like a servant, but from love of righteousness, like children, Rom. 8:15.

In your paradigm, once justified, your good to go, unless one commits Apostasy.

You seem to have misunderstood the Lutheran paradigm, since what you wrote here doesn’t even remotely resemble it. If one rejects grace, through repeated, unrepentant sin, one cannot maintain faith under those circumstances. A loss of faith is a loss of justification.

Here is my dilemma Jon. One cannot be saved without being justified. Under your paradigm, works cannot increase our justification. Then it stands to reason that lack of them cannot decrease our justification either. But you have said they are essential. Why? They cannot increase or decrease our justification, according to Lutheranism, then how can they be essential for our salvation?

One cannot separate justification from sanctification, but for the Lutheran, they play distinct roles. Our growth in grace is a part of our sanctification. If you recall the prayer from my Confirmation, it speaks of growth in grace.
As to their necessity, what other sin can one repeatedly, and unrepentantly participate in, and not, in some have an impact. Works do not justify, but they are required, and a faith that lacks them is clearly dead.

And yet Jesus in the sheep and the goats quite specifically ties works to salvation, so they must affect our justification.

So does the Athanasian Creed. Works are necessary, but they do not justify. Works are the fruits of grace in us.

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

Yes. But you skipped right over pp 3 where it says that sanctfn and justfcn are different.
See, we post what we want and we see what we want.

Guanophore is right in saying that it’s a problem of terminology and also that we should use “state of grace.” Both of his statements are correct and hardly need to be said. it’s evident from these posts.

Now I posted a lot of stuff back there from the CCC and other sources, I really can’t remember and can’t go back due to time.

Let’s do this. We say that our doctrine is always referred back to, based on, and comes from the bible. So check this out:

You could look up both Justfcn and Sanctfcn.

Justification: Being declared right by God, acceptance by God.
Sanctification: Being holy and becoming holy

Every scripture under Sanctification, says “sancification.”
Some scriptures under Justification say instead “righteousness.” Which means being right with God (as I’m sure you know). So justfcn and righteousness are interchangeable.

There is one scripture which has BOTH words:
1 Corinthians 6:11
So they must mean something different. How could you have two different words in the same sentence that mean the same thing? It wouldn’t make sense.

I don’t have time to check every verse, but the ones I did check were verified with Young’s Literal Translation from the Greek, and I think you know Greek so you’ll be better at this than I am.

JUSTIFICATION

1 Cor 1:30 Romans 5:19 2 Cor 5:21 1 Peter 2:22 Romans 3:24
Romans 5:9 Romans 4:29 Romans 3:28 Romans 9:31 Galatians 2:16
Galatians 3:11 Philippians 3:9 James 2:14 Romans 4.11 /12:16
Galatians 3:6 Acts 13:38 Romans 8:10 Titus 3:7

And many more.

SANCTIFICATION

1 Corinthians 6:11 Uses both words in same sentence
1 Corinthians 1:2
Hebrews 10.29 Romans 15:16 Acts 26:18 2 Corinth 1:1 Philippians 1:1
Acts 20:32 John 17:17 1 Thes 5:23 1 Thes 2:13 1 Peter 1:2 1 Peter 4:3-7

It would have been nice to copy and paste each one but it just takes too long.

So here it is. You want to call it initial justification, second justification and third justification. I want to call it justification, sanctification and glorification.

What’s so wrong with that Duane1966?? Guanophore said a very wise thing. Terminology can be a block to communication. Too bad because then we have to stop there instead of continuing with an idea.

Also, I don’t mind using the Council of Trent. But the CCC took years to put together for the express purpose of putting together all catholic teaching and it’s updated too, so really I’d rather use that.

For instance, pre 1917 divored and remarrieds were ex-communicated and not invited to participate in church liturgies (public). I’m sure you’ll agree that this has changed since 1917. So yes, a recent encyclical or the CCC is much preferable, IMHO. Because we do understand doctrine in more enlightened ways now than 500 years ago althought I know it treated the question of justification.

You never answered my original question, which was: If you had to explain the difference between Justification and Sanctification to a group of people, how would you do it since you are dealing with two different words.

Fran

Fran, you may be right that people see what they want to see, because you sure have not read my posts carefully. Not once, have I stated that justification and sanctification are the same, because they are not. I HAVE stated that they are virtually inseparable, as both can grow and decrease in us.

I have posted on here that justification is a process. You have said it is a one-time event, so it cannot be a process. When you posted a reference to justification, in that reference, it said that justification is a process. I then made a comment, that a reference you posted says justification is a process. You said where. I told you the paragraph. You then made the comment that I had skipped over the part stating that there is a difference between sanctification and justification. I hadn’t. I don’t see your point. I have never thought, or stated they were the same.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Fran, you may be right that people see what they want to see, because you sure have not read my posts carefully. Not once, have I stated that justification and sanctification are the same, because they are not. I HAVE stated that they are virtually inseparable, as both can grow and decrease in us.

I have posted on here that justification is a process. You have said it is a one-time event, so it cannot be a process. When you posted a reference to justification, in that reference, it said that justification is a process. I then made a comment, that a reference you posted says justification is a process. You said where. I told you the paragraph. You then made the comment that I had skipped over the part stating that there is a difference between sanctification and justification. I hadn’t. I don’t see your point. I have never thought, or stated they were the same.

Duane!

I answered the above yesterday but where’s my answer??

Here’s what it said:

Duane1966

God Bless You!

99% of the people I know don’t even know the two terms!

So however we want to understand it is fine because we’re saying the same thing using different terms.

(of course justfcn is also ongoing - if that ended so would sanctfn!)

The important thing is to endure till the end!

In Christ
Fran

 

[Duane1966]

Ridiculous aurgument , it does matter whether we do works because Christ commanded them ,

Why did He command them, if they do not justify?

they just don’t justify ,

Works of charity play a part. The bible says so, quite explicitly in James. What hurts your argument is that while Paul does say works don’t justify, he quite clearly clarifies it by explicitly stating that certain types of works don’t justify. He could have just left it as works don’t justify, covering the whole spectrum of works. Unfortunately for your argument, he didn’t. He specifically omits works of charity from the list of the types of works that don’t justify. Quite clearly then, as the bible says, it is faith and works that justify.

faith is living ,

If faith as you say is living, why does the bible say that faith can be dead?

works are the byproduct ,

If this is true, then an atheist who vehemently denies God, if they do even one work has faith, since, as you say, works are a byproduct of faith.

I will add that nothing in the bible shows that it is faith alone that justifies, and that works of charity do not aid faith in justifying. Can you show me one verse in the bible that says works of charity do not play a part in our justification? Your argument is hurt even further by the fact that Jesus in the parable of the sheep and the goats, quite specifically ties the salvation of the sheep to the works that they did. Nowhere does he say that they are saved because of their faith. Nowhere does He state in condemning the goats, that He is condemning them for their lack of faith. He specifically states that they are being condemned for not doing works of charity.

if there is no byproduct or evidence , then your faith is not real ,

The faith is real, it is just dying or dead, and will not justify you. It needs grace ***and works ***to resuscitate it.

and a lifestyle of unrepentant sin can destroy faith .

The only thing in your post I can agree with.

And Why are we debating this on a bible thread

Two things.

1.) I have noticed that when people make comments that have nothing to do with the topic, if you agree with what that poster said you will say things like “good post”, or “well stated.” If a person posts a comment that you do not agree with, if said post has nothing to do with the topic you say things like “what does this have to do with the topic?”, or, “let’s stay on topic.” Where is the consistency?

2.) You do realize the hypocrisy of you making a comment that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, and adding a comment at the end about the other person not being on topic?

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Why did He command them, if they do not justify?

Works of charity play a part. The bible says so, quite explicitly in James. What hurts your argument is that while Paul does say works don’t justify, he quite clearly clarifies it by explicitly stating that certain types of works don’t justify. He could have just left it as works don’t justify, covering the whole spectrum of works. Unfortunately for your argument, he didn’t. He specifically omits works of charity from the list of the types of works that don’t justify. Quite clearly then, as the bible says, it is faith and works that justify.

If faith as you say is living, why does the bible say that faith can be dead?

If this is true, then an atheist who vehemently denies God, if they do even one work has faith, since, as you say, works are a byproduct of faith.

I will add that nothing in the bible shows that it is faith alone that justifies, and that works of charity do not aid faith in justifying. Can you show me one verse in the bible that says works of charity do not play a part in our justification? Your argument is hurt even further by the fact that Jesus in the parable of the sheep and the goats, quite specifically ties the salvation of the sheep to the works that they did. Nowhere does he say that they are saved because of their faith. Nowhere does He state in condemning the goats, that He is condemning them for their lack of faith. He specifically states that they are being condemned for not doing works of charity.

The faith is real, it is just dying or dead, and will not justify you. It needs grace ***and works ***to resuscitate it.

The only thing in your post I can agree with.

Two things.

1.) I have noticed that when people make comments that have nothing to do with the topic, if you agree with what that poster said you will say things like “good post”, or “well stated.” If a person posts a comment that you do not agree with, if said post has nothing to do with the topic you say things like “what does this have to do with the topic?”, or, “let’s stay on topic.” Where is the consistency?

2.) You do realize the hypocrisy of you making a comment that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, and adding a comment at the end about the other person not being on topic?

I simply answer the aurgument and try to get BOTH of us to stay on topic not just the other person , not trying to be hypocritical , I just try to shorten detours , but at the same time it’s rude to ignore a persons points so I answer as quickly as possible .

 

[Duane1966]

I simply answer the aurgument and try to get BOTH of us to stay on topic not just the other person , not trying to be hypocritical , I just try to shorten detours , but at the same time it’s rude to ignore a persons points so I answer as quickly as possible .

I could accept this, IF you try to shorten detours on ALL posts that you reply to, not just ones you disagree with. Post #253 is an example of you not worrying about the detour caused by a post that you happen to agree with, and I’ve noticed it before.

While I agree it is rude to ignore a person’s points, is it rude to ignore them if the person’s points were made to a different poster?