Is justification a process?

[fhansen]

Jon, I thought Lutherans believed that sanctification was a different thing from justification? I thought it was Rome which conflated the two?

Rome doesn’t separate the two while I believe that Lutheranism simply means to say that, while they’re different, they’re nonetheless inseparable, i.e. you can’t have one without the other. However, they’d say that sanctification is still not necessary in order to be fully justified.

 

[JonNC]

I am curious about this Jon. If God’s grace is sufficient to deliver us from sin, then why would it not be possible to be sanctified in this life?

Not completely sanctified. Paul speaks to this. As well when he complains that the good he would do, that he doe not , and the wrong he would not do that he does.
He then says thanks be to God, recognizing the importance of grace, even for someone such as himself.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon, I thought Lutherans believed that sanctification was a different thing from justification? I thought it was Rome which conflated the two?

Not conflated , but certainly linked. Luther states that there is no justification without sanctification .

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Rome doesn’t separate the two while I believe that Lutheranism simply means to say that, while they’re different, they’re nonetheless inseparable, i.e. you can’t have one without the other. However, they’d say that sanctification is still not necessary in order to be fully justified.

Pretty close


We see justification as monergistic. Sanctification includes our response, led by the Spirit.
Jon

 

[concretecamper]

The RCC teaches faith initially justifies but it is perfected through works…not works of the Mosaic law as Paul teaches… but good works…love of God and neighbor kinda stuff. Also justification is an ongoing process and not a one time event. It involves an inner change (infusion)to the person rather than a one time declaration by God (imputation).

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[guanophore]

I thought Lutherans believed that sanctification was a different thing from justification? I thought it was Rome which conflated the two?

Actually, it was the Apostles who taught that.

One way to know that a certain theological phenomena is Apostolic, as opposed to some invention of “Rome” is when that theology or practice is found in every Church founded by an Apostle. Eastern Orthodoxy has no love lost on “Rome”, and yet, they have received the same doctrines from the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

The RCC teaches faith initially justifies but it is perfected through works…not works of the Mosaic law as Paul teaches… but good works…love of God and neighbor kinda stuff. Also justification is an ongoing process and not a one time event. It involves an inner change (infusion)to the person rather than a one time declaration by God (imputation).

I can’t imagine the Catholic Church would teach something contrary to the Holy Scriptures. I am curious where you came up with this definition.

Rom 4:23-5:1
23 Now the words, “it was **reckoned **to him,” were written not for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be **reckoned **to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification.

“Reckoned” is also translated “credited” and “imputed”. It is translated from the Gk.
logizomai “to reckon, take into account,” or, metaphorically, “to put down to a person’s account,”

In the in the Koine Greek, the language covering the NT period, it was used in accounting and ledgers. ellogao, denotes “to charge to one’s account, to lay to one’s charge,” and is translated “imputed” in Rom 5:13, of sin as not being “imputed when there is no law.”

What the Apostle is saying is that Jesus’ righteousness if imputed, or accredited to us by our faith in Him.

 

[mathonihah]

This has been an interesting discussion. As a Mormon I find myself in agreement with the Catholic side of the argument. Not sure if they would view that as a complement or not!

 

[Indifferently]

Thanks Jon. We are at accord that sola fide, properly understood, is indeed the biblical doctrine, supported indeed by the Church Fathers.

 

[fhansen]

I can’t imagine the Catholic Church would teach something contrary to the Holy Scriptures. I am curious where you came up with this definition.

Rom 4:23-5:1
23 Now the words, “it was **reckoned **to him,” were written not for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be **reckoned **to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification.

“Reckoned” is also translated “credited” and “imputed”. It is translated from the Gk.
logizomai “to reckon, take into account,” or, metaphorically, “to put down to a person’s account,”

In the in the Koine Greek, the language covering the NT period, it was used in accounting and ledgers. ellogao, denotes “to charge to one’s account, to lay to one’s charge,” and is translated “imputed” in Rom 5:13, of sin as not being “imputed when there is no law.”

What the Apostle is saying is that Jesus’ righteousness if imputed, or accredited to us by our faith in Him.

But in Catholic teaching, while we’re declared free from sin at justification, made positionally righteous as we’re forgiven of it, this isn’t the end of the story. We’re also infused, positively, with sanctifying grace. IOW our righteousness is a change, an ontological change, in us, rather than a merely declared or imputed change in status, i.e. we’re made truly just, effected by grace.

 

[concretecamper]

guanophore:

Quote:

Originally Posted by concretecamper

The RCC teaches faith initially justifies but it is perfected through works…not works of the Mosaic law as Paul teaches… but good works…love of God and neighbor kinda stuff. Also justification is an ongoing process and not a one time event. It involves an inner change (infusion)to the person rather than a one time declaration by God (imputation).

I can’t imagine the Catholic Church would teach something contrary to the Holy Scriptures. I am curious where you came up with this definition.

Rom 4:23-5:1
23 Now the words, “it was reckoned to him,” were written not for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification.

“Reckoned” is also translated “credited” and “imputed”. It is translated from the Gk.
logizomai “to reckon, take into account,” or, metaphorically, “to put down to a person’s account,”

In the in the Koine Greek, the language covering the NT period, it was used in accounting and ledgers. ellogao, denotes “to charge to one’s account, to lay to one’s charge,” and is translated “imputed” in Rom 5:13, of sin as not being “imputed when there is no law.”

What the Apostle is saying is that Jesus’ righteousness if imputed, or accredited to us by our faith in Him.

that is your interpretation… it happens to be contrary to what the Church teaches.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[guanophore]

But in Catholic teaching, while we’re declared free from sin at justification, made positionally righteous as we’re forgiven of it, this isn’t the end of the story. We’re also infused, positively, with sanctifying grace. IOW our righteousness is a change, an ontological change, in us, rather than a merely declared or imputed change in status, i.e. we’re made truly just, effected by grace.

Yes. I am picking at the practice of accepting Reformation ideas and how they redefined terms. We cannot afford to play on that ground. If Scripture says “reckoned” (credited/imputed) then this is what the Holy Spirit meant to say. This is not the only term that was redefined during the reformation, so we have to work to bring out the Apostolic meaning of the language.

justification is an ongoing process and not a one time event. It involves an inner change (infusion)to the person rather than a one time declaration by God (imputation).

Justification is an ongoing process, but it is ALSO imputed and declared by God at one time (especially baptism). We also receive His imputed righteousness when we emerge from the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Justification is what Catholics call being in a state of grace. When our souls are in right relationship with God, we are justified.

The Reformers made major departures from the Apostolic Teaching on these things, but we can’t co-opt that by giving in to their changes.

 

[guanophore]

that is your interpretation… it happens to be contrary to what the Church teaches.

No, concrete. There is nothing in Scripture that is contrary to Catholic faith. The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics.

Col 2:13-15
“And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, 14 erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it.”

God nailed the record of our misdeeds to the cross. When we were baptized into Him, we became justified in Him through His work on the cross. His righteousness was imputed to us.

2 Cor 5:20-21
21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Because His righteousness is imputed to us, we become the righteousness of God in Christ.

This is Catholic.