S
Soutane
Guest
What are the differences or similarities between Catholic and Lutheran definitions of Justification and Sanctification.Wasn’t there some kind of protocol or agreement signed between the two faiths?
- Status
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
I wouldn’t go by that “agreement,” Soutane, since the Lutheran party to those discussions is very liberal, and is lucky it can affirm historic Christianity nowadays, let alone historic Lutheranism.
As for the differences… It tends to get wordy as to what the differences are. We largely would not disagree with the Catholic ideas of sanctification and glorification. The difference revolves around justification almost exclusively.
“I have been saved (justification), I am being saved (sanctification), I will be saved (glorification).” Although it must be pointed out that the Reformed doctrine of justification is not the Lutheran understanding, so terms like “once for all legal declaration” and “once saved, always saved” cannot be used in our context.
S
Soutane
Guest
Herein lies A problem as I see it.The ‘Signing’’ of this accord is not recognized by ALL Lutherans?Aren’t Lutherans Lutheran whether Evangelical or WELS?Isn’t there unity there or is it schism?I know there are different types of Lutherans as JonNC has explained it but isn’t there defacto unity?It would be like one part of Catholicism not recognizing certain dogma.Is it like us (Catholics) and the Orthodox who are in schism?
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Lutheranism is defined as adhering to the statements of faith contained in our common confession called the Book of Concord. If a Lutheran church body departs from the doctrine contained in those confessions, they are no longer functionally Lutheran. The ELCA, which is the church body that participated in those discussions of justification with representatives of the Roman communion, are not Lutheran in practice because they do not affirm in total our confessional statements.
It should also be pointed out that Rome never accepted that joint declaration as having any dogmatic approval.
S
Soutane
Guest
So you deny their Lutheranism?Are they schismatic or simply another branch of Protestant Christianity that merely call themselves Lutheran and should adopt another title to avoid irritating other more orthodox Lutherans and confusing other Christians?
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Definitely the latter. I wouldn’t even call them schismatic because it gives too much legitimacy to their viewpoint.
R
ralphinal
Guest
TU,
what issue do Lutherans have with that?
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Hi ralph, LTNS! We don’t have an issue with that, that IS our view. Justification, sanctification, and glorification are all equal parts of salvation. They function differently, but one is no more important than the other.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Alright. Now, how is that different than the Catholic view, in your opinion?
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Because Rome Catholic theology sees justification as progressive throughout the Christian life, there is no true “I have been saved” aspect. It sees the justification of the sinner as dependent upon the “I am being saved” aspect of sanctification.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Ok. Now, what if I said that the terms “justification” and “sanctification” were used interchangeably by Paul?
Stay with me here, I think you will be surprised
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
To which are you referring?
Just a note here, and TU I’m sure remembers this about me. I’m LCMS, and while my synod has not signed on, and despite the nature of some of the synods of the LWF, I personally find the JDDJ a remarkable document, at least as far as it goes. If nothing else, it has helped changed the atmosphere between Lutherans and Catholics a great deal.
Jon
C
Carlan
Guest
Excuse me for my 2cents worth here, I will just say in response to you here TU, that Catholics Hope to be saved
God bless, Peace , Carlan.
R
ralphinal
Guest
You’ll have to give me a minute to find my notes on this. It has to do with adjective dikaios, the verb dikaioo, and the noun dikaiosune. These were used to indicate both a one time event (justified) and a process.
basically, Catholics hold that we are justified first and foremost in baptism. After that event, we are made new creatures through the work of the Holy Spirit. However, we must continue to avoid sin and to repent when we do sin. That is a part of justification as a proess. That process IS sanctification. If you live beyond baptism, and never repent from any sins (which, sadly, we all commit), you will not make it to heaven.
This site explains it.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Which verses of the English translations do you have in mind?
I agree we are justified in Baptism and it is the beginning of the Christian life. Infused grace is not denied here. It’s the result of justification. Justification cannot be a process, because one is either fully acquited before God’s throne, or not at all. There is no half-innocent. Avoiding sin, doing good, obeying the commndments, growing in repentance, all of these are a result of the point in time when we are justified. This doesn’t deny that we can lose our justification as a result of sin, which causes unbelief. I agree with the last sentence, as well.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Lke I said, I need to find my notes.
The real issue is that the Catholic Church has been using the same word for the one time event and the process, as she sees them as one and the same. It is more a matter of terminology than theology.
If we can ignore any real terminology and work backwords, we both would say that if a man dies without any unrepentant sin on his soul, he will go to heaven. Now, through his life, when he sinned he repented and trusted in Jesus, he was working towards that through the grace of God. This process started with baptism.
Now, would you agree with that?
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Yes… that is probably close to the basis of the disagreement. We see justification as distinct, yet not separate, from sanctification. Let me avoid the faith lingo for a moment, because once you get pit into faith vs. works it tends to spiral into a bunch of unbiblical argumentation over true faith, active faith, saving faith, and other such sundry terms that the Reformed are fond of throwing around in order to explain their views. Ultimately, we are justified by Christ. It is our union with His life, death, and resurrection which pronounces us innocent before the judgment seat of the Father. Since we are incapable of sinlessness, which is what justification before God requires, because God’s Law requires perfect adherence to it, it is only through being united to Christ, and being seen in Him, that we can be found blameless before the Law. We would simply argue that the means of being united to Christ is through faith alone, because a promise can be received only by believing it. It cannot be worked towards, because then it is not a promise, but a debt.
I would agree that the process of his being “conformed to the image of His Son” begins with Baptism. This conforming to Christ, however, is not justification. The justification took place at the man’s Baptism, when he was united to Christ through faith (Rom. 6). It’s not something he is working towards. As a result of that union that he shares with the Savior, he works toward personal, actual holiness, which will be culminated in his glorification at the Last Day, when he becomes incapable of sin. This is the Scriptural tension between the already and the not yet. The man is already outside of condemnation (Rom. 8:1) and has passed from death to life. He is already seated with Christ in the heavenlies (Eph. 2:6). However, because the fullness of the eschaton has not occurred, the process of sanctification is the not yet aspect that will be struggled toward until either death, or the second advent.
I do agree, though, that we should not reduce justification to bare forensic proclamations. It is much more than that, as it results in union with the God of the universe.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Agreed
I agree with that as well.
I think that we, as separated brethren, make too much of the minutia in this case. Both Catholics and Lutherans hold that Baptism is the first step in a life-long change that we must make. We both agree that we can lose the purity granted to us through baptism, thus losing our salvation. Where we disagree is on if sanctification is its own process or part of another.
In this conversation, we have not touched upon the idea of if man is truly changed by baptism or if man is not changed but God ignores his nature. Which do you hold to?
M
Michael_Vernon
Guest
This is like an on-going working-lunch engagement between two lawyers. Now I’m going to make a comment that you’ll either ignore, or that will make you ask, Who is that cranky guy? The question is: What about the billions of people, past, present, and future, who will not be able to avail themselves of your respective religious bureaucracies? Have you thought about how they reach God (which I guess is what you’re haggling about under the legal terms “justification” and “sanctification”)? Do you care? How does that affect your conclusions about your religious conundrum?
- Status