Justification and Sanctification

[TriuneUnity]

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.

I would agree with that. The life of the Christian is a pilgrimage, not a finished journey. I look over the course of my life, the sins I have committed in the past, the sins I commit every day, and the sins I know that I will commit tomorrow, and it would be the height of arrogance for me to say that I am anywhere near finishing the race, or flippantly living as if repenting of my actions doesn’t matter, because I am “eternally secure” or some such.

However, the reason why sanctification being its own process or part of justification is that I have the comfort of knowing that Christ has done everything necessary for me to be reconciled to God on my behalf. The twin enemies of faith are self-righteousness and despair. Self-righteousess because I can try to convince myself that I am actually pulling this Law thing off, not needing the righteousness of Christ in my place to stand before the judgment seat. The route of despair is to think that the righteousness of Christ is not enough to make me holy in the sight of God, and I have still to keep the Law in order to be justified. Knowing the sinfulness of my heart, that would plunge me into a fog of disbelief.

The answer lies in the middle. I am perfectly holy in God’s sight because God has made me alive in Baptism. Yet, I have not yet finished the journey, and God gives me the graces of Baptism, the Body and Blood of Christ in the Supper, and the words of forgiveness in Absolution to continue returning to the foot of the cross and confessing that I am unworthy. As we say in the confession of sins "I confess to God Almighty, before the whole company of heaven and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned in thought, word, and deed by my fault, by my own fault, by my own most grievous fault; wherefore I pray God Almighty to have mercy on me, forgive me all my sins, and bring me to everlasting life. Amen, " and to hear from the lips of the pastor, as from Christ Himself “God has indeed been merciful and sent His only Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the world. By His Word and by His authority, I forgive you all your sins, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.” Because Christ never lies, I can therefore have full confidence, that He means what He says, and that no matter how I stumble, Christ will hold onto me and see me through to the end.

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?

I don’t think anyone can read Romans 6 and come away thinking that the nature of man is not changed in Baptism. The change that takes place doesn’t justify us, but the nature is changed as a result of being united to Christ’s death and resurrection. His death becomes our death, as our nature in Adam is eschatologically drowned (hence the profound connection Peter makes between Baptism and the Flood; as the Flood put to death the sinners who remained outside of the ark, so Baptism puts to death the old Adam). From our personal experience, the old nature still remains, but from God’s perspective, it’s been nailed to the cross. Unbelievers who are still in their sins do not have a reborn nature. They still possess the nature of Adam in toto. For Christians, we are saint and sinner, and those two natures will continue to war against each other until we die.

That is how the Apostle Paul makes his case against the charge of antinomianism that he answers in Romans 6. “Well, if we’re saved by grace, why should we not keep sinning?” Paul answers by stating the obvious "Since your sinful nature has been drowned in Baptism; how in the world can you continue living as if the sinful nature is still alive? It doesn’t make any logical sense in Paul’s thinking to say that we are dead to sin, yet we act as if we’re not. The indicative (you are buried with Christ and justified) drives the imperative (since you are just, live that way).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Isn’t Luther a bit antinomian when he made the comment to go and “sin boldly?” Doesn’t that betray a hint of arrogance and frivolity as to whether sin and works are even important? It’s a statement of confidence in grace and yet shows works and the personal behavior have zero impact.

That is how the Apostle Paul makes his case against the charge of antinomianism that he answers in Romans 6. “Well, if we’re saved by grace, why should we not keep sinning?” Paul answers by stating the obvious "Since your sinful nature has been drowned in Baptism; how in the world can you continue living as if the sinful nature is still alive? It doesn’t make any logical sense in Paul’s thinking to say that we are dead to sin, yet we act as if we’re not. The indicative (you are buried with Christ and justified) drives the imperative (since you are just, live that way).

 

[TriuneUnity]

Isn’t Luther a bit antinomian when he made the comment to go and “sin boldly?” Doesn’t that betray a hint of arrogance and frivolity as to whether sin and works are even important? It’s a statement of confidence in grace and yet shows works and the personal behavior have zero impact.

One must interpret Luther’s statement in the context which it was written. That was not a pronouncement of dogmatic assertion. It was a pastoral letter written to Melancthon, who was a pansy (LOL) and was prone to gazing at his navel in order to determine whether he was a Christian. It was an attempt by Luther to shock Melancthon into looking at Christ to see his righteousness there, and not whether he walked enough old ladies across Wittenberg Street.

“If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.”

He is not telling Melancthon to go out be a heathen. He is telling Melancthon to recognize the fact that his sins are real sins and to acknowledge them as such, and then realize that Christ has taken away those sins.

 

[God4me]

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?

Justification is, “Right standing with God” “Being righteous in the sight of God”.
God sees His people as Righteous. And if we sin and confess it, Then Jesus’s blood cleases us from all sin and puts us back in right standing with God. 1 Jn 1: 9.

Sanctification Is our conduct, Being Holy, Set apart.

 

[ralphinal]

I would agree with that. The life of the Christian is a pilgrimage, not a finished journey. I look over the course of my life, the sins I have committed in the past, the sins I commit every day, and the sins I know that I will commit tomorrow, and it would be the height of arrogance for me to say that I am anywhere near finishing the race, or flippantly living as if repenting of my actions doesn’t matter, because I am “eternally secure” or some such.

However, the reason why sanctification being its own process or part of justification is that I have the comfort of knowing that Christ has done everything necessary for me to be reconciled to God on my behalf. The twin enemies of faith are self-righteousness and despair. Self-righteousess because I can try to convince myself that I am actually pulling this Law thing off, not needing the righteousness of Christ in my place to stand before the judgment seat. The route of despair is to think that the righteousness of Christ is not enough to make me holy in the sight of God, and I have still to keep the Law in order to be justified. Knowing the sinfulness of my heart, that would plunge me into a fog of disbelief.

The answer lies in the middle. I am perfectly holy in God’s sight because God has made me alive in Baptism. Yet, I have not yet finished the journey, and God gives me the graces of Baptism, the Body and Blood of Christ in the Supper, and the words of forgiveness in Absolution to continue returning to the foot of the cross and confessing that I am unworthy. As we say in the confession of sins "I confess to God Almighty, before the whole company of heaven and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned in thought, word, and deed by my fault, by my own fault, by my own most grievous fault; wherefore I pray God Almighty to have mercy on me, forgive me all my sins, and bring me to everlasting life. Amen, " and to hear from the lips of the pastor, as from Christ Himself “God has indeed been merciful and sent His only Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the world. By His Word and by His authority, I forgive you all your sins, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.” Because Christ never lies, I can therefore have full confidence, that He means what He says, and that no matter how I stumble, Christ will hold onto me and see me through to the end.

I don’t think anyone can read Romans 6 and come away thinking that the nature of man is not changed in Baptism. The change that takes place doesn’t justify us, but the nature is changed as a result of being united to Christ’s death and resurrection. His death becomes our death, as our nature in Adam is eschatologically drowned (hence the profound connection Peter makes between Baptism and the Flood; as the Flood put to death the sinners who remained outside of the ark, so Baptism puts to death the old Adam). From our personal experience, the old nature still remains, but from God’s perspective, it’s been nailed to the cross. Unbelievers who are still in their sins do not have a reborn nature. They still possess the nature of Adam in toto. For Christians, we are saint and sinner, and those two natures will continue to war against each other until we die.

That is how the Apostle Paul makes his case against the charge of antinomianism that he answers in Romans 6. “Well, if we’re saved by grace, why should we not keep sinning?” Paul answers by stating the obvious "Since your sinful nature has been drowned in Baptism; how in the world can you continue living as if the sinful nature is still alive? It doesn’t make any logical sense in Paul’s thinking to say that we are dead to sin, yet we act as if we’re not. The indicative (you are buried with Christ and justified) drives the imperative (since you are just, live that way).

I had to bold that line. Christ has not done everything. YOU must admit that you have sinned and YOU and YOU ALONE must ask forgiveness for those sins. Christ has made the path easy and possible, but he does not grant you absolution when it is not asked for.

 

[ralphinal]

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?

This is actually not legalism. This is more about how humans understand the divine. Anyway, Catholic teaching is that those who through no fault of their own are not in communion with Christ are judged by the natural law, or by another means that God uses.

Actually, the process would be the same even if they do not know it: avoiding sin and seeking forgiveness when they do sin. IF the do not know God at all, it falls back to, as Paul said, being judged by the law written on their hearts

 

[TriuneUnity]

I had to bold that line. Christ has not done everything. YOU must admit that you have sinned and YOU and YOU ALONE must ask forgiveness for those sins. Christ has made the path easy and possible, but he does not grant you absolution when it is not asked for.

Yes, I agree that we must admit that we have sinned. Repentance is a necessary component of faith. However, my ability to admit that I have sinned and to trust in Christ or the forgiveness that comes with repentance is given to me by the Holy Spirit in word and sacrament (Acts 11:18, 2 Tim. 2:25). Without God having raised us to life in Baptism, those who are dead in transgressions and sins will never repent.

 

[ralphinal]

Yes, I agree that we must admit that we have sinned. Repentance is a necessary component of faith. However, my ability to admit that I have sinned and to trust in Christ or the forgiveness that comes with repentance is given to me by the Holy Spirit in word and sacrament (Acts 11:18, 2 Tim. 2:25). Without God having raised us to life in Baptism, those who are dead in transgressions and sins will never repent.

Granted, but again, that moves us into the realm of the types of grace.

It does all come back to grace and the work of the Holy Spirit, doesn’t it

 

[TriuneUnity]

Granted, but again, that moves us into the realm of the types of grace.

It does all come back to grace and the work of the Holy Spirit, doesn’t it

Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner on this, ralph. I was away for the weekend.

I would agree that there are different types of grace. That is forced by the fact that there are different types of people. Unbelievers do not receive sanctifying grace, for example, because they are not experiencing sanctification. I would say for the baptized Christian, repentance of sin would fall more into a sanctifying grace area. Since I would say they are reborn spiritually, their repentance is a form of sanctification, in which their reborn wills are fully cooperating with. Versus, say, justifying grace, which I would hold to be monergistic. The grace received in the Lord’s Supper, Absolution, the remembrance of baptism, are also sanctifying.

 

[ralphinal]

Is justification possilble without sanctification? Is sanctification possible without justification?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Is justification possilble without sanctification? Is sanctification possible without justification?

It would be impossible to be justified without being sanctified. Justification, though we hold it to be forensic in nature is not only forensic. We are innocent in view of Christ’s righteous keeping of the law and by His having taken our sin upon Himself and destroyed it on the cross and resurrection. As such, we are united to Christ the vine, and will bear fruit because we are part of that vine. Each person’s sanctification will be different, but sanctification is sanctification.

Imputation always results in impartation (or infusion, if you prefer). Adam’s offspring are imputed with Adam’s sin, as a result of that, they are infused with sin. They are reckoned as sinners, and so they begin to become actual sinners. In Christ, we are reckoned as holy, so we begin to become actually holy. So it would be impossible for the unbeliever to be sanctified without being justified.

 

[Carlan]

It would be impossible to be justified without being sanctified. Justification, though we hold it to be forensic in nature is not only forensic. We are innocent in view of Christ’s righteous keeping of the law and by His having taken our sin upon Himself and destroyed it on the cross and resurrection. As such, we are united to Christ the vine, and will bear fruit because we are part of that vine. Each person’s sanctification will be different, but sanctification is sanctification.

Imputation always results in impartation (or infusion, if you prefer). Adam’s offspring are imputed with Adam’s sin, as a result of that, they are infused with sin. They are reckoned as sinners, and so they begin to become actual sinners. In Christ, we are reckoned as holy, so we begin to become actually holy. So it would be impossible for the unbeliever to be sanctified without being justified.

I pulled this from my notes.
we “have been justified” and we “have been saved.” However, this is not the end of the story.

Scripture reveals that through this justification and salvation the new Christian experiences in baptism, he enters into a process of justification and salvation requiring his free cooperation with God’s grace.

More to the story.

Romans 5:1-2 states, “Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have obtained access to this grace in
which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God.”

So in baptism Justification is given, and the Holy Spirit then fills us with the power of sanctifying grace to become holy and pleasing to God. Catholics believe this is a life long process of growing in holiness.So justification is a new birth,that begins the generation of new life in us former sinners, inner renewal and sanctification. The soul becomes beautiful and holy , not just an ugly soul covered under a beautiful coat.Carlan