Justification and Sanctification

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cruxis117
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cruxis117

Guest
I’ve been told that Reformed Theology holds that Justification and Sanctification are two different, distinct things, and that us Catholics do not believe in such a distinction. Why do we hold to this? Can anyone also provide me links and resources about this topic? Thank you.
 
I’ve been told that Reformed Theology holds that Justification and Sanctification are two different, distinct things, and that us Catholics do not believe in such a distinction. Why do we hold to this? Can anyone also provide me links and resources about this topic? Thank you.
Here is one, looking and comparing both C and P positions. Look for the journal on sanctification and justification:

chnetwork.org/resources/coming-home-journals/
 
For Catholic teaching you might want to consult the Council of Trent.

In Catholic theology, there is a real sense in which justification first occurs. Council of Trent, session 6:we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

In Catholic theology, justification is considered to begin at the above point and continues through the life of the soul. Trent says: *Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.*Reformed theology tends not to go beyond “position in” Christ. Catholics have this notion in a sense as well, however it is more nuanced. While person A and B may both be justified, person A may be less attached to sin, and his soul in a closer condition to his heavenly nature than person B, and can *in this sense *be said to be “further justified” (in the words of Trent), even though both of them would go to heaven if they died. It could be paraphrased to one person being “greater,” like was said of John the Baptist, for instance. Since Reformed theology espouses imputed righteousness, that Jesus’ holiness equally “covers” anyone who is justified in the eyes of God, they do not admit to such degrees.

When we cooperate with grace by good works, we are further sanctified, which Catholics consider part of justification since justification entails all facets of getting right with God. More from Trent:*…the words of the Apostle: Abound in every good work, knowing that your labour is not in vain in the Lord; for God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name; and, do not lose your confidence, which hath a great reward. And, for this cause, life eternal is to be proposed to those working well unto the end…*And:*CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification (i.e. not the aforementioned unmerited initial justification in my first paragraph, but the subsequent sanctifying dimension of justification), and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.
*
 
Here’s a little book written by Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers which thoroughly explains the issues. Akin is a former Protestant and presents both sides accurately and fairly.

The Salvation Controversy

Available from Catholic Answers and from Amazon.
 
I’ve been told that Reformed Theology holds that Justification and Sanctification are two different, distinct things, and that us Catholics do not believe in such a distinction. Why do we hold to this? Can anyone also provide me links and resources about this topic? Thank you.
Here’s a link to a document about the topic that’s one of my favorites:

cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a037.html

David Palm does a grea job in describing how justification involves a real change in us. (However, when I first read it, the background not so busy ;)).

peace
steve
 
I’ve been told that Reformed Theology holds that Justification and Sanctification are two different, distinct things, and that us Catholics do not believe in such a distinction. Why do we hold to this? Can anyone also provide me links and resources about this topic? Thank you.
It is true that Reformed theology tends to distinguish fairly sharply between justification and sanctification whereas Catholicism tends to see them as the two ways of talking about the same thing. Who is correct?

Both sides. Here is why.

Biblically, the terms “justification” and “sanctification” are not nearly as distinct in meaning as they are in later Protestant systematic theology. Score 1 for the Catholics.

On the other hand, since no one claims that “justification” and “sanctification” as categories of systematic theology are identical to their biblical meanings, then we can ask whether or not a real distinction can be made between those terms–as theological categories-- based on the biblical evidence.

I think we can. In systematic theology, “justification” is the doctrine that tells us how the sinner becomes righteous before God. This is an event in scripture. It happens when the atoning death of Christ is counted as righteousness on our behalf. In this sense we are “positionally” righteous before God, by a sovereign and gracious declaration of God, even though we continue to sin.

“Sanctification,” on the other hand, is the doctrine that tells us how sinners become intrinsically holy by the transforming power of grace. Sanctification deals with our actual growth in grace and thus refers to the “lived” righteousness believers are supposed to practice in this life time.

Conceptually, those really are two distinct doctrines. So score 1 for the Protestants.

I suspect, however, that in actual practice, neither doctrine can be so neatly distinguished, which is why the biblical language seems to use the terms almost interchangeably at times. And if you think about it, this makes sense. God only declares righteous those whom he will empower to live a righteous life. This is one of the great strengths of the Catholic position insofar as it resists the separation between justification and sanctification in actual practice. But in theory, the two concepts are not exactly the same. Still–when anyone–Protestant or Catholic or Orthodox–separates the two in lived exprience–they do so to their peril.

In my view, anyone who isn’t living righteously (sanctification) most likely hasn’t been declared righteous (justification) in the first place.

I highly recommend for you the following book by Peter Toon, “Justification and Sanctification.” But rather than buy it, just read it on the internet. I think Monergism has it.
anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/Peter_Toons_Books_Online/Doctrine/justsanct1.htm

This book gives a very balanced presentation of the doctrine and is sympathetic to all sides of the debate.
 
I think we can. In systematic theology, “justification” is the doctrine that tells us how the sinner becomes righteous before God. This is an event in scripture. It happens when the atoning death of Christ is counted as righteousness on our behalf. In this sense we are “positionally” righteous before God, by a sovereign and gracious declaration of God, even though we continue to sin.

“Sanctification,” on the other hand, is the doctrine that tells us how sinners become intrinsically holy by the transforming power of grace. Sanctification deals with our actual growth in grace and thus refers to the “lived” righteousness believers are supposed to practice in this life time.
Would you say since one’s “position” is based on the imputed righteousness of Christ, that sanctification is therefore unnecessary for the soul to enter heaven?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top