The separation of justification from sanctification is an innovation of Luther,
Actually, it's an "innovation" of the revelation Paul received from Jesus personally, in the third heaven.
We find this use of "justification" nowhere else in Scripture until Paul.
it serves a purpose in denouncing the practice of penance and other false works-based salvations it now seems to cause confusion allowing for license and antinomianism. This is partly because
"justification" has come to be most strongly associated with Roman court proceedings rather than the Kingly inspection it is most likely referencing,
a change that can be seen in the 4th and 5th century starting with Augustine.
But Augustine wasn't Roman. . .Paul was. . .writing to those who lived under the reference points of Roman rule. It is Paul who associates justification with Roman court proceedings.
Jesus justifies us in both senses of the word, through declaration and through making that declaration an actual truth.
Yes, sanctification (righteousness) is the
fruit of justification (righteousness)--Ro 14:17; 2Co 6:7, 14; Eph 6:14; Jas 5:16; 1Pe 3:2.
But in NT usage, "justification" does not have two senses, it is "righteousness" that has two senses.
Indeed, justification (God's declaration of "not guilty")--no longer guilty of the sin of Adam (Ro 5:14), no longer under the wrath of God on unbelief (Jn 3:18, 36), does
produce the fruit of holiness (righteousness), but justification
in itself is not holiness, it is only right-standing before God's court.
Paul sometimes distinguishes between effects and their inseparable source/cause--faith from works, works from justification, holiness from justification, where even though the two are inseparable--as works are the necessary
results/proof of true faith, as works are the necessary
results/proof of justification, as holiness is the necessary
result/proof of justification, Paul presents these effects as
distinct from their source/cause, because the distinctions are important to rightly understanding his revelation.
Eph 2:8-9 - "For it is by grace you have been saved,
through faith. . .
not by works. . ."
(faith separated from works).
Ro 4:5 - "However, to the man
who does not work but trusts
God (i.e.,
faith) who
justifies the wicked,
his
faith is credited as righteousness (works separated from justification).
Ro 6:19, 22 - ". . .offer them (your bodies) in slavery to righteousness,
leading to holiness"
". . .the benefit you reap
leads to holiness"
(justification separated from holiness). Also see1Tim 6:11; 2Tm 2:22, 3:16; Heb 12:11.
Likewise, with righteousness in justification.
Paul distinguishes the
two kinds of righteousness--one is right-standing (
justification),
the other is the character produced in obedience (
sanctification), which
sanctification (
righteous character) is the result of the obedience which results from
justification (
righteous-
standing before God). Paul is emphatic in distinguishing between the two kinds of righteousness, because
works (obedience) are a component of
sanctification (righteousness), but are emphatically
excluded from
justification (righteousness).
Most of what you are saying is systematic theologies developed by men, it's philosophy and can be useful but it is not ultimate truth.
As your hermeneutic is developed by men?
Systematic theology is simply a coherent presentation of the relationships of
Biblical truths, which truths are not presented in any particular order in Scripture.
And to the degree that systematic theology conforms to those truths, in the context of all Scripture, it
is ultimate truth, the Word of God, being understood in the light of the whole counsel of God.