A Catholic perspective on Martin Luther's perspective on Justification

[Xeno.of.athens]

I am going to be lazy. Being lazy may mean no one responds. But I am tired, meaning I need sleep, and this video does a good job of presenting the issue mentioned in the topic.

 

[FireDragon76]

He's presenting a highly polemical view of what Lutherans actually believe. Lutherans do not believe God "zaps" anymore, neither did Luther. They are certain means by which we receive God's grace, through hearing the Gospel and receiving the sacraments. Grace isn't a random lightening bolt.

One thing that may be hard to understand for Catholics, is that Lutheran doctrines are not based on analytic philosophy, and should not be understood as primarily philosophical in nature. They are meant to limit and shape Christian doctrine, specifically, proclamation of the Gospel.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

He's presenting a highly polemical view of what Lutherans actually believe. Lutherans do not believe God "zaps" anymore, neither did Luther. They are certain means by which we receive God's grace, through hearing the Gospel and receiving the sacraments. Grace isn't a random lightening bolt.

One thing that may be hard to understand for Catholics, is that Lutheran doctrines are not based on analytic philosophy, and should not be understood as primarily philosophical in nature. They are meant to limit and shape Christian doctrine, specifically, proclamation of the Gospel.

I cannot say what Martin Luther believed, only what he wrote and what is thought to be the meaning of his writings. It seems from their presentation that they interpret Luther to have a forensic view of justification which he fairly strongly separated from his view of sanctification. I do know from my own experience that Presbyterians make the same strong separation. And in CF is it very common to have Evangelicals and especially Calvinists make the stro9ng distinction too.

 

[FireDragon76]

I cannot say what Martin Luther believed, only what he wrote and what is thought to be the meaning of his writings. It seems from their presentation that they interpret Luther to have a forensic view of justification which he fairly strongly separated from his view of sanctification. I do know from my own experience that Presbyterians make the same strong separation. And in CF is it very common to have Evangelicals and especially Calvinists make the stro9ng distinction too.

Lutherans do distinguish between justification and sanctification also.

Correctly identifying Luther's view of justification as forensic isn't the problem I have with their presentation. The problem I have with it is trying to understand the doctrine through philosophical categories, rather than historical theology.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Lutherans do distinguish between justification and sanctification also.

Correctly identifying Luther's view of justification as forensic isn't the problem I have with their presentation. The problem I have with it is trying to understand the doctrine through philosophical categories, rather than historical theology.

Well, they do have an excuse (wink); they were protestants - one a holiness movement adherent from the Church f the Nazarene, the other from a reformed church of some kind I think.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, they do have an excuse (wink); they were protestants - one a holiness movement adherent from the Church f the Nazarene, the other from a reformed church of some kind I think.

If you look at Luther's perspective through a Holiness lens, you're bound to see it wrong. Luther isn't primarily concerned with the question of how we become holy, but what basis we have for any assurance that God loves us and accepts us.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

If you look at Luther's perspective through a Holiness lens, you're bound to see it wrong. Luther isn't primarily concerned with the question of how we become holy, but what basis we have for any assurance that God loves us and accepts us.

Agreed that Luther was concerned with assurance that God loves us. That could be because of his own experience before he discovered the verse in Romans. He says of himself, that he was constantly plagued by fears of hell and the perception of his own unholiness. Certainly, for him, that q

 

[Clare73]

I am going to be lazy. Being lazy may mean no one responds. But I am tired, meaning I need sleep, and this video does a good job of presenting the issue mentioned in the topic.

It's not about Martin Luther, or a Catholic perpective, it's about Paul's revelation regarding justification.

The meaning of the word justification (Gr: dikaiosis) is a declaration of "not guilty," a sentence of acquittal, a legal finding of right standing with the Court; i.e., penalty paid, time served, free to go.
It is a forensic righteousness, not an actual righteousness (which is in sanctification which leads to righteousness leading to holiness, Ro 6:16, 19, 22).

Paul revealed that this forensic righteousness is by faith alone (Ro 3:28), as the result of salvation by faith alone (Eph 2:8-9).

That is the only issue for the Christian; i.e., faith alone, not by works.
Those who do not believe Paul's revelation, for whatever reason, are in Biblical error.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good day,

The erroneous teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on Justification is the main reason I left that denomination.

In Him

Bill

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Good day,

The erroneous teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on Justification is the main reason I left that denomination.

In Him

Bill

What alleged error upset you?

 

[ViaCrucis]

He's presenting a highly polemical view of what Lutherans actually believe. Lutherans do not believe God "zaps" anymore, neither did Luther. They are certain means by which we receive God's grace, through hearing the Gospel and receiving the sacraments. Grace isn't a random lightening bolt.

One thing that may be hard to understand for Catholics, is that Lutheran doctrines are not based on analytic philosophy, and should not be understood as primarily philosophical in nature. They are meant to limit and shape Christian doctrine, specifically, proclamation of the Gospel.

This. Lutheran theology, and this goes back to Luther himself, is pastoral theology. Lutherans don't abhor scholasticism or systematics, but the chief concern of theology is always to present a gigantic neon sign with an arrow pointing to Jesus and His cross. Whether we are talking to tiny little children or smarty pants academics with thirty-five doctorate degrees.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BBAS 64]

What alleged error upset you?

Good day,

The inability of the denomination to correctly and biblically understand Paul when it comes to the nature of Justification.

They seeming can not clearly differentiate between Sanctification and Justification, that inability creates an error in their view of Salvation.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Good day,

The inability of the denomination to correctly and biblically understand Paul when it comes to the nature of Justification.

They seeming can not clearly differentiate between Sanctification and Justification, that inability creates an error in their view of Salvation.

In Him,

Bill

The separation of "being received by God as just" and "being made just by God's grace" is the root of the problem, it is Protestantism that has erred. Martin Luther desperately wanted assurance that God loved him and desperately feared that he could not perform to the exacting standard that he feared God required of him. This was a problem that Martin had yet his brothers in the monastery did not. His unbalanced anxiety created the sharp distinction between "forensic justification" and "sanctification". Catholics rightly see God acting to both make a person holy as he receives them as holy, this is Justification and Sanctification the words being descriptive of the one act of God's grace.

 

[BBAS 64]

The separation of "being received by God as just" and "being made just by God's grace" is the root of the problem, it is Protestantism that has erred. Martin Luther desperately wanted assurance that God loved him and desperately feared that he could not perform to the exacting standard that he feared God required of him. This was a problem that Martin had yet his brothers in the monastery did not. His unbalanced anxiety created the sharp distinction between "forensic justification" and "sanctification". Catholics rightly see God acting to both make a person holy as he receives them as holy, this is Justification and Sanctification the words being descriptive of the one act of God's grace.

Good day,

Well that can be you subjective option and you are welcome to it. I do indeed see it differently

Your denominations error on this important issue and the reason why I left.

Trent:

If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

I am happy to let them view me as anathema just as I view them as being dead wrong on this issue, because of their total inability to understand.

What Does the Roman Catholic Church Believe About Justification?

The gospel of Jesus Christ is always at risk of distortion. It became distorted in the centuries leading up to the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth centu

www.ligonier.org

John Murray- If justification is confused with regeneration or sanctification, then the door is opened for the perversion of the gospel at its center. Justification is still the article of the standing or falling church.


In Him,

Bill

 

[Clare73]

What alleged error upset you?

My guess is works was added.

 

[FireDragon76]

The separation of "being received by God as just" and "being made just by God's grace" is the root of the problem, it is Protestantism that has erred. Martin Luther desperately wanted assurance that God loved him and desperately feared that he could not perform to the exacting standard that he feared God required of him.

A fear that was by no means isolated to Luther.

This was a problem that Martin had yet his brothers in the monastery did not. His unbalanced anxiety created the sharp distinction between "forensic justification" and "sanctification".

This is an over-simplification. It wasn't only Luther that distinguished between justification and sanctification, but the entire Reformed movement in Switzerland and southern Germany, many of whom developed their doctrine somewhat independently of Luther. If his ideas were so idiosyncratic, few would have agreed with him.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

Just needed to add:

Augustine (354-430): But what about the person who does no work (Rom 4:5)? Think here of some godless sinner, who has no good works to show. What of him or her? What if such a person comes to believe in God who justifies the impious? People like that are impious because they accomplish nothing good; they may seem to do good things, but their actions cannot truly be called good, because performed without faith. But when someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Part 1, Vol. 11, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms 1-32, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, §7 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), p. 370.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Well that can be you subjective option and you are welcome to it. I do indeed see it differently

It is not an opinion, it is history's report regarding Martin Luther; testified to by his own writings, as far as his fears and anxiety are concerned, and testified to by the Abbot of his monastery concerning the state of his brethren in the monastery and the Abbot's observations about Martin while Martin was in their company - before he left and well before he broke with the Catholic Church. As far as the sharp distinction that Martin made between justification and sanctification, that too is testified to by Martin's own writings and it is an innovation in theology, an error as it turns out, that led Martin into his schism with the Catholic Church. These are history, not opinion.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

My guess is works was added.

Yet before Martin Luther's day, justified meant "to be made just", and it involved all the good works done in the grace of God. It was Martin Luther who created the innovation of a sharp separation between the forensic "declared righteous" and the practical "made righteous", he called the former "justification" and the latter "sanctification" despite the history of both words relating to the single act of grace performed by God to make his saints holy. God both treats as just and makes just all the saints. The separation is notional, not real, and Martin Luther has done his followers poor service by attempting to radically separate them. No one is forensically justified if they are practically and willingly wicked. Thus James writes "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It wasn't only Luther that distinguished between justification and sanctification, but the entire Reformed movement in Switzerland and southern Germany, many of whom developed their doctrine somewhat independently of Luther. If his ideas were so idiosyncratic, few would have agreed with him.

I did not say Martin Luther was alone in the idea of radically separating Justification from Sanctification, what I said is it is an error that Martin Luther held, and it is an error because it is God who both receives a person as righteous and who also makes the person righteous; the saving of a soul is an act of God that is both to treat as righteous and to make righteous the person whose soul he is saving. And as for the popularity of Martin Luther's radical separation between Justification and Sanctification, it is a truth seen in history that every major heresy had a popular following and in some cases, for a time, heresy dominated the numbers of professing Christians; clearly popularity is no measure of orthodoxy of belief, nor is popularity a proof of sound reasoning from the texts of scriptures to the text of a doctrine.