Good video. Only comment I’ll make is that running the Wagner part at 2x speed makes it near impossible to understand what he’s saying that you’re refuting. Maybe slow it down a little?
St Augustine teaches that God justifies us, not by the justice by which he himself is just, but by the justice by which he makes us just. That alone refutes the protestant doctrine of forensic justification and imputed justice. He also teaches at various places that Christians after baptism are justified by prayer, almsgiving, etc., not to mention that he believes that our sins are forgiven in the sacrifice of the mass.
The Reformed did not say God's attribute of righteousness, so to speak, is the righteousness imputed to the believer, but the righteousness won on the basis of Christ's active obedience, so Augustines denial is not 100% relevant. The only exception i know of to this is Osiander who taught a view of transformational justification by means of the indwelling by the Holy Ghost, but was hounded by Chemnitz and Melancthon (and Calvin). The reason Augustine sees iustificare as he does is he etymologizes it as ex impio iustus facere, which does make a lot of sense to be fair. The source of the Reformed doctrine was largely a reappraisal of the actual Greek word which can only with difficulty mean iustus facere.
It really depends on how you define justification and formal cause. Many among the reformed scholastics readily admit that imputation is not the formal cause of justification, but rather the meritorious cause (classed under efficient cause). If one properly defines formal cause then we can fully affirm the statement Augustine makes, provided we accept the notion of duplex justitia (which I do, as do many others). So it is true that God justifies us by the righteousness which he gives to us, that is, we are called and actually are just by the remission of sins and the infusion of justice. But the meritorious cause of this is nothing but the justice of Christ imputed to us.
@@CrucemDominiSo would you agree with this definition from the Council of Trent, Session VI? "The causes of this justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance, the meritorious cause is His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father, the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified finally, the single formal cause is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills, and according to each one's disposition and cooperation."
A bit of a misnomer based on a touch of misunderstanding over the premises involved. Augustine was indeed both Roman and Catholic, as were Jerome and Sts Damasus, Siricius, Anastasius, Innocent, Zosimus and Boniface (bishops of Rome). So the point at issue is whether or not 'Rome' - circa AD 1500 - was still Roman and Catholic as per Augustine; Luther's assertion was that it was not, Rome's reply was that it was - with a further thousand years worth of discussion, debate and decision-making; for Lutherans it seems this was insufficiently 'Augustinian' - as seen by them; Rome spoke, it was Roman and Catholic in Augustinian terms, and - for Rome - that was .. and is (until recently) that. Justification .. that which denotes the transforming of the sinner from the state of unrighteousness to the state of holiness and sonship of God .. this making the unjust just is a matter of grace, in the form of a divine act and in the action of a human habit (i.e. sanctification, e.g. of the saved, in the one only Name that offers salvation from sin and its due reward, death : Jesus Christ). Grace, in turn, is, in general, a supernatural gift of God to intellectual creatures (men, angels), gifted to them for their eternal salvation - whether this saving act may also be furthered (practically), maintained (contingently) and finally attained (perfectly) through timely salutary acts (sacraments, sacramentals, and sacred presence, God's workmanship) or is experienced in a timeless state of holiness (Beatific Vision, heavenly participation). Augustine's thoughts on these concurrent and intertwining acts, and agent-prompting actions, are defined - for Rome and its communion - by magisterial decision .. with God's beloved called to be saints at Rome as the ultimate arbiter on what is and is not the Roman and Catholic understanding; for Luther and the Lutherans who may still follow his pattern of thought scholarship or some such personal attribute is favoured as some sort of magisterium (Augustine was firmly of the Roman and Catholic way of thought, btw, howsoever he worded it or explicated the confusion that words entail = among scholars*). Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek. God bless. ;o) * Do many Lutheran scholars still follow his style of scholarship (?) .. very few Catholic scholars today, it seems to me, even bother to acknowledge Augustine, other than a passing nod, let alone follow his scholarly method of being Roman and Catholic .. Hmmmmm?
In reply to the quotation from On Marriage And Concupiscence, Book I, Chapter 25 (a quote I jumbled during the video), this quotation (arguably) proves our point, and the rest of the quotations provided in the video did not affect our general contention -- at best, the other quotes just were silent as to the guilt element. In the quotation, concupiscence is called sin because a. it arose from sin in Adam b. when it gains the upper hand in the unregenerate (arguably both from first impulses and second impulses), it produces guilt. This much is true. So, here we learn that concupiscence is called sin because it both causes guilt and proceeds from original sin. For the record, this is arguably true of actual sins, by way of denotation. They are sins because they proceed from sin and cause guilt by a formal repugnance to the law. After baptism, concupiscence can be called not sin, per this definition, because it isn't guilty *in that God doesn't credit it for guilt in those who strive against it.* That can be explained in multiple ways but the claim doesn't contradict our view. Of course, concupiscence can still be called sin in the Adamic, derived sense and this will only change at the Resurrection. Sinful lusts can also be *called sin* because they produce acts with guilt attached to them (namely, acts we consent to). Now, I argue this is the right understanding, because Augustine does not think the nature of first impulses, in and of themselves, is seriously changed in the regenerate and unregenerate. The difference is, the regenerate can, in principle, resist their lust through a higher impulse, and so, not sin in their resistance to sinning. This is not true of the unregenerate, who even sin in their resistance to sin. So, I think the answer is that the impulse is not credited for sin in the regenerate, and that's why it can both be called sin and not sin in different respects -- sin because it sometimes produces guilt in the regenate (namely, when they consent to actual sins), not sin because it sometimes subsists without guilt (namely, when it is striven against and not consented to). So, I think Augustine actually proves our point -- those sections where Augustine says that concupiscence is not sinful, he is only talking about it not being sinful as to guilt. He is not claiming it is not formally repugnant to the law of God, which is love. In fact, Augustine claims it is, necessarily, incompatible with the formal nature of love in On Man's Perfection In Righteousness, the relevant section of which will quote below: "(19) The Commandment of Love Shall Be Perfectly Fulfilled in the Life to Come For to faith and hope shall succeed at once the very substance itself, no longer to be believed in and hoped for, but to be seen and grasped. Love, however, which is the greatest among the three, is not to be superseded, but increased and fulfilled - contemplating in full vision what it used to see by faith, and acquiring in actual fruition what it once only embraced in hope. *Then in all this plenitude of charity will be fulfilled the commandment, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. For while there remains any remnant of the lust of the flesh, to be kept in check by the rein of continence, God is by no means loved with all one's soul. For the flesh does not lust without the soul; although it is the flesh which is said to lust, because the soul lusts carnally.*" -- Cameron
As further proof of this contention, I present this section from Augustine's On Man's Perfection In Righteousness, where the Blessed Saint takes seriously the view just proposed: "Finally, if it be asserted that there either have been, or are in this present life, any persons, with the sole exception of our Great Head, “the Saviour of His body,” who are righteous, without any sin - and this, either by not consenting to the lusts thereof, or *because that must not be accounted as any sin which is such that God does not impute it to them by reason of their godly lives* (although the blessedness of being without sin is a different thing from the blessedness of not having one's sin imputed to him), - I do not deem it necessary to contest the point over much." This agrees exceptionally well with the definition of Melanchton, who provides the following definition of sin in his latter Loci: “The sense of the term in the Scriptures is clear; sin properly means something culpable and condemned by God unless there is forgiveness. This general description fits original sin and actual sin. But because mention is made only of the relationship, namely guilt, the human mind asks also why man is guilty. Therefore I am using this definition, and I would wish there were one in the church, well-composed by the judgment of many teachers and devout people. Sin is a defect or an inclination or an action in conflict with the law of God, offending God, condemned by God, and making us worthy of eternal wrath and eternal punishments, unless there be forgiveness. In this definition there are elements, namely, defect and inclination, which refer to original sin. The action includes all actual sins, inner and external.” So, our position is remarkably consistent with Augustine's. The fact that Augustine calls this corrupt habit and disposition evil provides strong prima facie evidence of our position, but this prima facie evidence is only further supported by the fact that for Augustine, guilt is the formal component of sin while perversity or corruption in a rational faculty is the material component. When the formal component is remitted, the material component remains. The material component is evil, but it isn't necessarily sin, for Augustine, if remission is immediately provided. This is not automatic in the case of venial sins, and the pious will need to pray and rest in the Savior to have this bestowed upon them. But in the case of concupiscence, the continued struggle of the faithful and the presence of their faith will necessarily lead to the automatic non-imputation of this evil habit and its first impulses. As for the contention that "righteousness" and "forgiveness" are sometimes equated and equated in such a way that the inner renewal is not the major point of contention, I present this section from The City of God: "Our very righteousness, too, though true in so far as it has respect to the true good, is yet in this life of such a kind that it consists rather in the remission of sins than in the perfecting of virtues. Witness the prayer of the whole city of God in its pilgrim state, for it cries to God by the mouth of all its members, Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. Matthew 6:12 And this prayer is efficacious not for those whose faith is without works and dead, James 2:17 but for those whose faith works by love. Galatians 5:6 For as reason, though subjected to God, is yet pressed down by the corruptible body, Wisdom 9:15 so long as it is in this mortal condition, it has not perfect authority over vice, and therefore this prayer is needed by the righteous." Here is another section from his Exposition of Psalm 34: 25. But because there are many kinds of sinners, and not to be a sinner is difficult, or perhaps in this life impossible, he added immediately, of what kind of sinners the death is worst. “And they that hate the righteous one” (saith he) “shall perish.” What righteous one, but “Him that justifieth the ungodly”?739 Whom, but our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also “the propitiation for our sins”?740 Who then hate Him, have the worst death; because they die in their sins, who are not through Him reconciled to our God. “For the Lord redeemeth the souls of His servants.” But according to the soul is death to be understood either the worst or best, not according to bodily either dishonour, or honours which men see. “And none of them which trust in Him shall perish” (ver. 22); this is the manner of human righteousness, that mortal life, however advanced, because without sin it cannot be, in this perisheth not, while it trusteth in Him, in whom is remission of sins. Amen. Notice, the remission of sins is not just the righteousness of the unrighteous -- those who have but a dead and barren faith. It is also the righteousness of the Saints on earth -- God, on account of Christ, forgives those who pray for forgiveness, and this constant forgiveness takes on the character of a righteous standing of sorts, necessary for the Christian to be supported and sustained. Moreover, this is a righteousness from God -- a righteousness that God bestows because it is the Lord who forgives and who shows mercy. Of course, the Lutheran claims that the imputation of righteousness is the cause of this forgiveness, but our dogmaticians do typically define justification as forgiveness, with the imputation of righteousness as the relevant causal factor. Augustine may not mention this element specifically, but it is a valid doctrinal deduction from statements he does, in fact, make. Take this section from Contra Faustus: "And once more: "What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, that by sin He might condemn sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."677 Here we see Christ coming not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. As the law brought the proud under the guilt of transgression, increasing their sin by commandments which they could not obey, so the righteousness of the same law is fulfilled by the grace of the Spirit in those who learn from Christ to be meek and lowly in heart; for Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Moreover, because even for those who are under grace it is difficult in this mortal life perfectly to keep what is written in the law, Thou shall not covet, Christ, by the sacrifice of His flesh, as our Priest obtains pardon for us. And in this also He fulfills the law; for what we fail in through weakness is supplied by His perfection, who is the Head, while we are His members. Thus John says: "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not; and if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: He is the propitiation for our sins." Here, Christ is said by Blessed Augustine to be our perfection, and He is our perfection insofar as he is our propitiation and advocate. This is substantially a Lutheran belief -- Christ is chiefly our righteousness through imputation and less principally our righteousness through impartation and indwelling.
Our Dogmaticians have a different perspective, of course. For us, sin remains sin regardless of whether it is credited to the believer or not. This is more in keeping with the language of the Holy Spirit. However, our position is, in substance, very close, if not identical, to Saint Augustine's.
St. Augustine says that God does not justify us without us willing our justification. And that the publican in Luke 18 merited justification by his confession. Would the Lutheran agree with this or disagree with this.
1. This is true -- God doesn't justify those who don't will to receive God's grace. And He produces that will in us, making the willing out of the unwilling by His operative and monergistic grace. 2. As has been noted by many, the term merit often just has the broad connotation of "a condition that obtains something by God's ordination*. In this sense, even faith can be said to merit grace in our scheme. So attributing it to confession is no issue -- the Publican's confession was a contrite acknowledgment of his grace sin and a hearty reliance on the greater Divine mercy.
@@ScholasticLutheranshow is it monergism if it is your will that is involved? Isn’t monergism the teaching that Gods grace saves you without your involvement?
@@emiliobazzarelli4270 Monergism is the teaching that we do not of *our own actions* (including our own willing) come to God or merit salvation. We state, with Augustine, that it is God who makes our will to be willing, so the efficient cause is not of ourselves. Our will is *a cause* of conversion, but it's the material cause, not the efficient cause.
@@ScholasticLutherans which Lutheran Church? Do other churches also have it? In what way is it binding on the conscience of believers such that going against it puts them outside of the body of Christ?
@@ScholasticLutherans Can I start my own church today? Do you understand the implications of this? What would have happened to you had you not chosen to be Lutheran? Who's a heretic, anyone who doesn't see it like Martin Luther?
“This being so, religion is to be sought neither in the confusion of the pagans, nor in the offscourings of the heretics, nor in the insipidity of schismatics, nor in the blindness of the Jews, but only among those who are called Catholic or orthodox Christians, that is, guardians of truth and followers of right. . . . Repudiating all who do not carry philosophy into religious observance or philosophize in a religious spirit; those also who wax proud in wicked opinions or some other cause of dissension and so deviate from the Rule of Faith and from the communion of the Catholic Church; and those who refuse to own the light of the Holy Scripture and the grace of the spiritual people of God, which we call the New Testament-all of whom I have censured as briefly as I could-we must hold fast the Christian religion and the communion of the Church which is Catholic, and is called Catholic not only by its own members but also by all its enemies. Whether they will or no, heretics and schismatics use no other name for it than the name of Catholic, when they speak of it not among themselves but with outsiders. They cannot make themselves understood unless they designate it by this name which is in universal use.” (St. Augustine, On True Religion). B-but Lutherans have Apostolicity! No they don’t. They have that in the same sense as the Arians and the Nestorians.
![Answering the Canon Conundrum [Scriptum #13]](/img/n.gif)
Every time I think about becoming Roman Catholic I remember I would have to be in communion with Christian Wagner lol
Cringe!
I knew this moment would come. Scholastic vs. Scholastic, iron sharpens iron!
As long as Augustine is Roman Catholic in his Roman Catholicism I think it’s fair to say that he was a Roman Catholic
Good video. Only comment I’ll make is that running the Wagner part at 2x speed makes it near impossible to understand what he’s saying that you’re refuting. Maybe slow it down a little?
Yeah, I realized it was at 2x speed a little late into the game haha. Changed it to 1.5 towards the end.
St Augustine teaches that God justifies us, not by the justice by which he himself is just, but by the justice by which he makes us just. That alone refutes the protestant doctrine of forensic justification and imputed justice. He also teaches at various places that Christians after baptism are justified by prayer, almsgiving, etc., not to mention that he believes that our sins are forgiven in the sacrifice of the mass.
The Reformed did not say God's attribute of righteousness, so to speak, is the righteousness imputed to the believer, but the righteousness won on the basis of Christ's active obedience, so Augustines denial is not 100% relevant. The only exception i know of to this is Osiander who taught a view of transformational justification by means of the indwelling by the Holy Ghost, but was hounded by Chemnitz and Melancthon (and Calvin).
The reason Augustine sees iustificare as he does is he etymologizes it as ex impio iustus facere, which does make a lot of sense to be fair. The source of the Reformed doctrine was largely a reappraisal of the actual Greek word which can only with difficulty mean iustus facere.
It really depends on how you define justification and formal cause. Many among the reformed scholastics readily admit that imputation is not the formal cause of justification, but rather the meritorious cause (classed under efficient cause). If one properly defines formal cause then we can fully affirm the statement Augustine makes, provided we accept the notion of duplex justitia (which I do, as do many others). So it is true that God justifies us by the righteousness which he gives to us, that is, we are called and actually are just by the remission of sins and the infusion of justice. But the meritorious cause of this is nothing but the justice of Christ imputed to us.
@@CrucemDominiSo would you agree with this definition from the Council of Trent, Session VI?
"The causes of this justification are:
the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance, the meritorious cause is His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father, the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified finally, the single formal cause is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills, and according to each one's disposition and cooperation."
@@the4gospelscommentary when I wrote this comment, I wouldn’t have. But I affirm what Trent says about justification now, so yes.
At the beginning you say we shouldn’t just rely on Augustine, who should we rely on among the fathers then?
A bit of a misnomer based on a touch of misunderstanding over the premises involved. Augustine was indeed both Roman and Catholic, as were Jerome and Sts Damasus, Siricius, Anastasius, Innocent, Zosimus and Boniface (bishops of Rome). So the point at issue is whether or not 'Rome' - circa AD 1500 - was still Roman and Catholic as per Augustine; Luther's assertion was that it was not, Rome's reply was that it was - with a further thousand years worth of discussion, debate and decision-making; for Lutherans it seems this was insufficiently 'Augustinian' - as seen by them; Rome spoke, it was Roman and Catholic in Augustinian terms, and - for Rome - that was .. and is (until recently) that.
Justification .. that which denotes the transforming of the sinner from the state of unrighteousness to the state of holiness and sonship of God .. this making the unjust just is a matter of grace, in the form of a divine act and in the action of a human habit (i.e. sanctification, e.g. of the saved, in the one only Name that offers salvation from sin and its due reward, death : Jesus Christ). Grace, in turn, is, in general, a supernatural gift of God to intellectual creatures (men, angels), gifted to them for their eternal salvation - whether this saving act may also be furthered (practically), maintained (contingently) and finally attained (perfectly) through timely salutary acts (sacraments, sacramentals, and sacred presence, God's workmanship) or is experienced in a timeless state of holiness (Beatific Vision, heavenly participation).
Augustine's thoughts on these concurrent and intertwining acts, and agent-prompting actions, are defined - for Rome and its communion - by magisterial decision .. with God's beloved called to be saints at Rome as the ultimate arbiter on what is and is not the Roman and Catholic understanding; for Luther and the Lutherans who may still follow his pattern of thought scholarship or some such personal attribute is favoured as some sort of magisterium (Augustine was firmly of the Roman and Catholic way of thought, btw, howsoever he worded it or explicated the confusion that words entail = among scholars*).
Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek.
God bless. ;o)
* Do many Lutheran scholars still follow his style of scholarship (?) .. very few Catholic scholars today, it seems to me, even bother to acknowledge Augustine, other than a passing nod, let alone follow his scholarly method of being Roman and Catholic .. Hmmmmm?
In reply to the quotation from On Marriage And Concupiscence, Book I, Chapter 25 (a quote I jumbled during the video), this quotation (arguably) proves our point, and the rest of the quotations provided in the video did not affect our general contention -- at best, the other quotes just were silent as to the guilt element.
In the quotation, concupiscence is called sin because a. it arose from sin in Adam b. when it gains the upper hand in the unregenerate (arguably both from first impulses and second impulses), it produces guilt. This much is true. So, here we learn that concupiscence is called sin because it both causes guilt and proceeds from original sin. For the record, this is arguably true of actual sins, by way of denotation. They are sins because they proceed from sin and cause guilt by a formal repugnance to the law.
After baptism, concupiscence can be called not sin, per this definition, because it isn't guilty *in that God doesn't credit it for guilt in those who strive against it.* That can be explained in multiple ways but the claim doesn't contradict our view. Of course, concupiscence can still be called sin in the Adamic, derived sense and this will only change at the Resurrection.
Sinful lusts can also be *called sin* because they produce acts with guilt attached to them (namely, acts we consent to). Now, I argue this is the right understanding, because Augustine does not think the nature of first impulses, in and of themselves, is seriously changed in the regenerate and unregenerate. The difference is, the regenerate can, in principle, resist their lust through a higher impulse, and so, not sin in their resistance to sinning. This is not true of the unregenerate, who even sin in their resistance to sin.
So, I think the answer is that the impulse is not credited for sin in the regenerate, and that's why it can both be called sin and not sin in different respects -- sin because it sometimes produces guilt in the regenate (namely, when they consent to actual sins), not sin because it sometimes subsists without guilt (namely, when it is striven against and not consented to). So, I think Augustine actually proves our point -- those sections where Augustine says that concupiscence is not sinful, he is only talking about it not being sinful as to guilt. He is not claiming it is not formally repugnant to the law of God, which is love. In fact, Augustine claims it is, necessarily, incompatible with the formal nature of love in On Man's Perfection In Righteousness, the relevant section of which will quote below:
"(19) The Commandment of Love Shall Be Perfectly Fulfilled in the Life to Come
For to faith and hope shall succeed at once the very substance itself, no longer to be believed in and hoped for, but to be seen and grasped. Love, however, which is the greatest among the three, is not to be superseded, but increased and fulfilled - contemplating in full vision what it used to see by faith, and acquiring in actual fruition what it once only embraced in hope. *Then in all this plenitude of charity will be fulfilled the commandment, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. For while there remains any remnant of the lust of the flesh, to be kept in check by the rein of continence, God is by no means loved with all one's soul. For the flesh does not lust without the soul; although it is the flesh which is said to lust, because the soul lusts carnally.*" -- Cameron
As further proof of this contention, I present this section from Augustine's On Man's Perfection In Righteousness, where the Blessed Saint takes seriously the view just proposed:
"Finally, if it be asserted that there either have been, or are in this present life, any persons, with the sole exception of our Great Head, “the Saviour of His body,” who are righteous, without any sin - and this, either by not consenting to the lusts thereof, or *because that must not be accounted as any sin which is such that God does not impute it to them by reason of their godly lives* (although the blessedness of being without sin is a different thing from the blessedness of not having one's sin imputed to him), - I do not deem it necessary to contest the point over much."
This agrees exceptionally well with the definition of Melanchton, who provides the following definition of sin in his latter Loci:
“The sense of the term in the Scriptures is clear; sin properly means something culpable and condemned by God unless there is forgiveness. This general description fits original sin and actual sin. But because mention is made only of the relationship, namely guilt, the human mind asks also why man is guilty.
Therefore I am using this definition, and I would wish there were one in the church, well-composed by the judgment of many teachers and devout people.
Sin is a defect or an inclination or an action in conflict with the law of God, offending God, condemned by God, and making us worthy of eternal wrath and eternal punishments, unless there be forgiveness. In this definition there are elements, namely, defect and inclination, which refer to original sin. The action includes all actual sins, inner and external.”
So, our position is remarkably consistent with Augustine's. The fact that Augustine calls this corrupt habit and disposition evil provides strong prima facie evidence of our position, but this prima facie evidence is only further supported by the fact that for Augustine, guilt is the formal component of sin while perversity or corruption in a rational faculty is the material component. When the formal component is remitted, the material component remains. The material component is evil, but it isn't necessarily sin, for Augustine, if remission is immediately provided. This is not automatic in the case of venial sins, and the pious will need to pray and rest in the Savior to have this bestowed upon them. But in the case of concupiscence, the continued struggle of the faithful and the presence of their faith will necessarily lead to the automatic non-imputation of this evil habit and its first impulses.
As for the contention that "righteousness" and "forgiveness" are sometimes equated and equated in such a way that the inner renewal is not the major point of contention, I present this section from The City of God:
"Our very righteousness, too, though true in so far as it has respect to the true good, is yet in this life of such a kind that it consists rather in the remission of sins than in the perfecting of virtues. Witness the prayer of the whole city of God in its pilgrim state, for it cries to God by the mouth of all its members, Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. Matthew 6:12 And this prayer is efficacious not for those whose faith is without works and dead, James 2:17 but for those whose faith works by love. Galatians 5:6 For as reason, though subjected to God, is yet pressed down by the corruptible body, Wisdom 9:15 so long as it is in this mortal condition, it has not perfect authority over vice, and therefore this prayer is needed by the righteous."
Here is another section from his Exposition of Psalm 34:
25. But because there are many kinds of sinners, and not to be a sinner is difficult, or perhaps in this life impossible, he added immediately, of what kind of sinners the death is worst. “And they that hate the righteous one” (saith he) “shall perish.” What righteous one, but “Him that justifieth the ungodly”?739 Whom, but our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also “the propitiation for our sins”?740 Who then hate Him, have the worst death; because they die in their sins, who are not through Him reconciled to our God. “For the Lord redeemeth the souls of His servants.” But according to the soul is death to be understood either the worst or best, not according to bodily either dishonour, or honours which men see. “And none of them which trust in Him shall perish” (ver. 22); this is the manner of human righteousness, that mortal life, however advanced, because without sin it cannot be, in this perisheth not, while it trusteth in Him, in whom is remission of sins. Amen.
Notice, the remission of sins is not just the righteousness of the unrighteous -- those who have but a dead and barren faith. It is also the righteousness of the Saints on earth -- God, on account of Christ, forgives those who pray for forgiveness, and this constant forgiveness takes on the character of a righteous standing of sorts, necessary for the Christian to be supported and sustained. Moreover, this is a righteousness from God -- a righteousness that God bestows because it is the Lord who forgives and who shows mercy. Of course, the Lutheran claims that the imputation of righteousness is the cause of this forgiveness, but our dogmaticians do typically define justification as forgiveness, with the imputation of righteousness as the relevant causal factor. Augustine may not mention this element specifically, but it is a valid doctrinal deduction from statements he does, in fact, make.
Take this section from Contra Faustus:
"And once more: "What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, that by sin He might condemn sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."677 Here we see Christ coming not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. As the law brought the proud under the guilt of transgression, increasing their sin by commandments which they could not obey, so the righteousness of the same law is fulfilled by the grace of the Spirit in those who learn from Christ to be meek and lowly in heart; for Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Moreover, because even for those who are under grace it is difficult in this mortal life perfectly to keep what is written in the law, Thou shall not covet, Christ, by the sacrifice of His flesh, as our Priest obtains pardon for us. And in this also He fulfills the law; for what we fail in through weakness is supplied by His perfection, who is the Head, while we are His members. Thus John says: "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not; and if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: He is the propitiation for our sins."
Here, Christ is said by Blessed Augustine to be our perfection, and He is our perfection insofar as he is our propitiation and advocate. This is substantially a Lutheran belief -- Christ is chiefly our righteousness through imputation and less principally our righteousness through impartation and indwelling.
Our Dogmaticians have a different perspective, of course. For us, sin remains sin regardless of whether it is credited to the believer or not. This is more in keeping with the language of the Holy Spirit. However, our position is, in substance, very close, if not identical, to Saint Augustine's.
So unbelievably based of you to address this.
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Augustine was a North African catholic. 😏
Could y’all weigh in on the Ryan Turnipseed excommunication? It seems like he was treated wrongly.
I can’t seem to find that quote from Against Julian quoted at 43:49. Is anyone aware of the chapter it’s in?
St. Augustine says that God does not justify us without us willing our justification. And that the publican in Luke 18 merited justification by his confession. Would the Lutheran agree with this or disagree with this.
1. This is true -- God doesn't justify those who don't will to receive God's grace. And He produces that will in us, making the willing out of the unwilling by His operative and monergistic grace. 2. As has been noted by many, the term merit often just has the broad connotation of "a condition that obtains something by God's ordination*. In this sense, even faith can be said to merit grace in our scheme. So attributing it to confession is no issue -- the Publican's confession was a contrite acknowledgment of his grace sin and a hearty reliance on the greater Divine mercy.
@@ScholasticLutherans Thank you for the response.
@@ScholasticLutheranshow is it monergism if it is your will that is involved? Isn’t monergism the teaching that Gods grace saves you without your involvement?
@@emiliobazzarelli4270 Monergism is the teaching that we do not of *our own actions* (including our own willing) come to God or merit salvation. We state, with Augustine, that it is God who makes our will to be willing, so the efficient cause is not of ourselves. Our will is *a cause* of conversion, but it's the material cause, not the efficient cause.
The Catholic Church has the mandate to teach, not genius people or just anyone.
The Lutheran church has what authority? From whom?
1. The power of the keys and the power of preaching and teaching. 2. God Himself.
And to which church especially, the EKD?
@@ScholasticLutherans which Lutheran Church? Do other churches also have it? In what way is it binding on the conscience of believers such that going against it puts them outside of the body of Christ?
@@ScholasticLutherans
Can I start my own church today?
Do you understand the implications of this?
What would have happened to you had you not chosen to be Lutheran? Who's a heretic, anyone who doesn't see it like Martin Luther?
lol
W
“This being so, religion is to be sought neither in the confusion of the pagans, nor in the offscourings of the heretics, nor in the insipidity of schismatics, nor in the blindness of the Jews, but only among those who are called Catholic or orthodox Christians, that is, guardians of truth and followers of right. . . . Repudiating all who do not carry philosophy into religious observance or philosophize in a religious spirit; those also who wax proud in wicked opinions or some other cause of dissension and so deviate from the Rule of Faith and from the communion of the Catholic Church; and those who refuse to own the light of the Holy Scripture and the grace of the spiritual people of God, which we call the New Testament-all of whom I have censured as briefly as I could-we must hold fast the Christian religion and the communion of the Church which is Catholic, and is called Catholic not only by its own members but also by all its enemies. Whether they will or no, heretics and schismatics use no other name for it than the name of Catholic, when they speak of it not among themselves but with outsiders. They cannot make themselves understood unless they designate it by this name which is in universal use.” (St. Augustine, On True Religion).
B-but Lutherans have Apostolicity! No they don’t. They have that in the same sense as the Arians and the Nestorians.
I mean he was literally Roman Catholic.
"Catholic" but not Roman !
@@matthewbonaldo4137oh yes definitely Roman, he was pro papal and pro immaculate conception
@@matthewbonaldo4137 Yes Roman lol he was in communion with the Roman Church 😂💀
When it was far more orthodox