Lutheran and Reformed Differences on Justification
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 жов 2024
- In this video, the question is answered: Are there differences between the Lutheran and Reformed views on justification? The uniquenesses of each tradition is explained and contrasted.
This originally comes from the following podcast: • Q&A Live Podcast Recor...
It's quite true that modern reformed people tend to emphasize that justification is an event at one point in the past. But it is worth noting that there is elements in the reformed tradition that emphasize justification as a continual reality that is ever repeated again and again. I first came across this in Wilhelmus a Brakel's Systematic Theology (who seems to say that that is the standard view, and I think he criticises the opposite view). Personally I find both perspectives helpful and complementary.
Nice beard, haircut and glasses, you are looking more and more like a true theologian... 😁
tim spangler ancient, bro, ancient, wise, detached from the world, weird beard, possibly hair, etc. 😆
I think the differences that are due to the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement, and to the Lutheran doctrine of universal justification could be expanded on.
The commonsense interpretation is that there is an initial justification whereby if someone were to perish immediately after baptism, we would expect that person to be saved. However, the scriptures appear to be pretty solid that as time goes on, the believer will face temptations, sin, heresy, and apostasy that the scriptures warn about and to be on guard about. Otherwise, the writings of the NT don't make a lot of sense nor does their canonization.
I'm a Reformed/Particular Baptist, so in the same vein as the Reformed, and would also agree that justification is a one-time event at conversion and the state of being "justified" is a continual, permanent state of the one being justified. But we aren't continually being declared as justified over and over again.
If we are declared justified, then we are innocent, once and for all. We don't need to be continually declared innocent. Since Paul uses clearly judicial/litigious language in his epistle to the Romans, it is like a court decision: we are declared righteous once and set free from bondage. But I would say this isn't an essential distinct view of justification, as long as we keep Sola Fide.
I may be mistaken, and this is just semantics, but I think the theological term for the continual process is really "sanctification." I do know that the Salvation section for SBC theology is almost exact same theology as the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) (Regeneration, Justification, Sanctification, Glorification). Also, the LCMS and ACNA have ecumenical agreement for what Justification means. My point, pretty much most Reformation Churches (Anglican, Lutheran, Dutch Calvinists...than the follow on English Baptists and Presbyterians) all pretty much agree regarding the most important topic of Salvation. None of them for instance believe that Baptism is a salvific requirement.
They must have this view in order to have the regenerated non Elect falling away from salvation. 👍
I see justification as ongoing (continual) process (1 John 1:7-9)
I think I'm being semantical, but I always thought that the continual process was sanctification. Is the terminology really important? I ask that because for instance, ACNA and LCMS stated in an official document that they have ecumenical agreement on Justification. I'm Anglican.
Ichabod Lutherans would agree that sanctification is the continual process. And i think both of our traditions would agree that the terminology does matter. Justification is how we are made right with God, and depending on what he means by that process being ongoing, that could be taken in a very dangerous direction. If JimiSurvivor means that justification is continual in that we are daily to repent and believe in Christ for the forgiveness of our sins, then Lutherans would have no issue with that. But if he means that justification is a process that we actually can’t be sure at any given point in time is something we have in Christ, then that’s a problem. This would relate to the traditions that say we can never presume that we are saved and can only hope that we cooperated enough in our salvation process. For example, I’ve studied Eastern Orthodoxy recently, and this is what they understand justification to be. It’s being on the way to being saved, and never knowing until you die if you kept the commandments enough. Sanctification is a part of our life in Christ, but it isn’t how we are accounted righteous in God’s sight.
@@Psalm144.1 Read, meditate, eat and drink Ephesians 1,2,3. It tells you what you are in Christ and the last 3 chapters tell you not how to be justified but to walk in what you already are.. " You were darkness but now you are light in the lord. Walk as children of light." The issue is the measure of faith not justification...
with respect, this video has helped me stay reformed in my theology. calling justification IN ANY SENSE a "process" differs nothing from rome. thanks for this video it helped me not buy expensive lutheran books on the topic (no disrepect intended)
@Indian Christian read john 6, plus JESUS being one's advocate, intercessor, mediator. are you saying that JESUS fails at His work for the elect believing sinner.
As we read through scripture exegetically we see two continuing patterns. Salvation and judgement.
I would suggest that you study Walther’s Law and Gospel. A series of lectures to his students.
I am a current Lutheran seminary student on track for my Mdiv. It's nice to see more Lutheran pastors actually speak about theological issues and debates. I mean this out of respect, but I disagree with your points. We are saved by grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone. At that time we are justified and begin the path of sanctification. We are not continully justified, but we are continually sanctified, until one day we are glorified. Romans 8. I believe the confusion happens when we embrace specifically Calvins or Luthers teaching and equate them to scripture.
There is a kind of scriptural justification that happens daily. That's why the book of James shouldn't bother Lutherans. That's also why each absolution can restore the soul. Matthew 12:37; Luke 18:14; James 2:21
Lutheran reformed difference, thanks for the info
Jordan Cooper:
Thanks for the video. A calvinist who I was debating with, told me in a facebook debate group that current lutherans deny some of the Tulip points due to that they departed from Luther's teachings. And that Luther would have agreed with all the 5 points of calvinism. How true is that? Are current lutherans a bit far from Luther's teachings?
One more thing That caught my attention:
Another calvinist told me that if it hadn't been by Calvin and the calvinists, lutherans would have gone back to roman catholicism. I really have my doubts about whether or not that info is historically right and accurate...
ua-cam.com/video/FUs1Tk2_yYE/v-deo.htmlsi=ZEuOfh_eTq82XqXY
Justification is not when you accept the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross for your sins and repent of such sins, and then the process after that is not Sanctification?
Please explain saving faith (sola fide) as taught by the Reformers.
I'm Anglican (ACNA Denomination). As far as I can tell, Justification (Salvation by Grace, by Faith Alone) is essentially the exact same theology for Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, and Baptist (Southern Baptist Convention), not the Fundamental Independent Baptist Churches that think Faith Alone means you don't have to repent. I never heard of any reformers discussing a "covenant of works." Anyone know of some famous reformers who taught that?
Hi! Which book or material would you recommend to learn about Lutheran views on soteriology ?
Thank you!
For a basic understanding, I'd recommend Gerberding's The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church. For something more in-depth, Weidner's Soteriology and Pneumatology cover both the atonement and the order of salvation.
Dr. Jordan B Cooper Thank you very much! God bless you
1:49 differences
I’m so catholic that I don’t even understand what is this about... why do I have to be justified? For what? What I have done? Jesus just said to love each other... it shouldn’t be difficult to explain... but maybe it’s me...
The book of Romans is still in the Bible for catholics too, y'know :p. You might want to learn more about your theology. The whole reason you take the Eucharist is pursuing your own justification.
You are right; It's just that I never heard this word before; I mean, in the context of faith... I guess it is similar to santification, but it put the accent on the sense of guilt, in my opinion. However, I gues this is thologians stuff, not for everyone, let say...
I’m not Catholic, but I think there would be at least some agreement with Catholics and Protestants on the need for justification. Both would emphasize the importance of how the fall of man at the garden of Adam, the fact that we inherit a sinful nature through Adam, and the fact that we all commit deliberate acts of sin as individuals put us into the position where we need salvation, because we have failed to live up to God’s perfect standard. The key difference is not about whether we need justification, (a good Catholic and a good Protestant would both agree that we do) the key difference is how are we justified and how do we know? Copper is talking about some differences between Lutherans and reformed Christians like myself, but we’d both agree that salvation is by grace, through faith, and that it is apart from our works. For example, your ability to love God or love your neighbor can’t be what saves you, because then salvation would boil down to simply being a good person. Why not be a good person who is a Buddhist or atheist? Catholics insist that faith is necessary, but not sufficient, and rejected the doctrine of Sola Fide at the council of Trent, leading to the lasting divide between us. I think the best argument for the importance of Sola Fide would be the book of Romans and Ephesians. Cooper’s discussion of the historic differences between Lutherans and Calvinists is probably too technical of you are still learning about justification itself. I would recommend R.C. Sproul’s excellent book on Romans and his series on Roman Catholicism which is free on Ligonier. He is a reformed Presbyterian, but he is very respectful towards Catholics and carefully researched when he discusses the differences. Better to read someone who is trying to have a productive conversation than to just read some angry anti-Catholic on Twitter who just wants to throw bombs.
@@1MarmadukeFan thanks your comment; I apreciated it. Actually, in the meantime I studied a bit and I think I understand what justification is (not the justification I give to the teacher when you forgot to do homework, but it is the liberation from our inner original inability to Follow the good with constance). However I Find the Path indicated by reformed churches a bit “formal”. This focus on the texts alone and the Faith alone regardless of the action sounds to me like Some common-law lawyer approach; detached from reality. Early Christians never had a Gospel for centuries. Where They non cristians? And the focus in faith regarless of action is also stange. What Christian am I if I my being “saved” doesnt have a tangibile (action) output? Faith alone risks to be an intellectual position.... However thanks. It’s better to talk and exchange views instead of being just mean with each other.... I assume it is also difficult for you to grasp the catholic approach based on relationships (over texts) and actions (over theoretical dissertation). Peace
@@spanellaful , justification is the declaration by God the Father that anyone who trusts in His Son, Jesus, as God Incarnate and Savior, has been made righteous, totally, forever righteous by the death of Jesus as the atonement for sin. Justification, Luther said, is the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls. We're all sinners, we all need complete righteousness to be made holy, and only the death of Jesus can give us that.
perhaps Lutherans confusing the justification and the sanctification.... justification is one time event, meanwhile sanctification is a progressive event that goes on throughout our lives
I was thinking the same.
so are you saying we can lose justification at any point?
Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord. Article IV. Good Works, starting at paragraph 31. That's the clearest answer to your question.
You guys have to have ongoing justification. Makes total logical sense ;)
Because if a regenerate justified non Elect can be cast away from Christ (even though Christ said He would never cast away those who come to them) then you must have an ongoing justification. Because if not then God would have a one time declaration of righteous in Jesus...and then at a later time change His mind and revoke your salvation. So yes this makes sense.
Remember guys I'm not being crass. Lutheran Reprobation is God casting away those He has regenerated. He regenerated the reprobate in order to display His glory (which im fine with ultimately) but just want to point out that distinction yet again.
Calvinist Reprobation is God justly and rightly by His own will and purpose PASSING OVER those whom are not decreed Elect unto salvation. God allows them a heavenly taste of the sacraments and of the church community but they are never really of us...but come on guys...to say that God REMOVES THE HEART OF STONE and declares a man righteous in His sight but intends to rip away such comfort and salvation. I can't get my mind around this Lutheran "mystery". Guess I gotta just accept it.
Calvinist Reprobation doesn't need all the publicity. Someone talk about you guys for once! Jk lol
@UCaerz84hJ3AxiW08ON66pzA all over....in any apostasy video.
Who regenerates?
God.
Who justifies?
God.
Some regenerate non Elect person "falls away"...
Meaning who unjustifies?
God
Who condemns?
God
God saved them...then only way to lose that salvation is God casts them away or let's them go.
So much worse and problematic than Calvinism.
We teach only the Elect are regenerate.
God loves them as precious children.
Forever.
He will keep them forever.
He won't give someone a new heart and impute righteousness as a joke. Lol "Got ya!"
Please think about the dark implications of God truly saving people and then casting them into Hell.
Universal grace can't work man just walk the rest of the way over the Reformed line. Or admit you're not real Monergists.
If Grace is resisted and justified hearts can be lost, you. Are. Not. A. MONERGIST.
"Above all, therefore, the false Epicurean delusion is to be earnestly censured and rejected, namely, that some imagine that faith and the righteousness and salvation which they have received can be lost through no sins or wicked deeds, not even through wilful and intentional ones, but that a Christian although he indulges his wicked lusts without fear and shame, resists the Holy Ghost, and purposely engages in sins against conscience, yet none the less retains faith, God's grace, righteousness, and salvation.
Against this pernicious delusion the following true, immutable, divine threats and severe punishments and admonitions should be often repeated and impressed upon Christians who are justified by faith: 1 Cor. 6:9: Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, etc., shall inherit the kingdom of God. Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5: They which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Rom. 8:13: If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die. Col. 3:6: For which thing's sake the wrath of God cometh upon the children of disobedience."
FC SD IV
@@Mygoalwogel Calvinists don't teach a Christian can do anything he wants and claim to be saved. Those truly regenerate will continue in repentance and holiness. Calvinists have never taught licentioisness. Grace is not a license to sin. It's freedom from it. I want to help you work through these inconsistencies!
Have you ever read the Westminster Confession of Faith?
@@TheDroc1990 *Hebrews 3:1, 12* Even "holy brothers and sisters" can "turn away from the living God" with an "evil, unbelieving heart."
Genesis 15 and Romans 4 tells when Abraham's faith was "counted as righteousness". Hebrews 11 never says that he "was counted righteous." It just says Abraham had faith to go to the promised land but never says he was justified at that time. Also, James 2 is reaffirming Abraham's faith by his works and not changing when he was declared righteous but only demonstrating his faith had evidence as that was his point in saying "I will show you my faith by my works". I don't see the ongoing justification from those passages.
In Luther's telling, the sin committed by the First Adam instantly corrupted human nature through and through, such that he and his descendants were all made subjects of damnation; and yet the Second Adam, the "God-Man" Jesus Christ--who is nowhere reported to have breathed a word about Adam and the Fall in connection with his mission (that was Paul's baby)--was unable to undo the damage to human nature in a comparably radical way. That to me is just one proof there was no first man whose one transgression ipso facto brought the whole human race to total ruin. Christ couldn't undo what had never happened to begin with. The doctrine of the Fall is a myth; so, then, is the doctrine of Redemption.
Another proof of the falsity of the doctrines of the Fall and Redemption, to my mind, is this: According to Luther, the justification given by God through the sinner's faith is extrinsic: Christians are merely DECLARED to be just; they remain what they were before, incurable sinners, heaps of shit, no matter what they do. They were intrinsically corrupted by Adam's sin, BUT they are not made intrinsically right with God by the redemptive work of the God-Man, his "incarnate Son."
This is believable? It's merely a matter, as Luther put it, of the Christian's faith in Christ preventing "his filth from stinking before God"? The First Adam, a mere man--of whose existence there isn't a particle of proof--brings about the total corruption of the human race with the commission of one sin, yet the work of the omnipotent "God-Man" doesn't remedy it just as radically? No, not even in the afterlife, according to Luther.
It's just another proof of the bogusness of the biblical accounts of man's fall and redemption. Neither happened. Luther's monastic struggles weren't against fallen human nature but against human nature, period. Because of those futile struggles, he came to lose faith in the teaching of the Catholic Church that the Christian is made intrinsically right with God, made holy by free cooperation with his prevenient grace. His own experience proved that to be false; he wasn't changed for the better by all he did in pursuit of holiness.
So what was he to do? Rejecting faith altogether was out of the question. He was in desperate straits; he had to find a way to free himself. So he concocted the doctrines of the enslaved will and extrinsic justification by faith alone, doctrines that fly in the face of the centuries-old teaching of the churches, both Catholic and Orthodox--yet ones which Luther insisted form the very bedrock of the Christian faith. But if that's the case, then the churches, both east and west, were totally, undeniably benighted throughout the preceding centuries--which gives the lie to Christ's claim, as reported in Matthew 28:20: "I am with you always . . ."
"With you always" and doing WHAT if those two essential doctrines had never seen the light of day before Luther?
william larochelle.
Much that you say is spot on but you were remiss in not mentioning that Luther did find choice verses from the so-called Apostle Paul to support his self interested thesis.
The Western Christians can and do argue that Paul's authority and his position in the NT are the proof of their claims.
Shows me how Catholic I am in my DNA. This stuff puts me right to sleep. Protestants.
DUDE, You’re definitely husband goals! Like you’re Intelligent, Lutheran, Caring, Passionate, and a Ginger Bearded Hipster Pastor Hunk! Are you married, bc if not I doubt you’ll be single for long 😂
Dæmon Græyson. He is married. It's probably his wife who took him to the barbershop and ordered this hipster look, something like, Make him look as less ugly as possible... 😅
Haha. No, she didn't make me get my haircut.
Jordan Cooper well, we will ask her.
Jordan Cooper 😂 She is absolutely lucky, and I hope everyone finds a partner half as awesome as you!
Alt green dude he calls him pansexual. I think I have heard of this disease before. 😂