Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Sola Fide and Lutheran Justification- What Do the Church Fathers Say?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 кві 2022
- In this video we'll discuss whether the evangelical understanding of justification is a novelty invented by late Medieval German theologians or whether we can trace it back to the ancient church fathers. Was it part of the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3) or is it a tradition of man which has muddied the faith?
Professor Dongsun Cho's article can be found here
www.academia.e...
Some of Jordan Cooper's comments on Saint Ambrose can be found here
• Sola Fide in the Churc...
Forgive my English!
I would love to see you discuss justification with a knowledgeable Roman Catholic
A video about that coming up next week!
Just came across your channel and am very pleased. Thanks for uploading.
Great video
God Bless you brother!
This is realy helpfull. ❤ I will wait another videos on this same topic.
On the 3rd passage, couldn't a roman just say it refers to the ceremonial works of the law and that salvation is apart from those rites such as animal sacrifice.
As a former Confessional Lutheran I can say that all these quotes are entirely inline with current Catholic teaching on justification. If you read the same letters in other parts you will see them talking about the necessity of obedience and good works to keep your salvation. The key ideas to see why these authors aren't contradicting themselves is to understand the distinction between initial and final justification and also to understand the difference between imputed righteousness vs. infused righteousness as the formal cause of justification.
The quote from the commentaries on Victorinus demonstrates how it is very easy to read ancient works through a certain lens, in this case an imputed righteousness lens. Again, nothing that Victorinus is teaching is different than what the Catholic Church teaches.
Once one understands a more complete picture about what Catholicism actually teaches about justification, and realizes they do not teach semipelagianism or any kind of works righteousness, it makes perfect sense how early Church Fathers can speak of faith the way they do here in these quotes and then also speak of the necessity of good works for maintaining salvation and even senses in which we merit salvation in other places. Again, these are entirely Catholic ideas and are not contradictory when you understand what Catholicism actually teaches.
Here are 4 works that were particularly useful in learning about what the Catholic Church truly teaches about justification:
1. Sola Gratia, Solo Christo: The Roman Catholic Doctrine of Justification by Dr. Richard White
2. Three Ways of the Interior Life by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange
3. Engrafted in Christ by Dr. Christopher Malloy
4. Paul, a New Covenant Jew: Rethinking Pauline Theology by Brant Pitre (Author), Michael P. Barber (Author), John A. Kincaid (Author), Michael J. Gorman. Especially chapter 5.
I think the main problems with the Protestant view of justification (although there are others) can be categorized into these 4 main categories:
1. The formal cause of justification - external imputed righteousness (Lutherans) vs. internal infused sanctifying grace (Catholics).
2. Remnant sin after justification - simul justus et peccator, Lutherans say original sin remains vs. new creation and the complete abolition of original sin (Catholics).
3. The relationship between justification and sanctification - Lutheran clear distinction vs. Catholic wholistic approach (divinization/theosis)
4. The possibility of man earning merit in salvation - Lutherans no vs. Catholics yes.
I highly recommend to any Lutherans that want to dig into the differences and history of the Lutheran ideas of justification and Catholic ideas read the book "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy. He goes into the depth on how the 4 key areas are where the real disagreement has always been between Catholics and Lutherans. He looks at the historical development from the Reformation, through Trent, into the modern era. He also spends a great deal of time critiquing the 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification and showing how that document failed to address the true disagreements and instead often equivocated on important terms like "grace".
Here are also some quotes from the Protestant Scholar Alister McGrath where he concludes on his major research into the history of the doctrine of justification that Luther's ideas on justification were novel to the Reformation and differed greatly from St. Augustine's ideas of infused righteousness which have always been the standard Catholic understanding of justification:
Despite the astonishing theological diversity of the late medieval period, a consensus relating to the nature of justification was maintained throughout …. It continued to be understood as the process by which a man is made righteous …. The essential feature of the Reformation doctrine of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration … where none had been acknowledged before in the history of the Christian doctrine. A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum (italics added).
**Alister McGrath - Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186**
The point at issue is a little difficult to explain. It centers on the question of the location of justifying righteousness. Both Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external.
In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person. As a result, this righteousness, although originating outside the sinner, becomes part of him or her. In Luther’s view, by contrast, the righteousness in question remains outside the sinner: it is an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena). God treats, or “reckons,” this righteousness as if it is part of the sinner’s person. In his lectures on Romans of 1515-16, Luther developed the idea of the “alien righteousness of Christ,” imputed - not imparted - to the believer by faith, as the grounds of justification.
**McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 125-126**
These ideas were further developed by Luther’s follower Philipp Melanchthon, resulting in an explicit statement of the doctrine now generally known as “forensic justification.” Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, “justifying righteousness” is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous.Melanchthon now drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former “justification” and the latter “sanctification” or “regeneration.” For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing.
**McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127**
The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon’s concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on .
**McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127**
In brief, then, Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process - the event of being declared to be righteous through the work of Christ and the process of being made righteous through the internal work of the Holy Spirit. Reformers such as Melanchthon and Calvin distinguished these two matters, treating the word “justification” as referring only to the event of being declared to be righteous; the accompanying process of internal renewal, which they termed “sanctification” or “regeneration,” they regarded as theologically distinct.
Serious confusion thus resulted: Catholics and Protestants used the same word “justification” to mean very different things. Trent used it to mean what, according to Protestants, was both justification and sanctification.
**McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 135**
I now agree with with Protestant scholar Allister McGrath that Luther's idea that we are justified by faith alone through the imputation of Christ's very own righteousness (i.e. imputed righteousness) is a theological novum - a brand new idea not known to Christian thought before him.
"A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum." (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186)
God bless!
I've seen you've made a couple of quite extensive and packed comments here, especially regarding justification! Thanks for the engagement. It would be a lot of work to reply to all of this in writing, so if you'd want I'd gladly invite you on for a friendly discussion of some of the points you brought up if you're interested? You seem to be quite in the know on this topic so I think it might be fruitful :)
God bless
@@truthuntogodliness Hello and thank you for the invitation. I run a pretty busy schedule right now but am certainly open to trying to find something that may work. I would especially like to discuss more about the assurance of salvation topic as that is one that I am still looking for Lutheran teaching on the subject that may clear up my confusion. I can be contacted through the contact page on my blog Folly of the Cross. God bless!
Lutherans are classy!
I can yell you what Luther said ..we are Roman Catholics...guess what, he was right.
Those same Church Fathers teach a Christian can lose one's salvation through disobedience and immortality! Just as Jesus Christ and Paul and the Apostles teach, for even if one has ALL FAITH, but does not LOVE, IT IS USELESS, as Holy Scripture teaches we must have faith in Jesus Christ and all that He teaches, as we must cooperate with God's saving grace and repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and persevere to the end to be saved! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I think you might be unaware of the Lutheran teaching here. We confess and teach that man can indeed lose his salvation and that we must cooperate with God's grace as we walk in faith, that a saving faith will necessarily do good works etc.
The difference here is, by what do we stand just before God? By our on defective inner righteousness, as per Trent, or by the perfect imputed righteousness of Christ which is the believer's by faith and baptism, as we teach.
God bless
@@truthuntogodliness I think that you may be unaware that faith alone does not make us perfect before God as Holy Scripture teaches and Rome confirms, as we must all strive for that holiness without which no one shall see the Lord, as we shall each be judged as we have judged others and we shall each be held accountable for every careless word we have uttered and shall each receive punishment for the BAD we have done in the body, and we shall each be liable to judgment if angry with others! Again, according to the Lutheran, but not Biblical view, the Angry Christian will be declared righteous by faith ALONE, whereas Holy Scripture and Rome, teach the Angry Christian will after death, be made righteous after first having that anger removed through cleansing before entering into the beatific vision! God's peace to you always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287
" the Angry Christian will be declared righteous by faith ALONE,"
Roman Catholicism make saints of people who called to murder of protestants and sanction it as moral neccesity - like Robert Belarmin, who conemn Luter and Calvin claim that heretics that heretic should not be burned in the stake and Belarming refering to protestant told that they must be and biblie command and approve it.
One of the "angry" christian is you and Roman Catholics and you need for your sins reedemption of Jesus and His Righetuness - if you will not have Righetuenss of Christ, all what you whroted; you will be judged in every of your word and you will be not find a victor.
" whereas Holy Scripture and Rome, teach the Angry Christian will after death, be made righteous after first having that anger removed"
Blasphemy and anti-gospel of prugatory denys Cross of Christ.
Christian loose his anger in the moment he lose his sinful body though he sin when it's dead and he is make new in heaven.
"God's peace to you always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink"
Whose flesh recived by faith as He said - your father was eating bread in the wilnderess and died - the word i spoke to you is true food.
You cannot adress protestant by "our Christ, our King" - your church condemn all protestant to hellfire by anathema them from salvation in their attack and eternal division that will never end and your saint saction murering as moral necesity.
@@BeniaminZaboj You bear false witness against Holy Scripture! Again, Jesus Christ teaches anyone who is angry with his brother, shall be liable to judgment. You say, "not true Jesus!".
Purgatory is a Divine reality, where some after death, shall suffer loss and be saved ONLY AS THROUGH FIRE, as we must all strive for that holiness without which no one shall see the Lord, as we shall each be judged as we have judged others and we shall each be held accountable for every careless word we have uttered.
No one shall be angry in Heaven, and that anger must first after death be removed, before being allowed to enter into the beatific vision of God!
Your lack of Biblical knowledge is quite! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 " You bear false witness against Holy Scripture! Again, Jesus Christ teaches anyone who is angry with his brother, shall be liable to judgment. You say, "not true Jesus!"."
Never said that lier - I said that only thing in Judgment that can Rescue a guilty sinner is Christ Righenusnes, if not, such will be conemned - you don't have Christ Righenusnes, you shall be judbe by your anger, and you shall not be victorius in judgment, being justfyly proven guilty.
"Purgatory is a Divine reality, where some after death, shall suffer loss and be saved ONLY AS THROUGH FIRE,"
This is not Purgatory - language that you used is from biblie about Judgment where saved Christian's fruit - not them - is tested by fire of judgmend apart from them, it's imidately - and only remain from this work and not burn out this what was worth - it's anti-prugatory biblical relaty of judgment in acordance to salvation by imputed Rightenuses by Christ.
"as we shall each be judged as we have judged others and we shall each be held accountable for every careless word we have uttered."
That's why you have no chance for salvation apart from righeusness of Christ - you will be found guilty in your own rightreusnes of that sin.
"No one shall be angry in Heaven, and that anger must first after death be removed,"
Saved beliver loose his sinful nature in the moment of death of the flesh.
Purgatory is blapshemy and denial of Christ Atonemnt on the Cross - a man can be saved only by atonemnt of Christ, no one can't atone even for one sin in purgatory. If Christ will not pay, nothing will pay.
"Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior,"
Don't wish me peace Roman Catholic becasue you are hipocyte - your sains wish me death and being murdered when you will have enough strenght to convince to such secular power, and you play to me like a muslim that you wish me peace like i would be ingorant of your religion and faith?
"He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink"
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John Chapter 6 is clear, that Faith in Lord Jesus Christ is drinking true food and drink - your fathers died on the wilnderness - the words Jesus speaks are spirit and life.