I wonder... #10
I wonder...
Does Protestant systematic theology, with its strict adherence to the reformed distinction between justification and sanctification, hinder us when we read scripture? Does this system of thought have the elasticity necessary in order to understand the various usages of the word "justification"? When you ask a protestant whether or not you are justified by faith or by work, he ought to respond that any view of salvation that divorces these two from one another is an inappropriate, ungodly dichotomy. Yet he ought also to remark that works are technically subordinate to faith, while faith is perfected by works. In forming a biblical view of salvation, we must take into consideration all of Scripture's witness to the "great salvation," taking into consideration both the Pauline and catholic corpus.
This is how I have come to understand the Protestant distinction between justification and sanctification: it is a logical distinction, not a chronological distinction; both are united under the main/head category of "salvation" in Scripture, and though both terms are not used exclusively in Scripture to refer to these distinct facets of salvation (since Scripture is not a systematic text!) it is useful for us to designate these two elements by proper, particular terms (i.e. "justification" and "sanctification"). In a real sense, at the moment of justification, sanctification begins; and in that sense, according to a Protestant, righteousness begins to be "infused" into the believer. However, this is not to neglect the logical dependence of infusion on imputation, neither can the believer's quality be confused for imputation. For this reason, I wonder whether or not it would be helpful if Protestants used the terms "justification" and "sanctification" as the main/general category under which they can make the distinction between justification by faith alone (Paul) and justification by works (James).
In the end, as a Protestant I need to ask "Are we as Protestants so committed to our systematic theology that we fail to read Scripture well?" A question that I hope every god-fearing Catholic and Orthodox Christian asks himself as well.
Context: A common disagreement between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism is over the matter of Christ's righteousness and how we share in it and are considered righteous before God. Protestants propose that it is firstly and perfectly imputed to men, where Roman Catholics state that Christ's righteousness is infused. If you remember Luther, this distinction is addressed in "Two Kinds of Righteousness" with his distinction between "alien" and "proper" righteousness.
Does Protestant systematic theology, with its strict adherence to the reformed distinction between justification and sanctification, hinder us when we read scripture? Does this system of thought have the elasticity necessary in order to understand the various usages of the word "justification"? When you ask a protestant whether or not you are justified by faith or by work, he ought to respond that any view of salvation that divorces these two from one another is an inappropriate, ungodly dichotomy. Yet he ought also to remark that works are technically subordinate to faith, while faith is perfected by works. In forming a biblical view of salvation, we must take into consideration all of Scripture's witness to the "great salvation," taking into consideration both the Pauline and catholic corpus.
This is how I have come to understand the Protestant distinction between justification and sanctification: it is a logical distinction, not a chronological distinction; both are united under the main/head category of "salvation" in Scripture, and though both terms are not used exclusively in Scripture to refer to these distinct facets of salvation (since Scripture is not a systematic text!) it is useful for us to designate these two elements by proper, particular terms (i.e. "justification" and "sanctification"). In a real sense, at the moment of justification, sanctification begins; and in that sense, according to a Protestant, righteousness begins to be "infused" into the believer. However, this is not to neglect the logical dependence of infusion on imputation, neither can the believer's quality be confused for imputation. For this reason, I wonder whether or not it would be helpful if Protestants used the terms "justification" and "sanctification" as the main/general category under which they can make the distinction between justification by faith alone (Paul) and justification by works (James).
In the end, as a Protestant I need to ask "Are we as Protestants so committed to our systematic theology that we fail to read Scripture well?" A question that I hope every god-fearing Catholic and Orthodox Christian asks himself as well.
Context: A common disagreement between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism is over the matter of Christ's righteousness and how we share in it and are considered righteous before God. Protestants propose that it is firstly and perfectly imputed to men, where Roman Catholics state that Christ's righteousness is infused. If you remember Luther, this distinction is addressed in "Two Kinds of Righteousness" with his distinction between "alien" and "proper" righteousness.
4 Comments:
Catholics would object to the Protestant "Justification/Sanctification" distinction on the simple grounds that it isn't Biblical. Nowhere does Scripture order them in that way (quite the opposite, 1 Cor 6:11), and nowhere does Scripture make them 'independent' of eachother such that justification is independent of sanctification. The classical claim is that Paul is speaking of justification in Romans 3-5, then changes over to sanctification in 6-7 (chapter 8 is a toss up), but this is a purely invented division of Paul's thought. It's especially bad when Rom 6:7 uses the word 'justify', but is discounted as an anomaly in what is infact allegedly a chapter on sanctification.
A core part of the whole dispute is the "Imputed Righteousness of Christ", which itself is an unbiblical notion. Protestants read this into texts like Romans 4 (the only chapter that even mentions imputation in regards to salvation), but it's quite strained reading; then they read the rest of Scripture in light of that, which actually does violence to the great majority of the rest of Scripture.
Hello Nick! Nice to meet you. I was wondering if you would allow me to ask you some questions.
First, what exactly do you mean by "not biblical"? The reason I ask is this: the example you bring up does not undermine the idea behind the Protestant distinction between "Justification/sanctification", rather the objection seems to be built off of semantics (i.e. 1 Corinthians 6:11 uses the terms "sanctification" and "justification" in an order that does not demonstrate the direction of logical dependence that Protestants propose); in appealing to the semantics of the verse over the ideas of the verse in order to support the claim that Protestants are being un-biblical, you seem to purport that being biblical means following the language/terms of Scripture. Are you saying this? Or am I wrong.
(ALSO, on a side note: after looking 1Corinthians 6:11 over a few times, as far as I can tell, the Greek construction does not imply causation or logical dependence. Do you know if it does?)
Second, you state, "nowhere does Scripture make them 'independent' of each other such that justification is independent of sanctification." The way you phrased this gave me the impression that you thought I disagreed with it. So, I was wondering: 1) Did you take me to be saying that they could be independent? and 2) What do you mean by independent? is it synonymous with "logically distinct"?
Third, you state that the distinction between chapters 3-5 and 6-7 in Romans (a distinction that I did not use in my post), "is a purely invented division of Paul's thought." Would you say that there is a progression in Paul's thought from Romans chapter 1 to chapter 7? If so, what is it?
(ALSO, your reference to 6:7 does not seem to cause problems for someone who would assert that Paul's thought develops from imputation primarily to sanctification primarily within the course of these chapters--it would cause problems is someone asserted that Paul considers each facet as "independent" or separate from the other. According to the former interpretation, it would make sense that Paul would address sharing one's identity with Christ [i.e. dying with Christ and being raised with Christ] in a section where Paul expounds upon proper righteousness cultivated in the Christian Life.)
I think it is also worth noting that I intentionally left out specific Scriptural references in my post. This is because developing a biblical view of imputed righteousness was not my project. For this reason, your comment seems a bit out of place to me, since I never referenced Romans or made pretensions to be arguing for imputed righteousness. Rather, my project was to simply speak as a Protestant to Protestants about our approach to Scripture and being aware of our presuppositions.
In the end, if I may be honest, your comment seems some what polemical, or at least confrontational. For this reason I have to ask: Why did you comment on my Blog post? If I am mistaken about your tone I am sorry. Tones are difficult to interpret over the internet.
Hello, sorry for my late response, I've been busy.
What I mean by "not Biblical" is that the concept either is not taught in Scripture or runs contrary to Scripture (or sometimes there is overlap between the two options).
In the case of 1 Cor 6:11, the 'washed, sanctified, justified' order indicates either a logical progression or a simultaneous event; neither of which supports the Protestant notion that justification comes first and isn't based upon sanctification. What I've seen is Protestants approach the whole issue of salvation assuming the order and relation of justification to sanctification, without solid Biblical grounds to do so. In my opinion, it's no accident that Protestant scholars/apologists shy away from looking at 1 Cor 6:11 when coming to their conclusions. (and the same can be said in regards to the concept of 'imputation' and how it appears in Scripture)
As for your second question, when I say 'independent' I mean justification is not based upon sanctification, i.e. justification is based upon an alien righteousness where as sanctification is based upon an inherent one.
If you never intended to state Rom 6-7 'switches' to sanctification, then I apologize for jumping to conclusions; that's just the main 'proof' I've seen most Protestants use. As for whether there is a progression in Paul's thought from Rom 1-7, I'd say sure, but I'd say he's only going into more and more detail as he goes on, not that he's changing gears from an alien righteousness to an inherent righteousness (and then back, if you believe Rom 8 is about justification).
For you to assert Paul speaks of justify in Rom 6:7 and is yet transitioning to 'sanctification' is a burden of proof that I believe is pretty hard to overcome. And this problem is only compounded in light of the fact Protestant appeal to "justification" texts like Phil 3:9 very often ignore the full thought/context expounded in 3:10-11 (clearly 'sanctification').
The point though is that the very notion that Paul is 'transitioning' from one to the other is assumed when approaching the text rather than specifically stated in any text.
I can see why you read my post as polemical, and to an extent it was, but that's because I'm aware of a long standing tradition of men to assert the justification-sanctification distinction in the Protestant sense, without the average Protestant realizing there isn't a solid Biblical basis for doing so. And I'm not saying this to be mean, but it's no accident texts like 1 Cor 6:11 are either skimmed over or ignored all together when this subject comes up.
Hello Nick! I have not forgotten about you. School and sickness have not given me much time this last month to consider your comment on justification and sanctification.
I hope you forgive my tardy reply. I wanted to give you a thoughtful response as a 'thanks' for yours. Once I have finished my paper and reading I will have more time for this blog again.
Till the next comment--God keep you.
P.S.
Hopefully next semester I will be able to write a paper on justification in Romans, evaluating the Roman Catholic view along with the "New Perspective on Paul" and the traditional Protestant stance.
Post a Comment
<< Home