Justification - a dialogue between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism feat. Militant Thomist

Comments · 47

• AN

  @AncientAncestor · 4 years ago

  Beautiful conversation! Two brilliant minds who really know their stuff having a friendly very high level philosophical and theological discussion, while still managing to include the layman by repeatedly clarifying terms that may be more obscure to the uninitiated. Very good job Mikkel! Thanks so much to Christian for coming over and having this discussion! God bless you and keep you all!

  6

• PE

  @peccatorjustificatus777 · 4 years ago

  TUG and MT on justification: 😑😑<br>TUG and MT on having large intros: 🤝🏻

  8

• GA

  @gabrielferreira1531 · 4 years ago

  A good source to clarify this debate is the article:&quot;Revisiting the Reformation: Aquinas and Luther on Justification&quot; by Lukas Steffensmeier . God bless you guys

• PO

  @poordoubloon10 · 4 years ago (edited)

  I think Roman Catholics and Lutherans can agree in principle on the Missourian notion of (universal) Objective Justification, but the difference lies in how we approach the question of (particular) Subjective Justification... for the Lutheran, faith alone unites us to the objective historia salutis person and work of Christ... and charity flows out of subjective justification, whereas for Roman Catholics, faith, hope and charity are all necessary causes preceding subjective justification (in other words, works not only maintain our union with Christ and the benefits therein, but our works actually cause our union with Christ).<br><br>No one denies that Christ secures our salvation fully in time, the debate is over whether our progress in sanctification is a cause of our union with Christ (and the forensic declaration that occurs with it) or whether justification/salvation causes renewal.

  6

• DA

  @dave1370 · 4 years ago (edited)

  Great conversation. It seems as though Rome has a semantic out for everything though. I mean, they seem to dance around terms and make exceptions, caveats, and the like based upon &quot;what they really mean,&quot; whilst anathematizing others based using the same terms. Regarding merit, we know that St. Augustine would certainly consider that every good work we do, even the willing, is of God, as is the faith we have itself. Charity, then, is a gift anyhow. It isn&apos;t our own righteousness, but God&apos;s, as Augustine states:<br><br>&quot;For even our good works, when they are understood to be rather His than ours, are imputed to us that we may enjoy this Sabbath rest. For if we attribute them to ourselves, they shall be servile.&quot;<br><br>Elsewhere, he states:<br><br>&quot;The very reason, indeed, why [Paul] so often declares that righteousness is imputed to us, not out of our works, but our faith, whereas faith rather works through love, is that no man should think that he arrives at faith itself through the merit of his works; for it is faith which is the beginning whence good works first proceed; since (as has already been stated) whatsoever comes not from faith is sin.&quot;<br><br>I&apos;d also absolutely argue that we have an incredibly strong reason for assurance, as the Fathers certainly speak of. Paul certainly speaks of our assurance of salvation, as does Cyprian, Ambrose, and others.<br><br>I also am curious as to how, according to the RC definition of faith (an intellectual assent), a child can actually have saving faith.

  5

• CH

  @chagas9766 · 4 years ago

  One more subscriber! :)

  2

• HE

  @heinrich3088 · 4 years ago

  Also: one more subscriber! :)

  1

• PO

  @poordoubloon10 · 4 years ago

  Due to the Formula of Concord, we have to be careful to distinguish between Union with Christ (unio fidei formalis), in terms of the foundational marriage union of faith-justification... and the Union with Christ (mystica unio), in terms of the transformative indwelling of divine life/grace.<br><br>The first is <i>our</i> incorporation/union into Christ (the marriage whereby the gifts are exchanged) the second <i>Christ&apos;s</i> incorporation/union into us (the ongoing renewal as a result of our marriage).

  3

• CH

  @chrismathew2295 · 1 year ago

  It is regrettable that the Lutheran was more interested in finding ecumenical agreement than prosecuting our real and essential disagreement on the inadequacy of our inherent righteousness before the bar of God&apos;s perfect justice (even with the infusion of sanctifying grace), the sin of concupiscence (which further adds to the need for imputation), and the inability to merit our salvation in the covenant of grace (even ex pacto merit, of geometric proportion).

• MR

  @MrJohnmartin2009 · 2 years ago

  Abraham was imputed righteousness by faith and faith presupposes an interior grace of sanctification as the root cause of faith. The imputed righteousness testifies to Abraham&apos;s interior regeneration by grace witnessed by St Paul&apos;s union of hope and love in Rom 5:1-9 recapping the Abraham trial of Rom 4:1-25.<br><br>The major problem with Lutheran theology is the assumed penal substitutionary theory associated with justification by faith alone, not found in Gen 15. &nbsp;Gen 15:6 contextualised by Melchizedek&apos;s covenant and the covenant of pieces, largely ignored by exegesis of Romans 3-4.

• BR

  @briand4622 · 4 years ago

  Really good stuff guys. I would say i now have a more &quot;charitable&quot; ;) view of Rome&apos;s view of justification and on faith formed by charity so thanks Christian for that. In terms of Christian&apos;s view that it is presumptuous for us to have assurance of our salvation (in the present sense knowing apostasy is possible in the future) by a fiduciary faith (that trusts, loves, and repents) - how does that contrast with Rome&apos;s view that if you commit mortal sin, and give a proper and contrite confession in the sacrament, you then can be sure/assured your sins are forgiven? Is it the mediation of the priest where you receive such infused grace where you go from a state of unjust to just and if you died the second after leaving confession you&apos;d be granted salvation? how does that differ from the Lutheran or prot who by faith examines their conscience daily and repents through prayer (even if committing a mortal sin) and receives Christ&apos;s promise? Is the difference from Rome&apos;s view that the grace must be received in the sacrament itself, mediated by a priest who has received valid orders?

  3

• NI

  @NickRCC · 4 years ago

  Really good conversation. Can you do a video on the fact none of the few hundred pages of the Book of Concord ever define the Canon of Scripture, and that Concord explicitly says 2nd Maccabees is Scripture?