Increasing justification? Merit? Imputation? In Defense of the Catholic position.

Подписаться 168

50% 1

There are three main sticking points in ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants when it comes to justification. The first is with regards the formal cause: is it the extrinsic righteousness of Christ, or the infusion of righteousness into the believer? The Protestant position depends on a hamartiology of concupiscence that judges the regenerate Christian worthy of hell. The second is the ability to increase justification. While Paul's definition of justification would not allow this, the Catholic position is compatible with Paul's, but broadens it as well. The final issue is merit: does God promise salvation to believers, as a reward they can merit by persevering in obedience to His commands? Would this allow the Christian to boast as if they deserved/earned it? While we may not like speaking in terms of merit, it is nevertheless biblical language, which, when understood biblically, ie saturated with grace, is orthodox in nature.

Опубликовано:

23 июн 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 4

@j.g.4942 12 дней назад

I know this isn't squarely on Luther v Pope, but it's so strange to hear someone outside of the Lutheran tradition be able to present it so well that you sound Lutheran to me. If I were to add anything, the reason (that I understand) we see concupiscence as sin is that we see Christ as the standard and, while He was tempted, we do not believe or teach that He had "a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason". Thus if Christ is the Standard/Mark and He didn't suffer 'sensual desire contrary to reason' then concupiscence is a missing of the mark, or 'sin'. I'd imagine that one might disagree, and say that Christ did have concupiscence but was, by His Divine strength, constantly victorious over it (as Luther held was true for The Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary); but then concupiscence would be part of the New Creation? I know there's fuzzy bits for me here too, but it's refreshing to hear a clear rejection in plain language (an added bonus that you don't stoop to Luther's polemics).

@taylorbarrett384 12 дней назад

Thanks! Our Lord certainly didn't have concupiscence. But I don't think that is a good reason for thinking concupiscence is itself damnable sin when it is not consented to. Nevertheless, this particular question is very subtle, and the practical reality of sin, even in the justified, due to our perpetual failure to perfectly resist concupiscence, even if only venially allowing our heart and mind to wander, makes the "Simul Justus et Peccator" a sympathetic doctrine, especially from a pastoral standpoint. I do of course hold the Catholic position, which is that the formal cause of our justification is the infused love for God' that inheres within us, and I think the Lutheran concerns about depending on Christ alone, abandoning any claim to merit/works, etc, are compatible with it, even integral to it.

@j.g.4942 12 дней назад

@@taylorbarrett384 Yeah, this is our disagreement and exactly what I mean. Thank you for being a breath of fresh air (so many modern Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox I've heard and read condemn Lutheran teaching then affirm the pastoral practise that is our application of Lutheran thought "go to your pastor/priest/Confession/Holy Communion/etc. and trust in God's work/Word there"). As to the pastoral standpoint; I've been taught essentially, if theology isn't pastoral it isn't really Christian.

@taylorbarrett384 10 дней назад

@@j.g.4942 Your welcome brother, thanks for watching and commenting!