Christianity: Justification & Sanctification vs Justification/Sanctification

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I've always wondered what the crux is between Apostolic and Reformed Christianity was, and it all comes down to: Justification.

This is the "Once saved, always saved" doctrine that is so off-putting to many, eg. "Hitler is in heaven because he confessed belief in Christ" sort of thing. A moral person would object to such a claim, but that is what was argued and continues to be believed by the Reformers/Reformed Christians.

OTOH, Salvation in Apostolic Christianity has always been a conditional result of works done in their life.

TLDR;
Apostolic = Justification and Sanctification: Same.
Reformed = Justification and Sanctification: Not the same.

 

[Totenkindly]

I used to get bogged down in debates like this and I guess it still matters if you are a believer of either faith style.

I stepped back further, though, and it really comes down to whether you believe you are something that needs saved so that you can spend eternity in heaven under a deity's favor. So basically people are arguing about what gets them an eternal reward / the favor of God.

It just seems to be the wrong question, from a practical standpoint. Instead of doing good during your earthly life, when you KNOW you are alive and your actions matter, people argue about doing things for some future benefit rather than as an end in themselves.

Otherwise we wouldn't be arguing about whether bad people get a free pass to heavenly bliss because they said the right words on earth or what the right amount of "good things done" is necessary to find God's favor, as if such a thing could be quantified. This is an old argument; even Paul was addressing it at one point (faith vs good deeds).

I guess my view on it is that if a god exists and I would ever find favor, it would be about what my heart is like and what my attitudes are like, and this is both reflected and shaped by the things I choose to do in this life. But we can't really evaluate our own goodness, we're "inside the system" and don't have the perspective nor tools to do so. Also, we're part of the system -- so we each start at different places, with different strengths and faults and resources and birth benefits and exposure to ideas. Our choices both shape us and are shaped by our past moral makeup.

Anyway, is it worth arguing over whether a particular politician is just a "baby Christian" and thus justifiable in some way, via theology? Not really. We can just evaluate what they say and do now and see how that measures up to general goodness and whether something needs to change. It goes for all of us...

 

[Hermit of the Forest]

Saying a few words doesn’t save anyone, it’s God’s grace that saves. And if His grace has touched a person’s life it will compel a change of behavior because now there is a will to do what God wants, rather than just what the person wants.

 

[Polaris]

"Hitler is in heaven because he confessed belief in Christ" sort of thing. A moral person would object to such a claim

I believe that a truly moral person would find it in themselves to welcome even Adolf Hitler into heaven, and not because he may have been a Christian, but out of simple good-naturedness.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I used to get bogged down in debates like this and I guess it still matters if you are a believer of either faith style.

I stepped back further, though, and it really comes down to whether you believe you are something that needs saved so that you can spend eternity in heaven under a deity's favor. So basically people are arguing about what gets them an eternal reward / the favor of God.

Basically, yes.

It just seems to be the wrong question, from a practical standpoint. Instead of doing good during your earthly life, when you KNOW you are alive and your actions matter, people argue about doing things for some future benefit rather than as an end in themselves.

Ikr? It seems obvious to anyone who isn't a sociopath, but not everyone is.

Otherwise we wouldn't be arguing about whether bad people get a free pass to heavenly bliss because they said the right words on earth or what the right amount of "good things done" is necessary to find God's favor, as if such a thing could be quantified. This is an old argument; even Paul was addressing it at one point (faith vs good deeds).

This is addressed in the vid.

I guess my view on it is that if a god exists and I would ever find favor, it would be about what my heart is like and what my attitudes are like, and this is both reflected and shaped by the things I choose to do in this life. But we can't really evaluate our own goodness, we're "inside the system" and don't have the perspective nor tools to do so. Also, we're part of the system -- so we each start at different places, with different strengths and faults and resources and birth benefits and exposure to ideas. Our choices both shape us and are shaped by our past moral makeup.

IE: In Christ, if you even "think" about murdering your brother, you have done so in your heart. If you even "think" lustfully about someone, you have done adultery in your heart. So, even if your actions may not manifest irl, God's judgment comes upon our heart. Thus, we repent. For God does not judge us for sinning, but for not repenting. As Christians, we are called to a higher moral standard than non-Christians.

(We're not supposed to judge anyone, but those professing to be Christians. Non-Christians are to be judged by God alone.)

Anyway, is it worth arguing over whether a particular politician is just a "baby Christian" and thus justifiable in some way, via theology? Not really. We can just evaluate what they say and do now and see how that measures up to general goodness and whether something needs to change. It goes for all of us...

It seems reasonable (as Satan's arguments usually do), but some of us bow our heads humbly to a higher Good. One that is outside of human flaws in reasoning.

 

[Totenkindly]

Sorry, I can't watch the video. I'm at work. So I am just responding to your words.
Besides, if I wanted to watch videos, I'd be out watching videos rather than interacting with people on a forum.

It seems reasonable (as Satan's arguments usually do), but some of us bow our heads humbly to a higher Good. One that is outside of human flaws in reasoning.

There's a problem there in that even faith is based on human reasoning. As soon as input hits your brain and you need to process it, make decisions about it, etc., you are now acting on human reasoning and have any essential flaws thereof.

Put another way, you're handed a faith system from an external source, and you decide to accept it or not (and follow it to whatever degree) based on your own perceptions and calculations. You can't determine what's a "higher Good" without some form of reasoning from your end. Why do you perceive your Higher Good as THE Higher Good? That it is real and not fabricated? Or maybe the broad system is a good way to live your life, but it's not as historical/factual in nature as claimed, as a way to lend itself authenticity? It's quite the conundrum because without human reasoning you're essentially just as inert as a rock and unable to evaluate anything.

We're all people in a black box making the best decisions we can, hopefully. I dunno. I spent enough decades thinking about justification and sanctification to the exclusion of living life and interacting directly.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Saying a few words doesn’t save anyone, it’s God’s grace that saves. And if His grace has touched a person’s life it will compel a change of behavior because now there is a will to do what God wants, rather than just what the person wants.

The video at the top address this lie.

 

[Hermit of the Forest]

The video at the top address this lie.

I rarely watch videos on the forum.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Sorry, I can't watch the video. I'm at work. So I am just responding to your words.
Besides, if I wanted to watch videos, I'd be out watching videos rather than interacting with people on a forum.

Pity. I'm at work, and the video plays just fine.

There's a problem there in that even faith is based on human reasoning. As soon as input hits your brain and you need to process it, make decisions about it, etc., you are now acting on human reasoning and have any essential flaws thereof.

Human reasoning was a huge issue in the first millennium of the Church, but the seven councils have that sorted out for the most part. This thread addresses the human reasoning of the Reformers.

Put another way, you're handed a faith system from an external source, and you decide to accept it or not (and follow it to whatever degree) based on your own perceptions and calculations. You can't determine what's a "higher Good" without some form of reasoning from your end. Why do you perceive your Higher Good as THE Higher Good? That it is real and not fabricated? Or maybe the broad system is a good way to live your life, but it's not as historical/factual in nature as claimed, as a way to lend itself authenticity? It's quite the conundrum because without human reasoning you're essentially just as inert as a rock and unable to evaluate anything.

It's just what we believe, and it works, so why not? Learning to "leave my ego at the door" was a huge part of that process. Satan was banished for his prideful ego, so Pride is said to be the worst sins. (Which, incidentally is one of my biggest failures as well, that and lust, and thievery, and wrath, and everything else under the sun.)

We're all people in a black box making the best decisions we can, hopefully. I dunno. I spent enough decades thinking about justification and sanctification to the exclusion of living life and interacting directly.

Well, you do you. Maybe we'll meet sometime.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I rarely watch videos on the forum.

This statement is true, because [MENTION=33717]Hermit Of The Forest[/MENTION] wouldn't have made his/her first post otherwise.

 

[sLiPpY]

Apostolic or Reformed? Doesn't matter, there's plenty of material for the minds of men and women to argue.

What Does the Bible Say About Good Works?

Psalm 37:3-4

"Trust in the Lord, and do good; dwell in the land and befriend faithfulness. Delight yourself in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart."

Colossians 3:23

"Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men,"

Romans 14:12

"So then each of us will give an account of himself to God."

 

[sLiPpY]

I rarely watch videos on the forum.

Saying a few words doesn’t save anyone, it’s God’s grace that saves. And if His grace has touched a person’s life it will compel a change of behavior because now there is a will to do what God wants, rather than just what the person wants.

Absolutely agree, and beautifully stated.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

You believe in solo scripture?

At what point did the Bible become divorced from the Church?

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

There was this guy called Martin Luther.

Oh yea? And does Christ mention the Bible or the Church?

 

[Coriolis]

At what point did the Bible become divorced from the Church?

When the church put itself higher than the Bible?

Some years ago there was a popular saying: "What would Jesus do?" The Church/churches over time have exhibited all too human behavior that seems hard put to meet this test.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

When the church put itself higher than the Bible?

Some years ago there was a popular saying: "What would Jesus do?" The Church/churches over time have exhibited all too human behavior that seems hard put to meet this test.

I, too, would be sympathetic to the Reformers if my religious beliefs relied on freely interpreting the Bible in favor of my religion.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

To be honest I see the bible and church as an outgrowth of tradition.

Christ himself mentions the Church. It's the favored argument of the Romans:

The problem is that I think the tradition is half dead, while I think that solo scripture is a sign of full death.

Not the Byzantine traditions. Solo scripture is even practiced by the upstart Baha'is, I noticed.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Since we're on the subject...

TLDR; Since literacy in the ancient world was only 20% (liberal estimate), Sola Scriptura, or Scripture Alone, couldn't have been practiced by the Church laity and is rather a recent (~500 years) European invention. That and getting your hands on a Bible in those days would have costed a small fortune as it would have been hand-written by scribes, until the invention of the printing press. Any guess as to what the first book ever printed was?

Evidence and reason clearly demonstrates that Christianity was spread primarily by word of mouth/tradition in the early days, culminating in the development of Holy (capital T) Tradition by the fourth century. Interpreting and practicing Christianity by Scripture Alone couldn't have been implemented until the Bible was mass produced by Gutenburg.

 

[Coriolis]

I, too, would be sympathetic to the Reformers if my religious beliefs relied on freely interpreting the Bible in favor of my religion.

Now you lost me. "I too"? Who else is sympathetic to reformers, and what reformers?

More to the point, do you think that a Christian should follow the example of Jesus?

 

[sLiPpY]

Since we're on the subject...

TLDR; Since literacy in the ancient world was only 20% (liberal estimate), Sola Scriptura, or Scripture Alone, couldn't have been practiced by the Church laity and is rather a recent (~500 years) European invention. That and getting your hands on a Bible in those days would have costed a small fortune as it would have been hand-written by scribes, until the invention of the printing press. Any guess as to what the first book ever printed was?

Evidence and reason clearly demonstrates that Christianity was spread primarily by word of mouth/tradition in the early days, culminating in the development of Holy (capital T) Tradition by the fourth century. Interpreting and practicing Christianity by Scripture Alone couldn't have been implemented until the Bible was mass produced by Gutenburg.

By your own example, might I suggest the "Reformation" was completely unavoidable...regardless of however unwell thought out. It's not like the Catholics didn't hatch the Gun Powder plot, to blow both King James and Parliament to "living hell." For the heresy of giving the masses of illiterates, direct access to whatever the "clergy" could selectively chose to share...or shape as it suited them.