Discussion on Justification with a Lutheran Pastor

Discussion on Justification with a Lutheran Pastor

Michael Lofton and Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller discuss the differences between Catholics and Lutherans on justification. They examine the differences between initial and increases in justification and discuss the implications such a distinction creates for Catholics and Lutherans. They also discuss the reception of the concept of the "works of the law" in St. Paul and discuss St. Augustine and Luther's view of justification.

___________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: Any view expressed by a host, contributor or guest is not necessarily reflective of the views of other hosts, contributors or guests.

🔴PLEASE HELP THIS CHANNEL GROW🔴

Disclaimer: Any view expressed by a host, contributor or guest is not necessarily reflective of the views of other hosts, contributors or guests.

🔴SUPPORT

🔴VISIT

🔴LISTEN

🔴READ

[voyager]

Three years late to this party but better late than never. This is how dialogue should be, respectful and honest. Props to both men!

[rachelhayes]

Awesome discussion! Bryan Wolfmueller does an excellent job representing the LCMS Lutheran faith, per usual! Thanks, Pastor for explaining things so clearly and precisely! And for keeping things light hearted and humorous. I learned a lot about the Catholic faith from this video, and I am not yet convinced you and I are wrong! :D Keep up the “good work”! =P

[theticoboy]

About 2/3rd done with this. Good discussion. While not convincing, this Lutheran pastor is funny, polite and makes for an interesting discussion.

[nathanalex]

I just reread the sections of the CCC on justification, Grace, and merit the night before this stream. It finally clicked for me. Coming from a former LCMS tradition and am seeking to join the true Church, after a year of seeking God. Thanks to Michael for hosting this conversation and speaking so articulately. Love these conversations!

[dylanmoore]

I love these guys together. I don’t know what it is but it’s the most comfortable and charitable and fun conversation on this age old controversy.

[bethanyann]

Loved this. It warms my heart seeing y’all get along since I was an LCMS Lutheran before converting to Catholicism. Pastor Wolfmueller was one of my go-to guys in those days :)

[Stormlight]

Fantastic discussion, gentlemen! I think you both got right into the thick of things around 60 minutes, especially when Michael brought up the point about the 2nd century view of "works of the law" is completely in favor of the Catholic view and all of the Church teaching before Luther being in favor of the Catholic view of the different temporal senses of justifications ( i.e initial, ongoing, and final justification). Also relevant on the "works of the law" peice is the newer scholarship from the Dead Sea scrolls that show the phrase "works of the law" used in the sense of pertaining to the mosaic law and not the moral law (e.g. see Dr. John Bergsma).

For me, the key difference between Lutherans and Catholics is still imputed righteousness vs. infused grace. What made me leave Lutheranism behind was when I realized that the entire Lutheran system is built up on the imputed righteousness view of justification and this was a completely novel idea to Luther. I would love to hear more discussion on that topic and hear how Pr. Wolfmueller tries to make sense of the many places in the Bible that speaks of a complete cleansing of the person in justification from what seem like an indwelling righteousness (Ez 36:25-27, Romans 5:5, 2 Cor. 5:17, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, Gal 6:15) and how we will be judged by our works at the final judgement as opposed to just getting a blanket of Christ's righteousness to cover all our sins after initial justification (Mt 25:31-46, Mt 7:21-23, Rm 2:6-11, Rev 20:11-15, Rev 2:23, Jm 2:24-26, Rm 2:13, 2 Cor 5:10, Mt. 16:27).

I am very impressed to hear Pr. Wolfmeuller admit that he wasn't familiar enough with St. Augustine to respond to Micheal's (correct) point about St. Augustine's "Faith and Works" teaching against the Lutheran view of sola fide. I think that shows you both were trying hard to learn from one another and not just win an argument. Kudos to both!

I very much look forward to hearing another discussion on these topics surrounding "works of the law in 2nd century" and Augustine's "Faith and Works". It will be interesting to hear how Pr. Wolfmeuller deals with many of the developments in modern scholarship that I am not sure that he is very familiar with (e.g the book Paul's "Works of the Law" in the Perspective of Second-Century Reception by Matthew J. Thomas). I don't think the arguments that Pr. Wolfmueller is used to relying on from Luther, Chemnitz, and the other original reformers are very applicable now. The early reformers claims to proto-Protestant views on sola fide and imputed righteousness just isn't anywhere in the early Church.

I think Michael was spot on to point out that the Protestant scholar, Alister McGrath, has concluded the exact same thing. I just don't see how Lutherans can get past this other than to admit that they think the Church was simply wrong for 1500 years until Luther finally figured out what the gospel really was.

"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.

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.

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**"

[michaelhodges]

Michael, you did such a good job, you were clear and concise and answered all questions and objections with such precision and charity. I also really like pastor Wolfmueller and thought he was a great guest and I hope you have him on to talk about Mary sometime soon. Keep up the clarity and charity because it's really enjoyable to see such a knowledgeable Catholic engage in these dialogues

[Sam-upuj]

This pastors is clearly in the pursuit of truth and I have faith he will respond to Gods call to the true Catholic Church. Thanks for the good content Michael!

[tomwhitman]

I think you bring the best out of each other and got into the weeds in a really helpful way. The different moments of justification in Abraham's life was a real eye opener for me when I first recognised it in Scripture, so I appreciated you talking about it Michael. Great conversation!

[jess]

Great discussion! Love pastor wolfmueller.

[turnertruckandtractor]

Blessings to you both. Thank you for the conversation and education.

[stannymathoor]

Great discussion Pastor Bryan and Michael. This was so informative and such a fruitful discussion..Loved it.

[michaeldonohue]

I hope Pastor Bryan see's this comment. THANKYOU for coming onto this show. It is REALLY refreshing to see some not just good but FANTASTIC dialogue, particularly on a topic that many Catholics hardly have a clue what their own Church teaches on it. I am definitely looking forward to your thoughts on Augustine and his work, and also perhaps your thoughts on Michael's recent video on "Outside the Church there is no Salvation" whereby he goes over, amongst many other documents, Unam Sanctum which you brought up. Please ignore all the trolls, at least to the extent that they do not have an effect on your objectively looking to, as you said in your first video with Michael, the doctrine of the Church rather than the morality of her members. Because I won't pretend I want to see you become Catholic, Vatican 2 explicitly teaches the Holy Spirit is moving you towards the Church and I gotta affirm my councils :D! God bless.

[matthewm]

Romans 6:16 is ESSENTIAL to prove we grow in justification

[bkr_]

I love that this is an issue of emphasis between Lutheran and Catholic theology. For the catholic mindset, the healing of a person to holiness (Theosis) means becoming more justified (like straighter out), more true in a sense. Lutherans don’t disagree with what happens, but what it means. They move this process into sanctification, separating it from justification as far apart as east from west, with two concerns in mind 1) to not detract from the finished work of Christ, and 2) to allow sanctification its own space in the work of the individual person, without the danger of the sin of pride.
The approaches show different concerns which are very much pastoral in nature. Catholics would argue that there’s still work to be done that requires personal effort (ok, this is the start line, now pick up your cross and go), Lutherans would argue that not separating justification from sanctification can lead to scrupulosity and pride.
It’s interesting that the sharp separation of justification and sanctification is the hallmark of Lutheran/Protestant thinking. An orthodox would pro a alt argue that the problem only arises when you impose legalistic language onto the process of theosis, and the split could have been avoided altogether.
However, there’s a deep value in the Protestant approach that cannot be underestimated, either.
I love our Christian family tree 🌳 😊

[Stormlight]

Here are a few of my favorite Augustine quotes against the Lutheran view of justification:

"When St. Paul says, therefore, that man is justified by faith and not by the observance of the law, he does not mean that good works are not necessary or that it is enough to receive and to profess the faith and no more. What he means rather and what he wants us to understand is that man can be justified by faith, even though he has not previously performed any works of the law. For the works of the law are meritorious not before but after justification." (St. Augustine. On Faith and Works.)



On Grace and Free Will Chapter 18.— Faith Without Good Works is Not Sufficient for Salvation.

"Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle's statement: We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law, Romans 3:28 have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. Impossible is it that such a character should be deemed a vessel of election by the apostle, who, after declaring that in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, Galatians 5:6 adds at once, but faith which works by love. It is such faith which severs God's faithful from unclean demons — for even these believe and tremble, James 2:19 as the Apostle James says; but they do not do well. Therefore they possess not the faith by which the just man lives — the faith which works by love in such wise, that God recompenses it according to its works with eternal life. But inasmuch as we have even our good works from God, from whom likewise comes our faith and our love, therefore the selfsame great teacher of the Gentiles has designated eternal life itself as His gracious gift. Romans 6:23."



A homily of St. Augustine on Matthew xxv: 31-46.

On the Need for Good Works as Well as Faith

"Some would say that by faith alone - which, remember, without works is lifeless - you can gain eternal life, even if you fail to keep the commandments. But how can this be reconciled with what our Lord is going to tell those whom He sets off to the left, "Go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, " and with His reason for condemning them, not any want of belief in Him but their failure to do good works? He wanted to make sure that no one would expect to win eternal life by faith alone, which is dead without works. That was why He said that He was going to make a separation among the people of all the nations, who had been using the same pastures without distinction. This separation will make it clear that those who say to Him, "Lord, when did we see you suffering this or that and did not minister to You?" will be those who had believed in Him, but had not taken care to perform good works, as if they were going to attain everlasting life by dead faith alone."


"If, then, your good merits are God’s gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as His own gifts.” (Augustine, On Grace and Free Will)


"He who made you without your doing does not without your action justify you. Without your knowing He made you, with your willing He justifies you, but it is He who justifies, that the justice be not your own" (Serm. clxix, c. xi, n.13).



Edit:
As a former Lutheran too, I realize that Lutherans will try to affirm everything that Augustine says above, but they ultimately cannot because they actually deny the core reason why Augustine teaches what he does about faith that saves. This core reason of Augustine is that God infuses sanctifying grace into our person from which divine charity begins our life of good works. Luther, Melanchthon, et al. explicitly denied that justification has anything to do with this infusion of grace and charity. This is why the Council of Trent was so explicit in their response to the Reformers in declaring the formal cause of justification (that is to say what justification actual is) being the infusion of sanctifying grace into the soul (Council of Trent Session VI. VII). As we can see then from the Osiander controversies that arose in Lutheran circles at the beginning of the Reformation, the Reformers would not accept any view of justification that included an infusion of anything into the person as a cause of justification. In Osiander's case, he was arguing from scriptures that this was God Himself. The Reformers condemned Osiander and any view of justification that included infusion in it, whether it was the infusion of God Himself, love, or sanctifying grace. The Reformers instead taught a novel idea that we are justified solely by the imputation of Christ's very own righteousness that covers us from the outside (extra nos). This was a completely novel idea that was arrived at only by Luther's own philosophical presuppositions (e.g. total depravity of man combined with voluntaristic view of God) and reading them into scriptures like Romans 3:28. This just flew in the face of the entire Christian tradition before Luther, as much modern scholarship has shown like Alister McGrath here:

"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.

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.

**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.**

**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**



God bless!

[Daniel_Abraham]

Great Conversation! If only there were more Lutherans online to have more discussions.



* cough* Mr. Cooper *cough *

[bkr_]

Love these talks between you two. Keep them coming :)

[Theophilus-pk]

Lutheran here: in the conversation about "increasing in justification", is it more helpful to use the word "reward" rather than "justification". In my mind, when I hear "justification" i hear a declaration of innocence. I don't know how you can increase in innocence. If you are declared innocent of a crime, you did not commit the crime. You can't increase in not committing a crime. It's a 1 (yes) or a 0 (no) situation, not a degree. But if this is understood as reward rather than justification, then it could be said that (from the Catholic view), we are justified by Christ, but we can increase our reward in Heaven by our works. I think there is more scriptural support for this view than the former (though it can still be abused, through doing good works only for the purpose of reward rather than out of love, for example).