My Catholic understanding is to KNOW IMPLICITLY that my salvation is 100% God breathed; my part is surrender of my fallen self recognising the constant grace of His intervention. Life becomes a faith filled journey. God is the essence of life.
I had the pleasure of having Dr. Thomas as my professor for two years during my masters degree, he is an amazing person, glad to see him talking about this fascinating topic with you! Feels like I’m in class again! Get his book if you haven’t!
This was one of the best interviews I have seen on RUclips. Clear, direct, irenic, kind, academic, and at the same time very personal and somewhat polemical (in the sense of arguing from a position against another position). I am going to block off an hour or so to go through that justification article for a paper I am working on.
This has been the most enlightening discussion I have heard in a long long time. I always had a problem with Ockham, and I did not know how exactly to connect the dots with how nominalism effected Luther's thinking on justification. When this discussion went into location and time, I immediately thought internal action. Outside seems useless and serves no purpose. I find it interesting that Luther found Chrysostom, and Augustine not making any sense, while I found Luther's position not to make any sense. This discussion will enable me to express the Catholic position much better and clearer, to show it is not just an issue of interpretation. Wonderful, thank you.
Matthew Thomas is a great Roman Catholic theologian. It would be great if you could have on a Protestant scholar who advocates for a strict lutheran understanding of justification. I think a major challenge for protestants is that we believe our understanding of justification is crucial for salvation and yet for 1500 years, most theologians would have contradicted our understanding. One could say its only essential for salvation now once we have done all the work on the subject similarly to how in the first few centuries many theologians would have contradicted the co-equal, co-eternal trinity. If they could contradict that but we still consider them saved but if a theologian knowingly contradicted it today we would consider them dammed.
There is the joint declaration of justification, but both sides still have issues with it. Catholics saying it doesn't incorporate the transformative aspect enough, Lutherans saying it doesn't focus enough on the imputive side enough 🙄, enough though the former is historical and makes more sense of the Bible.
I'd struggle to think of a doctrine where the predominant Protestant view not only cuts against the grain of all of the preceding history, but typically that view is seen as almost co-terminous with the Gospel. The Trinity is not that. The Trinity was historically messy but plenty of people early on held to a view that fits within modern orthodoxy. I'm a new Catholic- this Easter- and justification was, ultimately, the primary reason I entered the Church. Lots of NP people were saying great things and got close and while they're hugely influential in scholarship, on the ground and in the pews, the gospel as the alien righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer's account is tantamount to saying that the Gospel disappeared from the earth pretty much immediately and was rediscovered 16 centuries later. I find it untenable and, while I know Protestants don't like this, indistinguishable from the kind of claims groups like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses make. As far as the idea that maybe the church can be wrong, pretty much unanimously, about something central to salvation, and that this just means that believers in earlier eras were held to a different standard...well, there are a number of problems. The biggest is, the average Christian, then and now, doesn't have enough sophisticated theological understanding to refute any heresy. If "We know better now" is the standard, then who is the "we" who knows better? I assure you that a well-trained oneness Pentacostal can take the ordinary churchgoer to the woodshed when it comes to the nature of the Godhead. If the "We" isn't any of the people who are actually saved, or not, dependent on the understanding of doctrine, but is instead" the consensus of people who know things", then how does that vindicate "strictly forensic justification and alien imputed righteousness in which man participates not at all" when even now, that's a deep minority position- not even representing the doctrinal views of, I don't know, 1/3 of professed Christians and probably fewer scholars throughout the traditions. Like, I think it's possible to say, "I think the tradition was wrong but ultimately this is not concomitant with the Gospel and it's possible for saved Christians of good will to disagree", which is why you find reformed scholars who know better, like Gavin Ortlund, straight up saying things like, "we have to be careful about making imputed righteousness the Gospel", but the harder critique basically throws every Christian doctrine to the wind in its standard of orthodoxy.
Do you think God would allow his church to teach a falsehood from its infancy for 1500 years only for the truth to be discovered and promulgated, a supposed truth which lead to division and schism and so many new denominations teaching different things? The Protestant view which I’ve heard (and maybe not all Protestants hold the same belief)on justification and imputed righteousness not only contradicts the plain reading of the gospels in multiple places, it also doesn’t correspond to reality and how people interact with each other in the real world. It’s like the reformers tried to make the Bible conform to their own personal theology regardless of the practicalities of life and how the real world should shape our understanding of the Bible. It just makes sense there is initial saving faith and then we grow in faith and faith is perfected through works. It’s a lifelong process but cannot be separated from our actions. And our free actions are a part of it.
@@Obilisk18 thought through protestant do not equate justification by faith alone with the gospel but they do say that it is an aspect of the gospel (the gospel being the life, death and resurrection and ascension of Christ) and I would say that because of Galatians, its such an important aspect of the Gospel that if you deny it, you are denying the gospel. Let's say, most of the theologians throughout church history denied justification by faith alone, how then could we believe it's a damnable heresy? Well during the council of Nicea, and councils after it, it became popular to define the trinity as One God in three persons and all the persons are co-equal and co-eternal. I I imagine before that most theologians would have contradicted these statements at some point (just like people contradicted justification by faith alone). We would say if you contradict the co-equal, co-eternal understanding of the trinity, you are a heretic and we would have good reasons to treat them as an unbeliever...even though there may be church fathers who we respect who said the same thing. The doctrinal standards have changed since the first century for all types of Christians, much more for Roman Catholics I would say, as church fathers who they respect would in their writing contradict purgatory, praying to the saints, infallibility of the pope when speaking ex-cathedra. Roman Catholics may have a stronger response to why the standards have changed because they can say the church never declared it to be dogma at the time whereas protestants need to say that their understanding of the Scripture was worse than ours because they hadn't had all the controversys to sort out doctrine, they were less careful about articulating doctrine because they knew less about the theological implications of what they were saying.
Wow-I am in need of talking out these concepts. As someone who converted to RCatholicism at the age of 26 and lived as a catechist and apologist for 25 years, I had an encounter 7 years ago that led to reexamine the claims. I’m an evangelical now but I still wrestle with the idea of infused vs imputed grace and the efficacious nature of the sacraments. Anybody else having that same struggle?
Dr Thomas is so irenic and even-handed that I too couldn't figure out his background and thought he wasn't Catholic for awhile. Though seemed clear he wasn't Protestant either based on the results of his research.
Hey @gospelsimplicity new subscriber but love your videos, and way of thinking and calm and spirit of charity and being slow to speak and quick to listen. Love how you bring on different people of the faith for amazing conversations. I think a great future guest would be Micheal Jones from Inspiring Philosophy. He does a great job at defending the faith through many means, and fights for, just like you a greater understanding between the three main branches of our faith. ❤️
@@GospelSimplicity yeah, there’s a few. He doesn’t really do theological arguments that much, more hard data, but there’s a few theological things. There’s his argument against Christian nationalism, the argument that science and Christianity are compatible, the early dating for the Gospels as well the gospels are in fact written by the men who share their names. Argument for amillennialism and no rapture. Early evidence for the trinity in the scriptures and early church fathers. Arguments for the existence of God based on reason. That’s all I can think of in the top of my head, you can check out his channel and see the other topics he covers if you need more. ✌️
Re: the definition of justification. Catholic scholar Dr. James Prothro has several good works on this. Paul, in the relevant texts, is using the word in terms of legal acquittal. Also, Fr. Fitzmyer has some good works on this too.
As an Orthodox Christian listening to this I both found myself appreciating and being frustrated by his perspective. On the appreciation part, I really appreciated that he didn't just take the forensic point of view for granted as so many calvinists and protestants in general, do. That is, that somehow the entire story arc of God's interaction with humanity and the incarnation and life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Christ -- is all just about us not getting in trouble for doing bad stuff. The frustrating part to me was that it was another "so close yet so far" kind of moments. For example, rather than answer "where does Justification happen?" howabout he answer "what DID the word even mean?" And one finds, very simply, that it means "being set in proper order" in both Hebrew and Greek (and actually English, if one steps back and thinks of other usages, like "left justify" in a word processor). That's it. All forms of the word have that meaning in different flavors Now, there's then a big conversation about what does being set in proper order look like, which people need to be set in proper order, how it happens, and what happens if we are not set in proper order. Now THAT'S the matter of theological debate, with different positions taken by Pharisees and the Apostles. But the conflict wasn't over how to get off the hook of doing bad stuff. This is a big concept but an absolutely critical one to understand the arc of God's salvific work, including the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It's all to set us in proper order. Everything. Absolutely everything. And we certainly aren't in proper order via a different label but us actually not being in order. To think we are but to not be would be a tragic blunder. So in some cases, such as every positive statement about our final judgment, there's a major component related to our actions being in play in that judgment. In other cases there's an inspirational "we are transferred to the Kingdom" aspect -- but that was still in the context of us *actually* needing to be set in proper order and ALL the other things said about our judgment and what justice (which can include mercy! Think how Joseph, *being a just person*, set to put Mary away quietly) can look like.
As a Lutheran, I like this comment. It sounds more like how I've been taught the faith. Of course, we would add that the 'proper order' or righteousness referred to by Christians is Christ (that righteousness that is the Divine righteousness of the Creator 'from outside of ourselves', not a created righteousness). Thus justification is synonymous with union with Christ; that we don't bind Christ to ourselves, or His will to our own, yet once united with Him we are able to cling fast to Him or actively push away from Him. I know that vindicate is a sense of justify, and we can say that works vindicate our Baptism/Absolution/reception of Holy Communion; but we tend to use stricter definitions in order to encourage people to look to and rely on the Ministers and Ministry of Word and Sacrament. PS another example is to 'right' a capsized vessel, to conform it to the proper standard (that is upright).
Just finished (and highly recommend) Barclay’s book, ‘Paul and the Power of Grace’. Just received Thomas’ book on the early reception of Paul’s use of “works of the law” and looking forward to it! Cool to hear about the connection these two great scholars have.
Fantastic discussion! Can't wait to read the article. Over the decades my view of justification has changed - I would say, matured. My problem: I no longer fit in neatly in any tradition.
Austin: loved this interview and would like to share with friends who don’t use RUclips. I couldn’t find this episode on apple podcast. Where can I find it?
Great talk! I feel like the non-inward transformation in Luther may be a mistake though. The Finnish school for example argues that Luther did have a theosis aspect to his theology and Jordan B Cooper argues that Lutheranism has a strong tradition of this as well
Psalm 115.1 KJV Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth's sake. God's people obey the Law only through the power of the Gospel. In other words, the preaching of Christ crucified, applied by the Holy Spirit, drives every believer to a life of good works. God's love for the believer is seen in His work for them (Justification) and in them (Sanctification). You cannot have one without the other. This salvation is 100% a work of God, therefore salvation cannot be lost. To say otherwise is to call Jesus a LIAR. Romans 1.16 KJV For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
This was eye-opening to me. Besides the quote from Aquinas, is there other scholarly evidence or sources that point to this non-competitive philosophical framework that St Paul was working under? Anything earlier than Aquinas?
Even though I thought the interview was well done and charitable (very thoughtful questions and answers, gentlemen), I would add the caveat that the nominalistic critique of Luther’s formulation of justification was both a bit over-simplistic and underwhelming. When talking about the two planes of works, I could just as well see an Arian employing the same made of thinking and saying that God created 100% and the Word as Creature created 100%, and that Trinitarianism is just as much a nominalistic construct. But of course using that term in that way would be anachronistic. In the same way, imputing this concept to Luther or Occam, as if the distinction were a new way of thinking (like the enlightenment) would be un-chronistic.
@@GospelSimplicity I hurt mine after surfing taking off my wetsuit 😂 . But also recently broke three ribs playing indoor soccer. It seems it’s a dangerous sport. I hope his finger heals soon. Thanks again for the interview and the content you’re putting out. Would love to see another discussion with you, Dr. Salkeld and Dr. Ortlund if possible. That talk on transubstantiation was awesome and really appreciated the ecumenical approach. I just got dr. Salkelds book on the topic and am excited to get into it. After I finish Dr. Lavoie’s book on the Shroud of Turin, another fascinating topic.
I’m really curious about this idea that Protestants only view justification as a “Forensic” declaration. Being raised Protestant, and being a student of church history and theology I’ve got to say I’ve never viewed justification as “merely” a forensic declaration of righteousness. It *is* a forensic declaration of righteousness, and gives us a righteousness that is entirely alien. However, of course it enables us to be active participants in salvation. This is early church doctrine, it’s Protestant doctrine, and it’s Sola Fide 101.
@joneill3dg. In Protestantism, justification is merely forensic BY DEFINITION. It’s not that the process of salvation doesn’t include anything else. It’s that nothing else JUSTIFIES besides the alien righteousness of Christ imputed to our account. If you want to say that salvation is accomplished by grace alone…or by Christ alone…then you have no other logical choice. Your love and your will and your good works are not a part of the equation that, when it comes down to the bottom line, actually saves you. Catholics define justification entirely differently. It’s not really even the same topic!
The question really boils down to is justification transformative or not? Magisterial reformers and Lutherans would say no transformation is what sanctification is all about not justification, history and the Bible says yes. Heck even Austin Suggs on this channel has stated that Paul wouldn't have as much as a hard distinction between justification and sanctification as what some protestants have placed. Anabaptists and Methodists would agree. Luther in his commentary on Galatians said we are not even justified by loving God as that is part of works of the law in the old testament (the Shema etc).
When you say it enables us to be active participants in salvation, would you say that the carrying out of that participation still pertains to justification or does it cross into sanctification? That I think is the rub. If you say the former, then justification is an ongoing process that's contingent upon our participation. If the latter, then we're no longer talking about justification, thus bracketing off the forensic from the transformative.
Am i the only one hearing that ockam and aquinas was speaking different language for the same thing... Cuase when we look at faith alone. A big strawman of us is that we do value and expect good works... Inspiring philosophy And ruslan have a discussion and i p says that this hatred has to stop. He reference a book (forget the name) And says that we are just talking past each other. He said that catholics when they speak of salvation they are combining salvation and santification. The works and the grace Protes have seperated salvation and santification. We see that the faith saves us. As in the ockam view that to believe we are saved by are works with ourselves. Is off. And that when we are saved our faith then produce good fruits not becuase that saves us but becuase we wish to do them. Protes have writing that show that if you dont change did you get faith at all... I think luther recognized that catholics grew legalistic saying you had to do x y z to be saved So ocham saw this i think. But aquinas seems to see it to using a different frame work. Both could be misunderstood Becuase pual says by faith you are saved not by works so no one can boast. And catholics with the doctrine of purgatory And them saying do xyz to shave time seems to misunderstand things from eariler. Look at orthodox with theosis. No purgatory and its less legalistic. So i agree with i.p. Its not that ocham didnt see something that aquinas didnt it seems to me that one could say culture and language. Seperated them and were trying to say the same thing differently And becuase luther had the western understanding and the simplistic ocham view his language time and culture worked against him. Becuase ochams razor is a true thing. To me the whole concept of aquinas is simple. That god is say the writer. We are the pen And works are the words. Its pretty simple spunding to me. At least thats what i think. I imagine had purgatory and working and praying till you drop with that doctrine. Had it not been there I doubt luther would have even spoke up or had a issue 🤔
One thing is tho is even tho augustine was smart his origional sin concept is from gnostism and a mistranslation That has infected all of christianity Ezikeil The son is not guilty of the father and vice versa. The one who sin is the one who dies. Pelagius from my research seems augustine mis qouted and even misrepresented him. But if say pelagius didnt think we needed god even if pelagius was wrong. That doesnt mean we r totally depraved and unable to do good. If anything the middle is correct here. Willaiam lane craig has a good artical on this. Cuase the bible says we r born innocent and this is the orthodox view. Still protestant. And i believe in justification is faith alone. But if you dont change in response are u really practicing saving faith and even the reformers saw this distinction
Okay I’ll listen to this. Even though I expect to get mad as heck. As a catholic guy, old, old fart, I’m hostile to Martin Luther mixing his mental issues into “what is faith”. This was brought home at an evangelical gathering at our senior center. After session on baptism and all this stuff one does with the church community; this one guy with significant drug history spoke out to many of us that all thst was necessary to be saved and to be justified was faith in Jesus. That is, once you had faith nothing else is required.
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
My Catholic understanding is to KNOW IMPLICITLY that my salvation is 100% God breathed; my part is surrender of my fallen self recognising the constant grace of His intervention. Life becomes a faith filled journey. God is the essence of life.
I had the pleasure of having Dr. Thomas as my professor for two years during my masters degree, he is an amazing person, glad to see him talking about this fascinating topic with you! Feels like I’m in class again! Get his book if you haven’t!
What a privilege to be in class with him!
This was one of the best interviews I have seen on RUclips.
Clear, direct, irenic, kind, academic, and at the same time very personal and somewhat polemical (in the sense of arguing from a position against another position).
I am going to block off an hour or so to go through that justification article for a paper I am working on.
That's high praise! I'm glad you enjoyed it
You hade at kind. Im watching.
This has been the most enlightening discussion I have heard in a long long time. I always had a problem with Ockham, and I did not know how exactly to connect the dots with how nominalism effected Luther's thinking on justification. When this discussion went into location and time, I immediately thought internal action. Outside seems useless and serves no purpose. I find it interesting that Luther found Chrysostom, and Augustine not making any sense, while I found Luther's position not to make any sense. This discussion will enable me to express the Catholic position much better and clearer, to show it is not just an issue of interpretation. Wonderful, thank you.
I'm so glad that this was helpful! I too found the framing of location and time to be really enlightening
Doc Thomas’s work on St. Ireneaus is awesome. I always enjoy his content.
Matthew Thomas is a great Roman Catholic theologian. It would be great if you could have on a Protestant scholar who advocates for a strict lutheran understanding of justification.
I think a major challenge for protestants is that we believe our understanding of justification is crucial for salvation and yet for 1500 years, most theologians would have contradicted our understanding. One could say its only essential for salvation now once we have done all the work on the subject similarly to how in the first few centuries many theologians would have contradicted the co-equal, co-eternal trinity. If they could contradict that but we still consider them saved but if a theologian knowingly contradicted it today we would consider them dammed.
There is the joint declaration of justification, but both sides still have issues with it. Catholics saying it doesn't incorporate the transformative aspect enough, Lutherans saying it doesn't focus enough on the imputive side enough 🙄, enough though the former is historical and makes more sense of the Bible.
If you've got any recommendations for a guest I'm open to it!
I'd struggle to think of a doctrine where the predominant Protestant view not only cuts against the grain of all of the preceding history, but typically that view is seen as almost co-terminous with the Gospel. The Trinity is not that. The Trinity was historically messy but plenty of people early on held to a view that fits within modern orthodoxy. I'm a new Catholic- this Easter- and justification was, ultimately, the primary reason I entered the Church. Lots of NP people were saying great things and got close and while they're hugely influential in scholarship, on the ground and in the pews, the gospel as the alien righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer's account is tantamount to saying that the Gospel disappeared from the earth pretty much immediately and was rediscovered 16 centuries later. I find it untenable and, while I know Protestants don't like this, indistinguishable from the kind of claims groups like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses make.
As far as the idea that maybe the church can be wrong, pretty much unanimously, about something central to salvation, and that this just means that believers in earlier eras were held to a different standard...well, there are a number of problems. The biggest is, the average Christian, then and now, doesn't have enough sophisticated theological understanding to refute any heresy. If "We know better now" is the standard, then who is the "we" who knows better? I assure you that a well-trained oneness Pentacostal can take the ordinary churchgoer to the woodshed when it comes to the nature of the Godhead. If the "We" isn't any of the people who are actually saved, or not, dependent on the understanding of doctrine, but is instead" the consensus of people who know things", then how does that vindicate "strictly forensic justification and alien imputed righteousness in which man participates not at all" when even now, that's a deep minority position- not even representing the doctrinal views of, I don't know, 1/3 of professed Christians and probably fewer scholars throughout the traditions.
Like, I think it's possible to say, "I think the tradition was wrong but ultimately this is not concomitant with the Gospel and it's possible for saved Christians of good will to disagree", which is why you find reformed scholars who know better, like Gavin Ortlund, straight up saying things like, "we have to be careful about making imputed righteousness the Gospel", but the harder critique basically throws every Christian doctrine to the wind in its standard of orthodoxy.
Do you think God would allow his church to teach a falsehood from its infancy for 1500 years only for the truth to be discovered and promulgated, a supposed truth which lead to division and schism and so many new denominations teaching different things?
The Protestant view which I’ve heard (and maybe not all Protestants hold the same belief)on justification and imputed righteousness not only contradicts the plain reading of the gospels in multiple places, it also doesn’t correspond to reality and how people interact with each other in the real world. It’s like the reformers tried to make the Bible conform to their own personal theology regardless of the practicalities of life and how the real world should shape our understanding of the Bible. It just makes sense there is initial saving faith and then we grow in faith and faith is perfected through works. It’s a lifelong process but cannot be separated from our actions. And our free actions are a part of it.
@@Obilisk18 thought through protestant do not equate justification by faith alone with the gospel but they do say that it is an aspect of the gospel (the gospel being the life, death and resurrection and ascension of Christ) and I would say that because of Galatians, its such an important aspect of the Gospel that if you deny it, you are denying the gospel. Let's say, most of the theologians throughout church history denied justification by faith alone, how then could we believe it's a damnable heresy? Well during the council of Nicea, and councils after it, it became popular to define the trinity as One God in three persons and all the persons are co-equal and co-eternal. I I imagine before that most theologians would have contradicted these statements at some point (just like people contradicted justification by faith alone). We would say if you contradict the co-equal, co-eternal understanding of the trinity, you are a heretic and we would have good reasons to treat them as an unbeliever...even though there may be church fathers who we respect who said the same thing. The doctrinal standards have changed since the first century for all types of Christians, much more for Roman Catholics I would say, as church fathers who they respect would in their writing contradict purgatory, praying to the saints, infallibility of the pope when speaking ex-cathedra. Roman Catholics may have a stronger response to why the standards have changed because they can say the church never declared it to be dogma at the time whereas protestants need to say that their understanding of the Scripture was worse than ours because they hadn't had all the controversys to sort out doctrine, they were less careful about articulating doctrine because they knew less about the theological implications of what they were saying.
Wow-I am in need of talking out these concepts. As someone who converted to RCatholicism at the age of 26 and lived as a catechist and apologist for 25 years, I had an encounter 7 years ago that led to reexamine the claims. I’m an evangelical now but I still wrestle with the idea of infused vs imputed grace and the efficacious nature of the sacraments. Anybody else having that same struggle?
Dr Thomas is so irenic and even-handed that I too couldn't figure out his background and thought he wasn't Catholic for awhile. Though seemed clear he wasn't Protestant either based on the results of his research.
As a Catholic I approve of this message. Fascinating conversation/
Glad you enjoyed it!
Hey @gospelsimplicity new subscriber but love your videos, and way of thinking and calm and spirit of charity and being slow to speak and quick to listen. Love how you bring on different people of the faith for amazing conversations. I think a great future guest would be Micheal Jones from Inspiring Philosophy. He does a great job at defending the faith through many means, and fights for, just like you a greater understanding between the three main branches of our faith. ❤️
Thanks for the recommendation! Is there a topic you had in mind?
@@GospelSimplicity yeah, there’s a few. He doesn’t really do theological arguments that much, more hard data, but there’s a few theological things.
There’s his argument against Christian nationalism, the argument that science and Christianity are compatible, the early dating for the Gospels as well the gospels are in fact written by the men who share their names. Argument for amillennialism and no rapture. Early evidence for the trinity in the scriptures and early church fathers. Arguments for the existence of God based on reason.
That’s all I can think of in the top of my head, you can check out his channel and see the other topics he covers if you need more. ✌️
I was just re-watching your last interview with him on the early perspective on Paul today! Excited to see he is coming back!
I hope you enjoy it!
Re: the definition of justification. Catholic scholar Dr. James Prothro has several good works on this. Paul, in the relevant texts, is using the word in terms of legal acquittal. Also, Fr. Fitzmyer has some good works on this too.
As an Orthodox Christian listening to this I both found myself appreciating and being frustrated by his perspective.
On the appreciation part, I really appreciated that he didn't just take the forensic point of view for granted as so many calvinists and protestants in general, do. That is, that somehow the entire story arc of God's interaction with humanity and the incarnation and life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Christ -- is all just about us not getting in trouble for doing bad stuff.
The frustrating part to me was that it was another "so close yet so far" kind of moments.
For example, rather than answer "where does Justification happen?" howabout he answer "what DID the word even mean?"
And one finds, very simply, that it means "being set in proper order" in both Hebrew and Greek (and actually English, if one steps back and thinks of other usages, like "left justify" in a word processor). That's it. All forms of the word have that meaning in different flavors
Now, there's then a big conversation about what does being set in proper order look like, which people need to be set in proper order, how it happens, and what happens if we are not set in proper order. Now THAT'S the matter of theological debate, with different positions taken by Pharisees and the Apostles. But the conflict wasn't over how to get off the hook of doing bad stuff.
This is a big concept but an absolutely critical one to understand the arc of God's salvific work, including the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It's all to set us in proper order. Everything. Absolutely everything.
And we certainly aren't in proper order via a different label but us actually not being in order. To think we are but to not be would be a tragic blunder.
So in some cases, such as every positive statement about our final judgment, there's a major component related to our actions being in play in that judgment. In other cases there's an inspirational "we are transferred to the Kingdom" aspect -- but that was still in the context of us *actually* needing to be set in proper order and ALL the other things said about our judgment and what justice (which can include mercy! Think how Joseph, *being a just person*, set to put Mary away quietly) can look like.
As a Lutheran, I like this comment. It sounds more like how I've been taught the faith.
Of course, we would add that the 'proper order' or righteousness referred to by Christians is Christ (that righteousness that is the Divine righteousness of the Creator 'from outside of ourselves', not a created righteousness). Thus justification is synonymous with union with Christ; that we don't bind Christ to ourselves, or His will to our own, yet once united with Him we are able to cling fast to Him or actively push away from Him.
I know that vindicate is a sense of justify, and we can say that works vindicate our Baptism/Absolution/reception of Holy Communion; but we tend to use stricter definitions in order to encourage people to look to and rely on the Ministers and Ministry of Word and Sacrament.
PS another example is to 'right' a capsized vessel, to conform it to the proper standard (that is upright).
Thank you both for this. It's immensely helpful. God bless.
Great interview
Just finished (and highly recommend) Barclay’s book, ‘Paul and the Power of Grace’.
Just received Thomas’ book on the early reception of Paul’s use of “works of the law” and looking forward to it!
Cool to hear about the connection these two great scholars have.
Fantastic discussion! Can't wait to read the article.
Over the decades my view of justification has changed - I would say, matured.
My problem: I no longer fit in neatly in any tradition.
Austin: loved this interview and would like to share with friends who don’t use RUclips. I couldn’t find this episode on apple podcast. Where can I find it?
Thanks for bringing that to my attention! I'll try to backfill it on my podcast
Thanks!
MATTHEW 25:31-46
Great presentation!
Great talk! I feel like the non-inward transformation in Luther may be a mistake though. The Finnish school for example argues that Luther did have a theosis aspect to his theology and Jordan B Cooper argues that Lutheranism has a strong tradition of this as well
It's also taught to all Lutheran Children in the Small Catechism
Psalm 115.1 KJV
Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth's sake.
God's people obey the Law only through the power of the Gospel. In other words, the preaching of Christ crucified, applied by the Holy Spirit, drives every believer to a life of good works. God's love for the believer is seen in His work for them (Justification) and in them (Sanctification). You cannot have one without the other. This salvation is 100% a work of God, therefore salvation cannot be lost. To say otherwise is to call Jesus a LIAR.
Romans 1.16 KJV
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
This was a great interview
Great video!
Glad you enjoyed it!
This was eye-opening to me. Besides the quote from Aquinas, is there other scholarly evidence or sources that point to this non-competitive philosophical framework that St Paul was working under? Anything earlier than Aquinas?
God opening up Heaven for Mankind was a free Gift, but your degree of glory in Heaven is determined by your good works.
Justification and being made righteous has always seemed to be an effect vs a cause. It’s also the way to test if one is a true believer.
Justification is the Achilles heel of Protestantism
Makes good points but seems to have too much overlap with sanctification.
Even though I thought the interview was well done and charitable (very thoughtful questions and answers, gentlemen), I would add the caveat that the nominalistic critique of Luther’s formulation of justification was both a bit over-simplistic and underwhelming.
When talking about the two planes of works, I could just as well see an Arian employing the same made of thinking and saying that God created 100% and the Word as Creature created 100%, and that Trinitarianism is just as much a nominalistic construct. But of course using that term in that way would be anachronistic. In the same way, imputing this concept to Luther or Occam, as if the distinction were a new way of thinking (like the enlightenment) would be un-chronistic.
Dr. Thomas thanks for this interview. did you get a mallet finger? I’m wearing that same splint on my left ring finger too 😂
Indoor soccer I believe!
@@GospelSimplicity I hurt mine after surfing taking off my wetsuit 😂 . But also recently broke three ribs playing indoor soccer. It seems it’s a dangerous sport. I hope his finger heals soon.
Thanks again for the interview and the content you’re putting out. Would love to see another discussion with you, Dr. Salkeld and Dr. Ortlund if possible. That talk on transubstantiation was awesome and really appreciated the ecumenical approach. I just got dr. Salkelds book on the topic and am excited to get into it. After I finish Dr. Lavoie’s book on the Shroud of Turin, another fascinating topic.
I’m really curious about this idea that Protestants only view justification as a “Forensic” declaration. Being raised Protestant, and being a student of church history and theology I’ve got to say I’ve never viewed justification as “merely” a forensic declaration of righteousness. It *is* a forensic declaration of righteousness, and gives us a righteousness that is entirely alien. However, of course it enables us to be active participants in salvation. This is early church doctrine, it’s Protestant doctrine, and it’s Sola Fide 101.
It's easy to reject an argument if you only consider strawman versions of it.
@joneill3dg. In Protestantism, justification is merely forensic BY DEFINITION. It’s not that the process of salvation doesn’t include anything else. It’s that nothing else JUSTIFIES besides the alien righteousness of Christ imputed to our account. If you want to say that salvation is accomplished by grace alone…or by Christ alone…then you have no other logical choice. Your love and your will and your good works are not a part of the equation that, when it comes down to the bottom line, actually saves you.
Catholics define justification entirely differently. It’s not really even the same topic!
The question really boils down to is justification transformative or not? Magisterial reformers and Lutherans would say no transformation is what sanctification is all about not justification, history and the Bible says yes. Heck even Austin Suggs on this channel has stated that Paul wouldn't have as much as a hard distinction between justification and sanctification as what some protestants have placed. Anabaptists and Methodists would agree.
Luther in his commentary on Galatians said we are not even justified by loving God as that is part of works of the law in the old testament (the Shema etc).
When you say it enables us to be active participants in salvation, would you say that the carrying out of that participation still pertains to justification or does it cross into sanctification? That I think is the rub. If you say the former, then justification is an ongoing process that's contingent upon our participation. If the latter, then we're no longer talking about justification, thus bracketing off the forensic from the transformative.
I think that’s a false dichotomy. Our justification can be a forensic declaration and be transformative at the same time, enabling sanctification.
Am i the only one hearing that ockam and aquinas was speaking different language for the same thing...
Cuase when we look at faith alone. A big strawman of us is that we do value and expect good works...
Inspiring philosophy
And ruslan have a discussion and i p says that this hatred has to stop. He reference a book (forget the name)
And says that we are just talking past each other.
He said that catholics when they speak of salvation they are combining salvation and santification.
The works and the grace
Protes have seperated salvation and santification. We see that the faith saves us. As in the ockam view that to believe we are saved by are works with ourselves. Is off. And that when we are saved our faith then produce good fruits not becuase that saves us but becuase we wish to do them.
Protes have writing that show that if you dont change did you get faith at all...
I think luther recognized that catholics grew legalistic saying you had to do x y z to be saved
So ocham saw this i think.
But aquinas seems to see it to using a different frame work.
Both could be misunderstood
Becuase pual says by faith you are saved not by works so no one can boast.
And catholics with the doctrine of purgatory
And them saying do xyz to shave time seems to misunderstand things from eariler. Look at orthodox with theosis. No purgatory and its less legalistic.
So i agree with i.p.
Its not that ocham didnt see something that aquinas didnt it seems to me that one could say culture and language. Seperated them and were trying to say the same thing differently
And becuase luther had the western understanding and the simplistic ocham view his language time and culture worked against him.
Becuase ochams razor is a true thing.
To me the whole concept of aquinas is simple.
That god is say the writer.
We are the pen
And works are the words.
Its pretty simple spunding to me.
At least thats what i think.
I imagine had purgatory and working and praying till you drop with that doctrine. Had it not been there
I doubt luther would have even spoke up or had a issue 🤔
One thing is tho is even tho augustine was smart his origional sin concept is from gnostism and a mistranslation
That has infected all of christianity
Ezikeil
The son is not guilty of the father and vice versa.
The one who sin is the one who dies.
Pelagius from my research seems augustine mis qouted and even misrepresented him.
But if say pelagius didnt think we needed god even if pelagius was wrong. That doesnt mean we r totally depraved and unable to do good.
If anything the middle is correct here.
Willaiam lane craig has a good artical on this.
Cuase the bible says we r born innocent and this is the orthodox view.
Still protestant. And i believe in justification is faith alone. But if you dont change in response are u really practicing saving faith and even the reformers saw this distinction
Okay I’ll listen to this. Even though I expect to get mad as heck. As a catholic guy, old, old fart, I’m hostile to Martin Luther mixing his mental issues into “what is faith”. This was brought home at an evangelical gathering at our senior center. After session on baptism and all this stuff one does with the church community; this one guy with significant drug history spoke out to many of us that all thst was necessary to be saved and to be justified was faith in Jesus. That is, once you had faith nothing else is required.
Doesn't the idea that the New Covenant is between God & Himself demonstrative of God being the only agent of salvation.
Austin finally found someone just like him, guys who use so many words but say so little.
That’s an extremely rude comment which contributes nothing to this topic. Did even read the article the man spent 1.5 years writing?
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )