Since Christ is our sanctification (I Cor. 1:30) as well, how does this work with what you have said here? Is sanctification just the exact same thing as justification except as regards sanctification we are talking about Christ's righteousness intra nos? Or are we talking about the Christian's actual inchoate righteousness when we are talking about sanctification even as we somehow confess that Christ is indeed our sanctification (i.e. the alpha and omega of it?)
This is a good question. In my reading of Luther, sanctification can be attributed to the alien righteousness of Christ, wherein imputed righteousness makes itself apparent in us through sanctification. The two are not divorced. It is solely the work of God, or "alien", though it can be said to be intra nos because it happens within us.
Scripture at times also uses the term "sanctification" to refer to something in the past. This points to our holiness which is complete in Christ.
Hmmm. I agree that we have been made perfect forever (i.e. complete, or whole, in the saving knowledge of Christ - or if you prefer, knowing God in Christ [John 17:3]), but we are also being made holy (Heb 10:14). Is this just the light bulb of Christ in us (specifically His righteousness) becoming more clear in us as our old man dissipates (the soot of the lightbulb cleared away), or do we, in relationship with Christ, also have a righteousness of our own (co-created - BOC) that He gives to us, and that grows (from initial immaturity to maturity?), and which accounts for things like heavenly rewards? Just want to account for all the Biblical and Confessional data here...
J Dean- No I wouldn't liken Osiander to N.T. Wright. Osiander was somewhat close to an Eastern approach to salvation.
Nathan- I think it is possible to speak in both ways regarding the Christian's growth. It is a result of Christ's righteousness becoming more apparent in us. This righteousness does actually become ours and the Christian does actually perform good works, earning heavenly rewards, etc.
First of all, so you know my attitude towards you a bit, I appreciated what you wrote and what you said on Issues ETC. Even referenced you on my blog.
That said, I read Kilcrease's critique as well.
Still not sure quite what you are getting at. Are you saying that part of our justification before God is the righteousness of Christ - both human and divine - that dwells within the man who has faith?
Or would you make a further distinction here?
Have you read this?: http://media.ctsfw.edu/408 Would you say it fits with your view?
The article that you posted is an excellent treatment of the debate with the Finnish school of Luther interpretation. I do essentially agree with Marquart's interpretation of Luther and the Formula of Concord.
The point that I am making is that the righteousness that we receive by which we are justified is identical with the person of Jesus. So long as we have faith, Christ gives himself to us as our righteousness. His indwelling in our hearts through faith assures God's imputation of his righteousness as ours. This is not because Christ's indwelling changes us ontologically so that justification is based upon something within us, but the declaration of justification is solely God's act, God's decision, through the giving of the person of Christ to us who believe.
Very cool. Again, I thank you for your work. I'm glad you wrote your article and I think the point you are making is important. Too many Roman Catholic apologists (and now N.T. Wright also) use that "snow-covered dunghill" line... : )
The only other thing I'd add is that while I know what you are saying about assurance, we don't stop needing that extra nos announcement of Christ's forgiveness continually coming to us - the constant extra nos certainty given to broken sinners.
I think the article in FC is fine. It must however be balanced with Melancthon's teaching in the Apology and Luther's teaching in the Smalcald Articles. It also must be noted that the Formula itself points to Luther's Galatians commentary as a correct explanation of justification. In my reading of the Galatians commentary, Luther holds a view similar to my own.
10 comments:
Jordan,
Thought for you:
Since Christ is our sanctification (I Cor. 1:30) as well, how does this work with what you have said here? Is sanctification just the exact same thing as justification except as regards sanctification we are talking about Christ's righteousness intra nos? Or are we talking about the Christian's actual inchoate righteousness when we are talking about sanctification even as we somehow confess that Christ is indeed our sanctification (i.e. the alpha and omega of it?)
Nathan,
This is a good question. In my reading of Luther, sanctification can be attributed to the alien righteousness of Christ, wherein imputed righteousness makes itself apparent in us through sanctification. The two are not divorced. It is solely the work of God, or "alien", though it can be said to be intra nos because it happens within us.
Scripture at times also uses the term "sanctification" to refer to something in the past. This points to our holiness which is complete in Christ.
So was this Oseander fellow essentially a forerunner to N.T. Wright?
Jordan,
Hmmm. I agree that we have been made perfect forever (i.e. complete, or whole, in the saving knowledge of Christ - or if you prefer, knowing God in Christ [John 17:3]), but we are also being made holy (Heb 10:14). Is this just the light bulb of Christ in us (specifically His righteousness) becoming more clear in us as our old man dissipates (the soot of the lightbulb cleared away), or do we, in relationship with Christ, also have a righteousness of our own (co-created - BOC) that He gives to us, and that grows (from initial immaturity to maturity?), and which accounts for things like heavenly rewards? Just want to account for all the Biblical and Confessional data here...
+Nathan
J Dean- No I wouldn't liken Osiander to N.T. Wright. Osiander was somewhat close to an Eastern approach to salvation.
Nathan- I think it is possible to speak in both ways regarding the Christian's growth. It is a result of Christ's righteousness becoming more apparent in us. This righteousness does actually become ours and the Christian does actually perform good works, earning heavenly rewards, etc.
Jordan,
First of all, so you know my attitude towards you a bit, I appreciated what you wrote and what you said on Issues ETC. Even referenced you on my blog.
That said, I read Kilcrease's critique as well.
Still not sure quite what you are getting at. Are you saying that part of our justification before God is the righteousness of Christ - both human and divine - that dwells within the man who has faith?
Or would you make a further distinction here?
Have you read this?: http://media.ctsfw.edu/408 Would you say it fits with your view?
+Nathan
Nathan,
The article that you posted is an excellent treatment of the debate with the Finnish school of Luther interpretation. I do essentially agree with Marquart's interpretation of Luther and the Formula of Concord.
The point that I am making is that the righteousness that we receive by which we are justified is identical with the person of Jesus. So long as we have faith, Christ gives himself to us as our righteousness. His indwelling in our hearts through faith assures God's imputation of his righteousness as ours. This is not because Christ's indwelling changes us ontologically so that justification is based upon something within us, but the declaration of justification is solely God's act, God's decision, through the giving of the person of Christ to us who believe.
Jordan,
Very cool. Again, I thank you for your work. I'm glad you wrote your article and I think the point you are making is important. Too many Roman Catholic apologists (and now N.T. Wright also) use that "snow-covered dunghill" line... : )
The only other thing I'd add is that while I know what you are saying about assurance, we don't stop needing that extra nos announcement of Christ's forgiveness continually coming to us - the constant extra nos certainty given to broken sinners.
+Nathan
Hi Jordan,
Great video response. Thanks.
Just a question, so does the Formula of Concord article on justification need some tweaking?
Martin Yee
Martin,
I think the article in FC is fine. It must however be balanced with Melancthon's teaching in the Apology and Luther's teaching in the Smalcald Articles. It also must be noted that the Formula itself points to Luther's Galatians commentary as a correct explanation of justification. In my reading of the Galatians commentary, Luther holds a view similar to my own.
Post a Comment