Church Fathers understood sanctification as a growth in justification

Church Fathers understood sanctification as a growth in justification

from a comment found here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/07/st-irenaeus-on-justification/

I understand that Reformed theology distinguishes between justification (defined as a forensic, extra nos imputation) and sanctification. One difficulty for Reformed theology is that this distinction (so defined) cannot be found in the Church Fathers. They, like St. Irenaeus, distinguish between initial justification, and growth in justification. The primary difference between the Reformed conception of justification and the patristic conception of justification is that none of the Church Fathers believed that justification was by an extra nos imputation of an alien righteousness. They believed that in baptism, our soul is washed clean by the infusion of grace and agape. Because they understood the infusion of grace and agape to be justification, and because they believed it is possible to grow in one’s portion or share of grace and agape they believed that sanctification is growth in justification.

(part of comment 6)

next is an interaction quoting statements made and then arguments or clarification on where they are wrong, found here at 150 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/12/justification-catholic-church-and-the-judaizers/

Scott isn’t saying that justification is conceptually identical to adoption. He is saying that justification is nothing less than adoption. The notion that justification is the extra nos imputation of an alien righteousness makes justification less than adoption. But the Catholic doctrine makes adoption intrinsic to justification, because by insertion into the Body of Christ and the infusion of sanctifying grace and agape we become sharers in the divine nature, sons within the Son.

The same is with regard to justification. If justification is simply sanctification, then these two words become absolute synonyms, and there is no other reason than the style of the writer to use both at different times to communicate the same message.

First, the distinction of concept is not the same as a distinction of referent. The fact that the Morning Star is the Evening Star (i.e. Venus) does not mean that there is no reason to use both terms. Different aspects of the same act can correspond to different concepts and thus different terms. The concept of justification picks out being right with God, whereas the concept of sanctification picks out being holy and pure, dedicated to God or being indwelled by God. These two concepts can both refer to different aspects of what takes place in justification, but that does not entail that these are two separate divine acts.

Nowhere does Paul explicitly say that “justification” includes the divine infusion of faith, hope, and love. We must first be aware that such a thing is not needed for the truth itself to be true. Paul does not need to make anyone aware of anything in order for it to be true. However, if we are going to read Paul and make arguments to what he meant when he writes, we must work within the most reasonable parameters which can be logically utilized.

As I pointed out above, here you seem to be presupposing the lexical paradigm, which is not the same as the Catholic paradigm. See “The Tradition and the Lexicon,” linked in the comments above.

Paul, however, does speak explicitly of justification as a direct result of God’s action in the death and resurrection of Christ. I think of the time he says “….who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification” (Rom 4:25) or “now having been justified by His blood” (Rom 5:9) or “being justified through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forth as a sacrifice of atonement” (Rom 3:24) or “He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

All those are fully compatible with the Catholic doctrine.

Now, Paul could have in his own mind that when he makes such grammatical connections between Jesus’ death and the justification of sinners that such justification, by itself, involves the infusion of divine grace (the three virtues), but again nowhere is this explicit, or even hinted.

I beg to differ. This is what he means by the gift of “the righteousness of God” that we receive by faith, that is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). St. Paul never claims that justification is simply having no sin, because that would entail that rocks and trees are justified. Throughout his works he contrasts the righteousness that comes through the law with the righteousness that comes as a gift of God through faith. But in such cases he is not talking merely about the forgiveness that comes through the law vs. the forgiveness that comes through faith. And in the Greek this is clearer, because the same dikaiw root is used for the verb (to justify) and righteousness.

But it is true that when Paul connects the justification of sinners with the death of Jesus’, what is in mind is the eradication of that enmity which existed and killed the fellowship of God and humanity. Essential to this reconciliation is the remission of sin.

The power of the cross is not only that by which our sins are forgiven, but that by which we receive the righteousness of God into our hearts, through the infusion of sanctifying grace and agape. I pointed this out in comment #64, comment #69, comment #76 and comment #78 of the “Holy Church” article.

However, the wording of justification is one which has to do with the effecting of forgiveness and sin-covering.

Yes, but also with making righteous.

Regarding 2 Cor 5:18-21, Ps. 32, Rom 4:6, those are all fully compatible with the Catholic doctrine.

Do you see the very close connection between “righteousness of God” and the “non-imputation of sin”? Paul never comes out and speaks to the fact that this “righteousness of God” is an internal sanctity which God infuses into our souls. Rather this righteousness is directly related to Christ’s sacrificial death whereby he bears our sins in his body on the cross and dies to make satisfaction for us, giving God the way to remit our sin. Righteousness of God then is His gift of divine acquittal, the righteous-status that we as sinners need in order to be brought into a right-relationship with God. Obviously, this gift is only for the penitent, those who have converted themselves to God in repentance, a true turning to holiness.

First, St. Paul does speak of the righteousness of God as something in us, as I have explained above. Second, you seem to think that the cross has only the sin-removal function in Catholic doctrine, whereas, as I have explained in the comments (and links) at the “Holy Church” post, in Catholic doctrine it is by the cross that we also receive the gifts of sanctifying grace and agape, and thus the righteousness of God. Third, your conclusion “Righteousness of God, then is His gift of divine acquittal” does not follow from your premises, because the notion that the righteousness of God is not only the divine acquittal but also having sanctifying grace and agape is fully compatible with those premises.

Bryan Cross asserts that the Church will not flex on the fact that “justification”, particularly representing the way it is used in Paul’s corpus say in the following, “…having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him ” (Rom 5:9), is dealing with the single formal cause of being interiorly sanctified and actually moved to an ontological justice, and the justification act is quantitatively measured exactly by this interior justice. To put it more simply, justification happens when God infuses justice (which is the virtues of faith,hope, and love) into the interior person of the human and it is this justice, which is infused, which causes the person to be made just. There is one outstanding problem with this. There is no direct relationship to a blood-sacrifice. Paul says we are “justified by His blood” (Rom 5:9) and it is most helpful and reasonable, and attested by the Fathers, that this here has to do with the washing away of sin.

Actually, there is, as I pointed out in comment #64, comment #69, comment #76 and comment #78 of the “Holy Church” article.

But the simple fact of the matter is that the most logically robust argument shows that this “justification” has to do with a forensic matter,

I have not yet seen this argument.

Therefore, to assert that justification is the interior infusion of justice does not immediately and automatically imply that this justified person has been forgiven,

No Catholic here, so far as I know, is claiming that justification does not include forgiveness of sins. In fact many times already we have stated that justification includes the forgiveness of sins.

Ah, but this notion of the forgiveness of sin is not implied by the definition given by Catholics itself, because “Just-IF-ication” (being made just) has to do with the interior changing of the person, which does not automatically imply the forgiveness of sin.

The “definition given by Catholics” does entail the forgiveness of sin, because as the Council of Trent explains, the remission of sins is included in justification. You are working with a definition of your own making, rather than with the definition provided by Trent.

One who wishes to maintain the catholic definition of justification as merely being made just (by faith,hope,and love)

Again, this is a straw man of the Catholic doctrine; in comment #142 I quoted from Trent in saying that justification is not only the remission of sins. That does not mean that justification does not include the remission of sins, but that it does include the remission of sins.

This is not the way in which Paul spoke about justification, as I have already said. For Paul, he reads Pslam 32 “Blessed is the man whose transgressions have been forgiven” and he sees implied here the imputation of righteousness without works!

So does the Catholic Church, as I have explained already in our conversation. David’s reconciliation to God, by which he was justified, was not by works, but by living faith, which was a gift of God infused into him.

For the Catholic this verse only refers to the extra additional notion of forgiveness, which has to be logically put alongside their definition of justification which is strictly the process of being made ontologically just with the infusion of faith, hope, and love.

No, that’s a straw man of your own making.

When Paul speaks of justification, this is precisely what he is referring to, the forgiveness of sin.

Again, this is a mere assertion.

And I believe I have shown this well in the Pauline literature.

I know you do, but you have provided only assertions for your thesis that for St. Paul justification is only forgiveness; you have provided no sound argument for that thesis.

But do you see how my understanding does not conflict with the Tridentine emphasis on the need for internal sanctification of the human person and how this is a pre-condition for justification?

If you are claiming that justification is only the remission of sins, then you are directly contradicting Trent 6 chapter 7, as I pointed out in comment #142 above.

;.........end of quote

and here from comment 54 below: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/04/st-paul-on-justification/#comment-49072

“Regeneration (washing),” “sanctification”, and “justification” can be used to refer to the same act because these words specify distinct aspects of that act. The first term specifies the sense in which those who have been changed from their former state (“such were some of you”) have been made new (regeneration) or cleansed (washing). The second term specifies the sense in which those who have changed from their former state have been set apart from sin, and instead reserved for God. The third term specifies the sense in which those who have been changed from their former state have been made righteous, set to rights, “right-wised” by the infusion of charity. (Obviously, justification includes other blessings, as you have rightly noted.)

from  http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2009/02/gospel-and-paradox-of-glory.html  ;

St. Paul uses this instantaneous sense of the term 'sanctified' when he writes, "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor 6:11) He is speaking there of the [instant] sanctification that takes place at the moment of washing (i.e. baptism), and by which we were [instantly] justified. Notice also there that sanctification precedes justification, suggesting that the justification is based on the [instant] sanctification. Similarly, in Romans 8:30 St. Paul writes, "and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." Where is sanctification? How could someone be glorified without being sanctified? Did St. Paul forget to include sanctification? No. St. Paul has included it within justification. These brief considerations show that the Catholic position is at least compatible with the Scriptural data.

from comment 424 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/imputation-and-paradigms-a-reply-to-nicholas-batzig/#comment-50178
[in answer to this question:So if increasing in justification is the same thing as sanctification in Catholicism, couldn’t a lot of mis-understanding in Protestant-Catholic dialogue be cleared up if Catholics said we’re justified, then sanctified, then glorified….Why even have a term called progressive justification, or deny justification by faith alone, if we can just call the middle part of necessary growth ‘sanctification’ instead?

Within a tradition, the meaning of terms is not something inheritors of that tradition get to stipulate. We receive the terms and their meanings, in receiving the tradition. At the same time, we can clarify and distinguish meanings and terms, while remaining faithful to the tradition. And that’s especially important when two traditions are in dialogue, as is the case in Protestant-Catholic dialogue. But as you know, solving a theological disagreement cannot be done merely by semantics, i.e. merely by using the same terms the other tradition uses, but using them in different senses (i..e meanings) than those of the other tradition. In such a case, the disagreement remains under the terms, at the level of their meaning.

So even if Catholics were to limit our use of the term ‘justification’ to what I’ve referred to as ‘justification-as-transfer’ (as distinguished from justification-as-increase), and limit our use of the term ‘sanctification’ to what you referred to as “the middle part” between ‘justification-as-transfer’ and glorification, the Catholic conception of justification would still be a different concept of justification than the Protestant conception of justification. That’s because the Catholic conception of justification is that of infusion, while the Protestant conception is that of imputation. Nor would this semantic move make possible a Catholic affirmation of “justification by faith alone,” because justification-as-translation requires repentance, baptism (or the sacrament of penance), and the infused virtue ofagape, not faith alone.

Moreover, this use of terms would have theological implications. It would imply either that there is no initial sanctification or that the initial sanctification does not fully clean our hearts. In either case, this would imply justification by imputation rather than by infusion. The loss of the term “increase in justice” and “increase of justice” (from Trent 6.10) would likewise imply that sanctification [in the narrower sense] is not an increase of the justice received at baptism. So instead of changing the meanings of the terms, as a way of attempting to help effect Catholic-Protestant reconciliation, I think it is better (even if more difficult) for Protestants and Catholics to learn each other’s languages, so that we can speak each other’s languages. That way we can ‘translate’ between traditions, without misunderstanding.

But, as I said above, we can clarify and distinguish meanings and terms, while remaining faithful to the tradition. That’s why it may be helpful, for example, for us as Catholics to distinguish between on the one hand sanctification in the sense of having (or growing in) sanctifying grace, agape, and the indwelling of the Most Holy Trinity, and, on the other hand sanctification in the sense that concupiscence and acquired vices are gradually overcome and replaced by acquired virtues. If we’re careful to make this distinction, then we allow for the recognition and acknowledgment between Catholics and Protestants of some common ground regarding sanctification, which wouldn’t be the case if we (as Catholics) simply said, “sanctification is justification.”

here is an example http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/11/catholic-view-on-justification-and.html

To Protestants who aren't used to the Catholic view of justification and sanctification, this picture can seem confusing and even contradictory. In hopes of making it clearer, let me use an analogy: God breathed life into Adam when he was just dust.  After having life breathed into him, Adam had to cooperate in maintaining that life by eating.  Adam's not alive because he ate: he's alive because God breathed life into him.  You didn't somehow merit being alive by eating breakfast. But if Adam stops eating, even when he feels the internal call to, he'll eventually die.  So the breath of God is roughly the role that Grace and faith play here, while eating is roughly the role that the expression of faith through love ("good works") takes.  Breath precedes eating, and is necessary for it to be of any worth.  But once we've come from dust to life in Christ (once He's breathed His life into us, so to speak), we're not to reject that internal call to charity, and if we do, it's damnable: our faith dies, and we die with it.  That's how we can simultaneously affirm that Adam's life came from the breath of God, and not anything he did, whether eating, or any other thing (cf. Romans 3:28); and at the same time affirm that if Adam doesn't eat, he'll be dead (cf. James 2:26).

from comment 217 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/12/rome-geneva-and-the-incarnations-native-soil/

Regarding the teaching on Justification, and specifically St. Paul’s use of the terms “Justification” & “Salvation,”the Catholic Church recognizes a distinction between the past, present and future tenses of these terms utilized within Scripture such as:

Past Event-
Rom 8:24a – “For we were saved in this hope…” NKJV
2 Tim 1:9 – “who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,” NKJV
Tit 3:5 – “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,” NKJV

Present process, as in Sanctification-
Phil 2:12 – “…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” NKJV

And a future event-
Mt 10:22b – “But he who endures to the end will be saved.” NKJV
Mk 8:35b – “but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it.” NKJV
Rom 13:11 – “for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed.” NKJV
1 Pet 1:9 – “ receiving the end of your faith—the salvation of your souls.” NKJV

The Catholic Church has rightly condemned the heresy of Pelagianism, the belief that a person can come to God, on our own, without God’s grace first empowering us: and that our works, without first being made possible through Agape, can be meritorious or pleasing to God. The Catholic Church has recognized that, for instance, in Ephesians 2:8-9; 2 Tim 1:9 &Titus 3:5, Paul is speaking of our initial Justification. The Catholic Church does not create a false dichotomy between faith and works, but recognizes that after our initial Justification, when God’s free gift of grace has called us out of darkness to be adopted as sons and daughters, a perfect synergy between faith and works must exist, as any relationship requires cooperation and participation to be fruitful. Clearly the works God created us to accomplish (Eph 2:10), and Christ empowers us to perform (Gal 2:20; Phil 4:13), become the way that we cooperate in this relationship as children of God. It’s interesting that in almost every verse dealing with the final judgment, Scripture speaks of people being rewarded for what we have done.

Jn 5:28-29 “Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation..” NKJV

Rom 2:6-7 “who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;” NKJV

Gal 5:6 “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.” NKJV

1 Pet 1:17 “And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear;” NKJV

Rev 20:12-13 “And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.” NKJV

It sure seems reasonable to me to believe that, once we have entered into a relationship with God, our works/deeds, empowered through Agape, play a vital role in both maintaining our relationship with Him, and affecting our salvation in the sense that those whose faith does not work through love will not be saved.

Matt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” NKJV

Matt 25:41-46 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ 44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” NKJV

I hope you can appreciate that within your IP, the Catholic Church has as much ground to stand on as you, for a claim to the correct interpretation of Scripture. But, the Catholic Church does not hold to Sola Scriptura so it might be helpful, in the interest of productive dialogue, for you to go back and read the articles these gentlemen have written explaining the Catholic Interpretive Paradigm and why the CIP is more reasonable to hold than the PIP.

Again, I apologize for straying from the topic at hand and also for not being able to say this in less words.

from comment   8         here    http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/05/trent-and-the-gospel-a-reply-to-tim-challies/      

concerning Trent Canon Canon 24. on justification
If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works,[125] but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema.

Below is the quote from the comment:

But are you able to tell me which scripture passages do support Trent 6 Canon 24?

Your question presupposes the Protestant idea that every doctrine must be deducible from some prooftexts. In the Catholic paradigm, the Apostolic deposit is composed of Scripture and Tradition together. (See my explanation in VIII. Scripture and Tradition in my reply to Michael Horton’s last comment in our Modern Reformation interview.

The increase in justification, in Catholic doctrine, is similar (though different in other respects) to what Protestants conceive of as progressive sanctification, because in Catholic doctrine there is no change in justification that is not also at the same time and to the same degree a corresponding change in sanctification. One cannot be just and be unholy at the same time, because God is Truth. (I have addressed the problem of “legal fiction” previously in comments #108, #114, #157, and #159 of the “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?” post, in comment #39 of the “Imputation and Infusion: A Reply to R.C. Sproul Jr.” post, in comment #146 of “From Calvin to the Barque of Peter: A Reformed Seminarian becomes Catholic” post, and in comment #219 of the “Imputation and Paradigms” post.)

In Romans 6, St. Paul begins by asking about the increase of grace, whether it is through continuing to sin. And his answer is ‘no.’ By our union with Christ we are to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4), alive to God in Christ Jesus (Rom 6:11). Then he says,

and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness [ὅπλα ἀδικίας] but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness [ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης] to God. (Rom 6:13)

In the Catholic paradigm this increase in righteousness [δικαιοσύνης] is an increase in justification because it is a growth in agape, which is righteousness. To be an instrument of righteousness is to be an instrument of the increase in justification. Just as in our former state the members of our bodies were instruments for making us increase in unrighteousness, so by grace and in a state of grace and justification our members become instruments by which we grow in righteousness, and therefore grow in justification. That’s why he goes on to say:

Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness [εἰς δικαιοσύνην]? (Rom 6:16)

Obedience “resulting in righteousness” is obedience that results in justification. He is not here talking about initial justification. In the context, he is talking about growing in righteousness in our daily lives, i.e. increasing in justification, because he is contrasting it with continuing to live in sin. One way this growth in righteousness takes place is through our obedience, for he says:

But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification [δοῦλα τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ εἰς ἁγιασμόν]. (Rom 6:17-19)

Becoming obedient from the heart, and slaves of righteousness, and presenting the members of our bodies as slaves to righteousness, results in sanctification. It results in a growth or increase in holiness and righteousness, and thus an increase by grace in the righteousness we have received, through a greater participation in agape.

Elsewhere St. Paul speaks of cleansing ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (2 Cor 7:1) Perfecting holiness involves an increase in righteousness (i.e.agape), and thus an increase in justification. (On the relation of agape and justification see “Imputation and Paradigms” and the discussion following it.) And since St. Paul is saying that we are to do this, and because in the Catholic paradigm growth in sanctification is growth in righteousness and justification, it follows that we are to participate in increasing our justification.

And this increase in justification (or growth in righteousness) is what St. James is speaking of in James 2, when he writes:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. (James 2:21-26)

This is not initial justification, again, because that would be Pelagianism, and because Abraham was already in a state of grace, as I have shown in the second half of comment #140 of the “Imputation and Paradigms” thread. Nor is it final justification, because James speaks of it in the past tense, as something that occurred at the moment Abraham (and Rahab) acted. Rather, James is talking about growing in righteousness, i.e. growing in justification. A true faith, i.e. a living faith, is perfected through good works done in grace, because through these good works the agent grows in righteousness, i.e. in justification.

You asked:

Also how is the concept of ‘increase in justification’ different from “growing in sanctification” – a common term used by Protestants? Is it only a matter of semantics or is there a real conceptual difference?

I addressed this in my second paragraph of comment #150 in the “Justification: The Catholic Church and the Judaizers in St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians” post.