Opravičenje-posvečenje

Synopsis
The reformation brought different understanding of justification and sanctification from the traditional Roman Catholic theology. With justification understood to be declarative and imputed in nature and sanctification being more and more seen in the same light rather than in merely moralistic and progressive terms. The nature of the relationship between justification and sanctification is therefore such that they are distinct but inseparable as they are both achieved by Christ for us and are received by the believer at the same time by faith. Such relationship eliminates the steps in salvation, interchangibility of the terms and the cause-effect view. Consequences of misunderstanding the relationship are primarily soteriological but also eschatological. Assurance of salvation thus comes under the responsibility of men and the eschatological outcome is not certain. This is seen mainly in the Roman Catholic teaching on the subject as it also influenced some of the modern Christian thought.

***
New developments in understanding the relationship between justification and sanctification were made during the reformation era. Definitions were drawn on both sides, usually in the opposite directions. Here are two examples:

"This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend..." (Council of Trent 6th session, ch. 7)

"Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him...Though we distinguish between them, they are both inseparably comprehended in Christ." (Calvin Institutes III, XVI, 1)

The first example makes sanctification (understood in moral sense) as a subset of justification where as the second puts justification and sanctification side-by-side, almost parallel and centred on Christ. As we continue we will try to untangle the meanings and relationship between these two terms and identify some consequences, drawing examples mainly from the Roman Catholic church’s[1] understanding.

In most literature justification is debated separately from sanctification with much more emphasis on the former. Writers tend not to draw a direct relationship between justification and sanctification unless they see sanctification merely as moral goodness. Besides this, the understanding of justification and even sanctification in literature has been so diverse and opposed to each other that we need to provide a basic definition of both terms along with some historical development of their understanding. So we will start with a definition and some historical understanding, before we continue to discuss the relationship between these two. The consequences of misunderstanding will be discussed in the last part of our essay.

Definitions
Both Roman Catholic and Reformed theology uses the term "justification" for explaining the status of sinful humankind before a just God. It has mainly been explained with juridical and forensic connotations.[2] The word "justification" is commonly taken as the translation and understanding of the dikaioVw word in Greek, LXX and NT.[3] It deals with the question, "How can I be right with God?"[4] The basic meaning of justification would be the declaration of God that the individual is not guilty, and therefore not liable to punishment. However there is a great controversy between Roman Catholic and Reformed thought about the nature and grounds of justification, which will be discussed in our next section on historical understanding of justification.[5]

Sanctification is a translation of the a&gia"- word group and is at the same time also translated as "to make holy, consecrate, dedicate, set apart" and can refer to both objects and persons.[6] It is also described with the adjective a&gio". There are usually two ways of describing sanctification in theology. One refers to the state of being holy, set apart (e.g. for God), belonging to (e.g. Christ) or dedicated to a particular purpose of God. The other refers to moral goodness of an individual. This latter view also gradually came to predominate.[7] In Roman Catholic theology the term is used solely in this second sense and is never discussed apart from justification. Again there is a great controversy between Roman Catholic and Reformed understanding of the two senses of sanctification as it is also among Reformed streams of thought.[8]

Historical Relationship between justification and sanctification
It is sufficient for our purposes to look into the council of Trent to see the RC understanding of justification because the council was convened in response to issues raised by the Reformation period and their conclusions are still valid today since neither Vatican I nor Vatican II debated the doctrines of justification and sanctification.[9] Crossan points out that "Any declaration of justification that does not conform to inner reality is sinful and must never be done by a human judge, as of course it is never done by the divine Judge.”[10] The dilemma is obvious and we will see next how the RC church sought to resolve it.
RC understanding of justification follows Augustine's view that the sinner is actually made righteous in justification. Toon claims that Augustine briefly considered the possibility that "to justify" means "to pronounce righteous", but he rejected that possibility.[11] Furthermore Augustine held that justification is the initial event and process throughout life.[12] Trent affirmed this position in its sixth session. Chapter V describes the beginning of justification in adults which proceeds from the predisposing grace, which is also called "helping grace" in order that they might convert themselves to their own justification by cooperating with that grace.[13] Chapter VII reaches the highpoint of their understanding of the relationship of justification and sanctification as it states: "This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gift whereby an unjust man becomes just."[14] The amount of justification received depends on the Holy Spirit and the disposition and cooperation of the individual.[15] In other words, the more one lives righteously the more he is justified.[16] By justification we are sanctified and by being more sanctified we are more justified, while at the same time the initial justification needs the preparation and cooperation of the person as well.[17] But that is not the end. According to Trent the person may loose justification and again obtain it. Chapter XIV says that "Those who through sin have forfeited the received grace of justification, can again be justified when, moved by God, they exert themselves to obtain through the sacrament of penance the recovery, by the merits of Christ, of the grace lost...For on behalf of those who fall into sin after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of penance..."[18] All this shows that justification is imparted, that justification is dependent of sanctification and that sanctification is a subset of justification. The relationship between justification and sanctification is therefore interdependent in RC theology. The consequences of such understanding of the relationship between justification and sanctification will be discussed in our final part of the essay.

Martin Luther was the first one to deviate from this view. But as Luther started as a RC, it is not surprising that his view of justification in his early years was not much different. He tended to understand justification as a process of "becoming" as McGrath points out.[19] But later, perhaps under the influence of Melanchthon, he came to regard justification as an event, which was complemented by the distinct process of regeneration (i.e. sanctification) and interior renewal through the action of the Holy Spirit.[20] Luther was of course quite clear that the righteousness was external and never belonged personally to the sinner but to Jesus Christ.[21] This is developed in Luther's idea of every Christian being simultaneously sinful and just and he remains sinful until he receives a new body. Toon concludes that Luther had no doctrine of growth in sanctification even though he regarded justification as including daily renewal of the new nature.[22] Though Luther himself may dispute this as he said "For we perceive that a man who is justified is not yet a righteous man, but is in the very movement or journey toward righteousness."[23] The difference then between Luther and RC doctrine is the nature of justification and that grace and sin are not exclusive or contradictory so there is no absurdity in Christian being simultaneously just and sinful (simul Justus et peccator).[24]
Thus Luther made no conceptual distinction between justification and sanctification as justification included regeneration and renewal.[25] This might be confusing compared to the RC position, however in practice it meant that the works of regeneration are the proof of faith and therefore of justification. As Luther said, "I say, therefore, that works justify, that is they show that we have been justified [...] for the works indicate weather I have faith [...] In God's eyes that distinction is not necessary, for he is not deceived by hypocrisy. But it is necessary among men, so that they may correctly understand where faith is and where it is not."[26]

The one who did distinguish justification and sanctification even more than Luther was Calvin. Referring to 1 Cor. 1:30 Calvin said "Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him."[27] Thus for Calvin justification and sanctification are two distinguishable concepts but which are not received separately. He refutes the high value of our works that the RC church wants to maintain. We join Calvin's view that even if we were able to preform absolutely pure works yet one sin is sufficient to extinguish all remembrance of former righteousness (Ezekiel 18:24, James 2:10, Galatians 3:10).[28] The works are therefore the result of sanctification or as Calvin calls them "the fruits of regeneration"[29] and as they are God's gift they are not the cause of either justification or sanctification but rather proof of it.[30]
Calvin explains that Bible passages which suggest good works as a cause of salvation should be read in the light of the administration of the salvation where good works are the means of the only cause, which is God's call (Rom 8:30).[31] Thus justification and sanctification are both the declaration of God, on the one hand that a sinner is righteous on account of Christ's propitiory work because he is in Christ by faith and on the other hand that the sinner is declared holy because he is in Christ by faith (on sanctification Jn 17:17,19; 1 Cor. 1:1, 6:11; Eph 5:26; 2 Thes 2:13; Heb 2:11, 10:10). The seemingly progressive element of sanctification is because works of righteousness are not done to become more sanctified but are done because we are sanctified (Rev 22:11). White is right in saying that justification and sanctification are not separate in time as seen in 1 Corinthians 6:11 but why then does he speaks of sanctification as merely progressive?[32] Hoekema starts to explain very well when he looks at the OT meaning of being holy and he concludes: "What is conveyed by the word qādosh, therefore, is that God's people are to be set apart for God's service and that they should avoid whatever is displeasing to him."[33] This was done by God through faith even in NT (Eph 5:25-26; Acts 26:18).[34] But Hoekema suddenly changes to progressive sanctification when he expounds Rom 6:1-6 and concludes that "Sanctification, therefore, must be understood as dying to sin in Christ and with Christ."[35] Note the progressive sense of the word "dying." Still further, he goes on to introduce, we believe without reason, the sanctification as the image of God.[36] This allows him to connect all Biblical references, which speak of the change of a Christian to the likeness of God, as progressive sanctification. Thus sanctification, according to Hoekema, becomes strictly the matter of moral character. In this way older Christians should be less sinful (more like Christ) as the result of progressive sanctification. We are not saying that there is no place for moral improvement as Luther said "No one is so good that he does not become better, and no one is so evil that he does not become worse, until at last we come to our final state."[37] So at the end it seems that the progressive sanctification that Hoekema proposes looks similar to the division of Christians to "carnal" and "spiritual" and the possibility of order of salvation that he rightly rejects at the beginning of his book.[38] So Hoekema's definitive sanctification is slightly different to ours.[39]

Therefore the relationship between justification and sanctification is of such nature that first, they are inseparable because they are both secured on the cross once and for all for the benefit of those who are in Christ. Second, they don't occur in temporal order.[40] Third, they are not interchangeable, that is, justification is not sanctification and sanctification is not justification.[41] Fourth, one is not the consequence and thereby proof of the other.[42] And fifth, as they belong indissolubly together they call the Christian to live according to his new nature "be what you are" and not "be what you will become" (2. Cor 5:17). Peterson puts it rightly when he says: "we are to live out that consecrated relationship in terms of practical holiness."[43]

Consequences of misunderstanding
The consequences of misunderstanding the relationship between justification and sanctification in modern Christian though are really the variants of RC theology expressed in various streams of Christian thought. We will discuss the consequences of misunderstanding the relationship identified in the previous paragraph.
First, if we separate justification and sanctification then the consequences are either assigning them to different source (e.g. justification to God's activity and sanctification as our activity) or make one the consequence of the other. Those who hold such a view understand sanctification in purely moralistic terms. That is, it is seen as the order of salvation commonly found in Pentecostal theology of which Wesley has been a key forerunner. He was, as Pentecostals usually are, concerned with what is happening with the believer now, what is he doing now (namely sanctify himself) rather than simply claiming the status of being justified, as that was only the initiation into Christian life.[44] Hoekema helpfully shows us how series of successive experiences as the way of salvation is wrong.[45] Such separation of the terms puts them into a kind of temporal order and as one – sanctification, being the consequence of the other – justification. In practice this means that our sanctification – our moral works, prove that we have been justified. The problem with this is how much work is needed to prove this and who will discern it? The solution to the problem is found, as it always is in matters of human morality, by lowering the standards of morality.[46] The consequence of this is thus the constant meditation on the sanctification as a moral renewal to keep up the assurance of justification. It also shifts the focus from the gospel and tends to see it only important and significant as the entry point into Christianity. The achievement of Christ is not taken seriously enough since it deduces sanctification from his accomplishment (Heb 10:10).[47] The assurance of our salvation is diminished as we will demonstrate that again and again.

Second, if in the relationship between justification and sanctification the latter is the subset of the former then soteriology also suffers as faith in Jesus Christ merges into obedience.[48] We have already seen this in the statement on justification in the council of Trent. The result is that the increase of sanctification causes the increase of justification as faith cooperates with good works.[49] In other words, it is a circle feeding on itself with the aid of sacraments.[50] The consequence of such view, as Catholic scholars see them, is the insistence of moral theology and pastoral practice on sacramental life.[51] The doctrine of sacraments is another topic that we won't go into but such theology gives our works and capabilities much more merit that they deserve. Even if we were able to preform, as God wanted, we could only say that we have only done our duty (Lk 17:10).[52] And again this causes absolute no assurance of salvation as all is in progress and depends on the cooperation of the individual.
Pastorally less troubling consequence is the understanding of eschatology. Luther's eschatology is dialectical (neither realized eschatology nor futurist eschatology) on the basis of his claim that a Christian is both just and sinful at the same time.[53] Thus in Luther the outcome of the final judgement is already known due to the cross.[54] On the contrary, the RC understanding of the relationship between justification and sanctification makes the final status of a person unresolved since it changes all the time.[55] Thus it is a matter of arrogance for a RC Christian to claim to know the outcome of the final judgment. Furthermore they believe that the sanctification process continues even after death while the soul of the deceased is in purgatory where, by the prayers and merits of people still alive, can gain access into heaven. Ideally RC eschatology is fully realised as a person is made righteous and lives out that imparted righteousness (is being sanctified). In this way he progresses to achieve righteousness, which Protestants claim to posses only in the new creation. Actually RC claim there are only a few such people attaining perfect sanctification who throughout history have been called “saints”. But practically we experience people as sinful and so they need to undergo the sacramental system for the remission of sins and therefore realised eschatology is far from the reach and one never knows the outcome only hoping for the best.

Conclusion
We have seen the stark contrast of the relationship between justification and sanctification as understood by RC and reformed theology. On one hand, the RC church claims that sanctification is the subset of justification where both are reoccurring process of mere declarative nature. On the other hand, reformed understanding claims that justification and sanctification are two distinct themes but they also belong indissolubly together because they are results of the cross at the same time thus eliminating the temporal sequence between them. They are also understood as being declarative in nature where righteousness is imputed and sanctification does not have degrees of being more or less sanctified.
We have also examined the consequence of misunderstanding the relationship observed mainly in RC theology some elements of Pentecostal theology are of the same nature and therefore also have the same consequences. We have seen that the most important consequence of misunderstanding this relationship is the soteriology being handed into man's hands, which results in the lack of assurance of his salvation. We saw that the same occurs in the RC understanding as also in the Pentecostal understanding of the order of salvation. Furthermore another consequence reaches also into the understanding of eschatology where the RC understanding operates on realised eschatology while not being certain about the future eschatology regarding salvation.

Bibliography of Sources Cited
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Vol IV, part 2. Edited by Bromiley G. W. and Torrance T. F. Translated by Bromiley G. W. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958.

Cobb, John B. Grace and Responsibility: A Wesleyan Theology for Today. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995.

Crossan, D. M and Tavard G. H. 'Justification'. Pages 75-80 in Vol. 8, 2nd ed. of the New Catholic Encyclopedia. Edited by Berard L. Marthaler. Michigan: Gale, 2003.

Doyle, Robert C. Eschatology and the Shape of Christian Belief. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999. Repr. 2002.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Michigan: Baker books, 1988.

Hoekema, Anthony A. Saved by Grace. Grand Rapids/Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster press, 1994.

Jensen, Peter. 'Tending the flock: the pastoral implications of justification by faith' in Justification and Christian Assurance. (ed. Gibson R. J.; Adelaide: Openbook publishers, 1996.

McGrath, Alister E. Reformation Thought, An Introduction. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1999.

Packer, J. I. 'Justification'. Pages 593-7 in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1984.

Peterson, David. Engaging with God. Leicester: Apollos, 1992.

Toon, Peter. Justification and Sanctification. Illinois: Crossway Books, 1983.

White, R. E. O. 'Sanctification'. Pages 969-71 in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1984.

Wright, David F. and Sinclair, Ferguson B. 'Justification'. New Dictionary of Theology in The Essential IVP Reference Collection on CD-ROM. Logos Library System Version 2.1g. 1995-1999. Print. ed.: Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright, ed. New Dictionary of Theology. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity 1988.

Primary sources
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge 1 vol. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989 [1559].

Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Translated by Schroeder H. J. Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, 1978 [1547].

Luther, Martin. ‘The Disputation Concerning Justification’ in Luther’s Works (American Edition), Volume 34. Edited by Franklin Sherman. Translated by Lewis W. Spitz. 55 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.

_____. 'Lectures on Romans' in Luther’s Works (American Edition), Volume 25. Edited by Hilton C. Oswald. Translated by Jacob A. O. Preus. Saint Louis: Concordia, 1972.

Endnotes
[1] This term will be shortened as RC from now on.
[2] Crossan, D. M. and Tavard G. H., 'Justification', NCE 8:76, David Wright, 'Justification', New Dictionary of Theology in The Essential IVP Reference Collection on CD-ROM. Logos Library System Version 2.1g. 1995-1999, n.p., John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion Book III. (trans. Henry Beveridge; 1 vol.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989 [1559]), 37-38, Packer, 'Justification', EDT, 593-4, Millard Erickson J, Christian Theology (Michigan: Baker Books, 1988), 954-5.
[3] Packer, 'Justification', EDT, 593, Crossan and Tavard, 'Justification', 8: 76.
[4] Millard, Christian Theology, 955.
[5] There is also a controversy over justification in Reformed understandings but much smaller. We will mention it in our next section on justification.
[6] White R. E. O., 'Sanctification', EDT, 969.
[7] Millard, Christian Theology, 968.
[8] This time, the controversy in Reformed understandings is greater than before.
[9] Crossan and Tavard, 'Justification', 8: 90. Also see Canon 33 of the Council of Trent, VI.
[10] Crossan and Tavard, 'Justification', 8: 77.
[11] Peter Toon, Justification and Sanctification (Illinois: Crossway Books, 1983), 48.
[12] Toon, Justification, 48.
[13] Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (Trans. Schroeder H. J. Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, 1978 [1547]), 31-2.
[14] Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 33.
[15] Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 33.
[16] Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 36. This increase of justification through works is thoroughly described in Chapter X.
[17] Except in the case of an infants where they receive the infusion of sanctifying grace at baptism.
[18] Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 39.
[19] Alister McGrath E., Reformation Thouight, An Introduction (3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1999), 126. That was in years 1515-19.
[20] McGrath, Reformation, 126. That was in years around 1530.
[21] Martin Luther, ‘The Disputation Concerning Justification’ in Luther’s Works (American Edition), Volume 34 (ed. Franklin Sherman; trans. Lewis W. Spitz; 55 vols; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 153.
[22] Toon, Justification, 59.
[23] Luther, 'Justification', 152.
[24] Toon, Justification, 61.
[25] Toon, Justification, 63.
[26] Luther, 'Justification', 161.
[27] Calvin, Institutes Book III, 99.
[28] Calvin, Institutes Book III, 80.
[29] Calvin, Institutes Book III, 87.
[30] Calvin, Institutes Book III, 86-7.
[31] Calvin, Institutes Book III, 88.
[32] White R. E. O., 'Sanctification', 970.
[33] Anthony Hoekema A, saved by Grace (Grand Rapids/Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster press, 1994), 193.
[34] Hoekema, By Grace, 194-6.
[35] Hoekema, By Grace 194.
[36] Hoekema, By Grace, 197.
[37] Martin Luther, 'Lectures on Romans' in Luther’s Works (American Edition), Volume 25 (ed. Hilton C. Oswald; trans. Jacob A. O. Preus; Saint Louis: Concordia, 1972), 435.
[38] Hoekema, By Grace, 14-27.
[39] Hoekema says that definitive sanctification means that the work of the Holy Spirit causes us to die to sin, to be raised with Christ, and to be made new creatures and is the beginning of the process. Hoekema, By Grace, 208.
[40] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatic (Vol IV part 2; eds. Bromiley G. W. and Torrance T. F.; trans. Bromiley G. W.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958), 501-3, 507.
[41] Barth, Church Dogmatics, 505.
[42] Luther thought that sanctification is the proof of justification.
[43] David Peterson, Engaging with God (Leicester: Apollos, 1992), 177.
[44] John Cobb B., Grace and Responsibility: A Wesleyan Theology for Today (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 100.
[45] Hoekema, By Grace, 16-17. He points the false understanding of the salvation as a series of regeneration, conversion, justification, sanctification, perseverance.
[46] Peter, Jensen, 'Tending the flock: the pastoral implications of justification by faith' in Justification and Christian Assurance (ed. Gibson R. J.; Adelaide: Openbook publishers, 1996), 126.
[47] Or as Barth puts it "But it (the action of God) [sic]accomplishes the two together. The one is done wholly and immediately with the other", Barth, Church Dogmatics, 502.
[48] Barth, Church Dogmatics, 504.
[49] Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 36.
[50] If death breaks the circle at the point when a person is in a state of having venial sin, the person ends in purgatory.
[51] Crossan and Tavard, 'Justification', 8: 90.
[52] Jensen, 'Tending the flock', 123.
[53] Robert Doyle C., Eschatology and the Shape of Christian Belief (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999. Repr. 2002), 165.
[54] Doyle, Eschatology, 166.
[55] As he commits sin, falls from grace of justification, undergoes the sacraments and is justified again. Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 39.