New/Old Perspective on Justification 6

It used to be that in discussing justification there were two discussion partners: the Roman Catholic view and the Protestant view. The former connected forensic declaration with transformation and the latter more or less made justification forensic, leaving transformation for sanctification. While there were always nuances, it is not unfair to simplify the options in those days to two. We are looking at James Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy’s new book, Justification: Five Views.

Then along came the New Perspective and we had a third partner. Now comes a fourth: the Finnish Lutherans have complicated justification by tying it to the Eastern view of theosis and union with Christ, making union the grounding reality so much that one can say they’ve created a genuine fourth alternative. In the book we are examining, Justification: Five Views,  this Finnish Lutheran, established by Tuomo Mannermaa, view is explained by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen. [Point of clarification:  this book distinguishes two Protestant views, the traditional Reformed and the progressive Reformed. Point of interest: these Fins have some cool names.]

Have you heard of the Finnish Lutheran school? What happens to justification when it is rooted in union with Christ? Do you think the Reformers separated justification too much from transformation/sanctification?

Some highlights: this deification view results from the ecumenical discussion of Lutherans with Catholics and the Orthodox. This view contends some things about Luther, like too radical of a difference between forensic and transformation, have been overcooked in Lutheranism but were not by Luther himself. They contend Luther’s emphasis was the real presence of Christ in the believer, and this creates space for theosis and makes justification more than the forensic.

I have to insert here that I would like to have seen Veli-Matti define “theosis” more closely because it seems too much like “union with Christ” and not enough sacramental and not enough ontological transformation in an Eastern sense.  These ideas come up but I’d like to have seen more delineation of what the Orthodox mean.

A major idea here is that justification in this Finnish school is both forensic and transformative, but this brings in the renewed (and oft ignored) presence of the Spirit in this school of thought. Union and Spirit and justification get connected, and that means justification is reconfigured. In addition, Kärkkäinen sees this theosis  factor creating more space for ecclesiology (communal) and the cosmic. Justification, then, is one metaphor but not the whole of soteriology.