Faith Alone?

To all:

Christians tend to confuse the 1st aspect of salvation by Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:3-5, Titus 3:5 with the secondary aspect of salvation told to us in 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14. The first aspect of salvation is without works because it is based upon being saved by God’s grace, mercy, and by believing the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. But the 2nd aspect of salvation is the Sanctification of the Spirit (i.e. living Holy by God working through the believer), and a belief of the truth (i.e. a continuance in learning and believing God’s Word and it’s doctrines). This secondary aspect of salvation is a call of the gospel (not that it is the gospel) (See again: 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14).

Many Christians try to back end holy living on some level into their Belief Alone-ism Salvation Plan so as not to appear to justify sin. They say a believer will be changed and will not justify sin and they will live correctly because they are changed. They say any believer who lives in excess of sin is not saved. But this is just another way of saying that holy living is a part of the salvation equation. Yet, they will not admit that. Why? Well, it is possible that some of them may believe they can sin and still be saved on a smaller level. Meaning, this: Many Belief Alone Proponents have told me that the prodigal son was still a son and saved while he was living it up with prostitutes. So how often can we go prodigal and live in sin and think we are saved? That is the problem I have with Belief Alone-ism. It sets up an inconsistent belief system and it ultimately justifies sin. For if you tell a child that they are saved by a belief alone in Jesus and it is nothing in that they do and you never see them again, they can grow up and turn out to be the next George Sodini or Kenneth Nally (based upon such words). Check out this article here to learn more about them.

O.S.A.S. – THE WATCHMAN'S CRY

fhansen said:

Nah-you just you don't wish to find them.

Click to expand...

Request denied again. . .hmmm. . .

bobk said:

What does faith alone mean to you? Seems like there’s a lot of confusion on the subject. If you answer an altar call and have faith in Jesus, will you be saved? Or is it more than that?

Click to expand...

Sola Fide, or "Faith Alone" is one of the basic principles of the Protestant Reformation. But it only really makes sense in the context of the Reformation and what the Reformation was saying/doing.

Since the Reformation is frequently misunderstood by both Protestants and Catholics, and since many modern Protestants do continue to use the language of the Reformation (but uses it improperly and wrongly), this only feeds into continued misunderstanding about what the Reformation was about.

Without taking a deep dive into that, and instead to address what Sola Fide means, objectively, in its historical, theological, and biblical context, I offer the following:

Faith Alone only means something in conjunction with Grace Alone and Christ Alone. Namely the doctrine of Justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone.

Let's break that down:

Christ Alone -- It is only the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ that renders us right--aka just--before God. Christ by His perfect obedience, even His obedience to the death on the cross, and the full merit of Christ's righteous life and work. Namely this: By the one Man's obedience all have been justified (Romans 5:18), just as by the one man's (Adam) disobedience came death and sin.

Grace Alone -- We could not benefit of what Christ has done unless it is given to us, and so God who is rich in mercy gives us the fullness of Christ's work as pure grace--as gift. And so it is God who takes the once-and-finished work of Jesus for all, and then makes it our own individually, as pure grace.

Faith Alone -- It is through faith, which is itself the work and gift of God (faith is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, see Ephesians 2:8), that God appropriates to us the perfect and finished work of Jesus. That is, God imputes Christ's righteousness to us, by grace, through faith; and thus we are reckoned righteous--justified--before God on Christ's account.

That is Justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on Christ's account alone.

What this means is that our works don't merit anything for our justification. Not anything at all. No human work can aid us in our salvation. We can't come to God, we don't come to God, because we are sinners. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." "There is no one righteous, not even one" "There is no one who seeks after God".

The popular modern practice in some churches of having an "altar call" is an innovative practice that originated from the "New Measures" of Charles Finney in the 1800's. Finney became convinced that true conversion could only occur by employing new techniques to invoke the right kinds of emotional responses from people, and as such invented what he called "the anxious bench". Eventually the anxious bench was rebranded as altar call, but the basic false theology that underpinned Finney's revivals is still retained in many churches.

The false theology underpinning the "altar call" is a confluence of several kinds of false teaching: Pietism, Enthusiasm, and Decisionism.

Pietism: The belief that the Christian life is supposed to be marked by piety and pious living; or more specifically that if one is "truly saved" they will grow upward in holiness, piety, etc. And if we are not exhibiting these things, then something is probably wrong with our "relationship with God", and we need to "get right" with God. Thereby destroying the entire distinction between Law and Gospel, and denying that our Justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, on Christ's account alone.

Enthusiasm: From the ancient Greek word enthousiasmos, meaning "to be inspired or possessed by a god". Specifically, Enthusiasm is the belief that the individual can have an unmediated experience of God. The Enthusiast, therefore, speaks of God "talking" to them, or speaking directly to their heart, etc. Enthusiasm is the false doctrine that we can know and experience God apart from what God Himself has done and given: Namely Jesus Christ, God's word, and the Sacraments. To understand how serious this was for the Reformers, Luther argued that "anything that claims to be the Spirit, apart from God's Word and Sacraments, is the devil". That God's ordered Means of Word and Sacrament are THE Means of God's grace. We hear God in His word, not in our hearts, not as a voice in our heads: but in His word. In the Scriptures, in the preaching of the Gospel, in Baptism, in the Lord's Supper.

Decisionism: The false doctrine that salvation is accomplished by the human act of personal decision and will. This denies the efficacy of the word of God, and instead argues that it is up to us sinners to get right with God by following some process, or some set of steps in a particular order. Decisionism says that God does not save us by His grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone, and that God accomplishes this by Himself through His own ordered Means of Word and Sacrament; but that we have to prime people emotionally and mentally to make some kind of "decision" for Jesus.

Whoever has faith in Jesus is justified. Period.

The baptized infant? Justified.
You receiving the bread and wine of the Eucharist? Justified.
Hearing God's word that you are forgiven of all your sins? Justified.

God justifies us. We don't justify ourselves.
God justifies us by justifying us--He actually does that. Objectively all are justified once and for all by the perfect work of Christ; but we cannot benefit unless Christ's work is appropriated to us. An inheritance that I do not know cannot benefit me, a promise that I am unaware of, can't help me. That is why the Apostle says in Romans 10, "How can they believe on Him whom they have not heard, and how can they hear unless one is sent to preach?" and then saying, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ".

Faith is not from us, but from God; it is the work and gift of God by His own effectual word.
Thus it is the word that creates and works faith in us. And we can be confident of this, because God Himself promises that His word never returns to Him null and void, but accomplishes what He sets it out to accomplish (Isaiah 55:11).

So, after all this, is the person who goes up to the altar call saved? Yes, but not because of the altar call, and not because they went forward. The altar call accomplishes nothing, walking forward to "make a decision for Jesus" accomplishes nothing.

Jesus Christ, who suffered and died, accomplished EVERYTHING.
And it is ours, freely, as pure gift, through God's Word and Sacrament. In other words: Grace.
God makes it ours through faith, which again, is His work, His gift, His grace in action.

The naked sinner has nothing. Not even a "yes" to give God that could merit any kind of righteousness.

It is only God's yes to us, in Jesus Christ, that justifies and saves us.

-CryptoLutheran

Clare73 said:

Request denied again. . .hmmm. . .

Click to expand...

Nope, all there-unless one prefers denial to truth. It's not my doing that you've become a bit confused by faulty doctrine-and unwilling to look further.

ViaCrucis said:

Sola Fide, or "Faith Alone" is one of the basic principles of the Protestant Reformation. But it only really makes sense in the context of the Reformation and what the Reformation was saying/doing.

Since the Reformation is frequently misunderstood by both Protestants and Catholics, and since many modern Protestants do continue to use the language of the Reformation (but uses it improperly and wrongly), this only feeds into continued misunderstanding about what the Reformation was about.

Without taking a deep dive into that, and instead to address what Sola Fide means, objectively, in its historical, theological, and biblical context, I offer the following:

Faith Alone only means something in conjunction with Grace Alone and Christ Alone. Namely the doctrine of Justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone.

Let's break that down:

Christ Alone -- It is only the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ that renders us right--aka just--before God. Christ by His perfect obedience, even His obedience to the death on the cross, and the full merit of Christ's righteous life and work. Namely this: By the one Man's obedience all have been justified (Romans 5:18), just as by the one man's (Adam) disobedience came death and sin.

Grace Alone -- We could not benefit of what Christ has done unless it is given to us, and so God who is rich in mercy gives us the fullness of Christ's work as pure grace--as gift. And so it is God who takes the once-and-finished work of Jesus for all, and then makes it our own individually, as pure grace.

Faith Alone -- It is through faith, which is itself the work and gift of God (faith is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, see Ephesians 2:8), that God appropriates to us the perfect and finished work of Jesus. That is, God imputes Christ's righteousness to us, by grace, through faith; and thus we are reckoned righteous--justified--before God on Christ's account.

That is Justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on Christ's account alone.

What this means is that our works don't merit anything for our justification. Not anything at all. No human work can aid us in our salvation. We can't come to God, we don't come to God, because we are sinners. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." "There is no one righteous, not even one" "There is no one who seeks after God".

The popular modern practice in some churches of having an "altar call" is an innovative practice that originated from the "New Measures" of Charles Finney in the 1800's. Finney became convinced that true conversion could only occur by employing new techniques to invoke the right kinds of emotional responses from people, and as such invented what he called "the anxious bench". Eventually the anxious bench was rebranded as altar call, but the basic false theology that underpinned Finney's revivals is still retained in many churches.

The false theology underpinning the "altar call" is a confluence of several kinds of false teaching: Pietism, Enthusiasm, and Decisionism.

Pietism: The belief that the Christian life is supposed to be marked by piety and pious living; or more specifically that if one is "truly saved" they will grow upward in holiness, piety, etc. And if we are not exhibiting these things, then something is probably wrong with our "relationship with God", and we need to "get right" with God. Thereby destroying the entire distinction between Law and Gospel, and denying that our Justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, on Christ's account alone.

Enthusiasm: From the ancient Greek word enthousiasmos, meaning "to be inspired or possessed by a god". Specifically, Enthusiasm is the belief that the individual can have an unmediated experience of God. The Enthusiast, therefore, speaks of God "talking" to them, or speaking directly to their heart, etc. Enthusiasm is the false doctrine that we can know and experience God apart from what God Himself has done and given: Namely Jesus Christ, God's word, and the Sacraments. To understand how serious this was for the Reformers, Luther argued that "anything that claims to be the Spirit, apart from God's Word and Sacraments, is the devil". That God's ordered Means of Word and Sacrament are THE Means of God's grace. We hear God in His word, not in our hearts, not as a voice in our heads: but in His word. In the Scriptures, in the preaching of the Gospel, in Baptism, in the Lord's Supper.

Decisionism: The false doctrine that salvation is accomplished by the human act of personal decision and will. This denies the efficacy of the word of God, and instead argues that it is up to us sinners to get right with God by following some process, or some set of steps in a particular order. Decisionism says that God does not save us by His grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone, and that God accomplishes this by Himself through His own ordered Means of Word and Sacrament; but that we have to prime people emotionally and mentally to make some kind of "decision" for Jesus.

Whoever has faith in Jesus is justified. Period.

The baptized infant? Justified.
You receiving the bread and wine of the Eucharist? Justified.
Hearing God's word that you are forgiven of all your sins? Justified.

God justifies us. We don't justify ourselves.
God justifies us by justifying us--He actually does that. Objectively all are justified once and for all by the perfect work of Christ; but we cannot benefit unless Christ's work is appropriated to us. An inheritance that I do not know cannot benefit me, a promise that I am unaware of, can't help me. That is why the Apostle says in Romans 10, "How can they believe on Him whom they have not heard, and how can they hear unless one is sent to preach?" and then saying, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ".

Faith is not from us, but from God; it is the work and gift of God by His own effectual word.
Thus it is the word that creates and works faith in us. And we can be confident of this, because God Himself promises that His word never returns to Him null and void, but accomplishes what He sets it out to accomplish (Isaiah 55:11).

So, after all this, is the person who goes up to the altar call saved? Yes, but not because of the altar call, and not because they went forward. The altar call accomplishes nothing, walking forward to "make a decision for Jesus" accomplishes nothing.

Jesus Christ, who suffered and died, accomplished EVERYTHING.
And it is ours, freely, as pure gift, through God's Word and Sacrament. In other words: Grace.
God makes it ours through faith, which again, is His work, His gift, His grace in action.

The naked sinner has nothing. Not even a "yes" to give God that could merit any kind of righteousness.

It is only God's yes to us, in Jesus Christ, that justifies and saves us.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

And yet those who don't believe are not saved. Is faith, at all, though a gift of pure grace and so impossible apart from God, not also an act of the human will such that it could be resisted/refused?

fhansen said:

And yet those who don't believe are not saved. Is faith, at all, though a gift of pure grace and so impossible apart from God, not also an act of the human will such that it could be resisted/refused?

Click to expand...

Resisted and refused, yes. That's just the ordinary fallen nature of man doing what we do.

The infant has made no decision in their baptism, and yet that baptized infant is a believing member of Christ's own Body, a child in God's own Household.

The infant can, of course, when older turn away from the Lord. The Scriptures are replete with the warning of turning away, making shipwreck of our faith, etc. Our Lord warns that sometimes the seed grows, but is then chocked out by the thorns and thistles of the world.

It's no different for adults, we offer exactly the same the infant does; nothing. We are passive recipients of salvation. We can resist, we can reject, we can run away--but there is always a Savior hunting each and every one of us down with His love.

Does that mean there is nothing for the human will to do? Of course not. We accept Jesus, we do--we accept Him as our Lord, we do this by actually doing as He commanded us to do. That's what Christian discipleship is all about. It's not about us doing the things for God's benefit (as though God is in need of anything), or that somehow there are points to be scored, or rewards to be won, or as though God's opinion of us might change depending on our actions. There is only the one and only perfect work of Jesus Christ that renders us righteous before God.

The righteousness of good works is where our will, broken and damaged though it is by sin, is to nevertheless be oriented in love toward our neighbor.

In order that the Christian understand that their life is comprised as being in both Christ through faith, and in neighbor through love.

Good works, including all the ways we are to be saying yes to God, are horizontal, not vertical.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

Resisted and refused, yes. That's just the ordinary fallen nature of man doing what we do.

The infant has made no decision in their baptism, and yet that baptized infant is a believing member of Christ's own Body, a child in God's own Household.

The infant can, of course, when older turn away from the Lord. The Scriptures are replete with the warning of turning away, making shipwreck of our faith, etc. Our Lord warns that sometimes the seed grows, but is then chocked out by the thorns and thistles of the world.

It's no different for adults, we offer exactly the same the infant does; nothing. We are passive recipients of salvation. We can resist, we can reject, we can run away--but there is always a Savior hunting each and every one of us down with His love.

Does that mean there is nothing for the human will to do? Of course not. We accept Jesus, we do--we accept Him as our Lord, we do this by actually doing as He commanded us to do. That's what Christian discipleship is all about. It's not about us doing the things for God's benefit (as though God is in need of anything), or that somehow there are points to be scored, or rewards to be won, or as though God's opinion of us might change depending on our actions. There is only the one and only perfect work of Jesus Christ that renders us righteous before God.

The righteousness of good works is where our will, broken and damaged though it is by sin, is to nevertheless be oriented in love toward our neighbor.

In order that the Christian understand that their life is comprised as being in both Christ through faith, and in neighbor through love.

Good works, including all the ways we are to be saying yes to God, are horizontal, not vertical.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

So it would seem that faith is both a divine gift and a human choice, to accept and embrace that gift, to open that door when He knocks, and to keep it open- a choice that pleases God immensely because we could will to do otherwise, and because the choice is a right one, a mark of justice or righteousness for man that distingusiohes him now from the unrighteousness of unbelief and dis-union from God.

fhansen said:

So it would seem that faith is both a divine gift and a human choice, to accept and embrace that gift, to open that door when He knocks, and to keep it open- a choice that pleases God immensely because we could will to do otherwise, and because the choice is a right one, a mark of justice or righteousness for man that distingusiohes him now from the unrighteousness of unbelief.

Click to expand...

A divine gift, yes. Faith is not from me, but it is given to me, and God calls me to use the gifts He has given for His purposes. Thus walking in faith, doing good works in faith, living by faith, "the just shall walk by faith" etc. Faith in action produces good works. But the action and the good works aren't what justifies, it is only through faith that we are justified. The regenerated person is the person of faith, and it is from our regeneration that we cooperate with God, empowered by the Holy Spirit, toward good works.

Justification is always monergistic and unilateral: the work of God for us. God justifies. God reckons and renders upon us the verdict of not guilty, free and fully pardoned. The righteousness of Jesus has made this so. We are guilty sinners who have been declared not guilty; not as a miscarriage of justice, but as the supreme act of God's justice. The innocent Christ was found among sinners, reckoned among the sinners, declared guilty among sinners--though He was no sinner. Christ bearing the guilt of the world, plunging it into death, from which He has risen from the dead. Thus the vindicated Christ gives us His own vindication; we have been crucified with Christ too, buried with Christ too, and now raised up together with Christ too.

For as in Adam all fell, by the one act of disobedience; so also in Christ, by His obedience, has made satisfaction for all, justification for all.

-CryptoLutheran

MarkRohfrietsch said:

A single act of inspired faith is not enough to save anyone; it may be a start, but answering an Altar Call is "decision theology". While we are naturally rebellious due to the stain of original sin, through the call of the Holy Spirit we can come to cooperate with God's grace. Even Jonah needed a bit of a push before he could cooperate with God's plan. We don not cooperate to be justified; we cooperate because we have been justified.

Click to expand...

Jesus said in (Matt. 16:24-27) (v.24) Then said Jesus unto his disciples, if any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. That was the Lord’s burden, to die on the cross for the sins of man. Every man must bear his own burden, and what is your burden? (v.25) For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. You must give up your life in this world; you must not get caught up in the cares of this world. You must bring forth-good fruits of faith by keeping God’s commandments, statues, and judgments. (v.26) For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Some of the great patriarchs in (Heb.11) gave up a lot, some even their lives in exchange for their soul. You see they had great faith (belief) that their souls (bodies) would be raised at the first resurrection. But listen up; (v.27) For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his holy angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Now these are the words of Jesus (the Son of man), you know the savior of the world. He said that when he comes he is going to judge every man according to his works. Don't be deceived thinking you all you need to do is have faith in the Lord and you will be saved?

ViaCrucis said:

A divine gift, yes. Faith is not from me, but it is given to me, and God calls me to use the gifts He has given for His purposes. Thus walking in faith, doing good works in faith, living by faith, "the just shall walk by faith" etc. Faith in action produces good works. But the action and the good works aren't what justifies, it is only through faith that we are justified. The regenerated person is the person of faith, and it is from our regeneration that we cooperate with God, empowered by the Holy Spirit, toward good works.

Justification is always monergistic and unilateral: the work of God for us. God justifies. God reckons and renders upon us the verdict of not guilty, free and fully pardoned. The righteousness of Jesus has made this so. We are guilty sinners who have been declared not guilty; not as a miscarriage of justice, but as the supreme act of God's justice. The innocent Christ was found among sinners, reckoned among the sinners, declared guilty among sinners--though He was no sinner. Christ bearing the guilt of the world, plunging it into death, from which He has risen from the dead. Thus the vindicated Christ gives us His own vindication; we have been crucified with Christ too, buried with Christ too, and now raised up together with Christ too.

For as in Adam all fell, by the one act of disobedience; so also in Christ, by His obedience, has made satisfaction for all, justification for all.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

So you'd manitain that justification is mainly the forgiveness of sins, related to having Christ's righteousness imputed to us? If so, why, do you think, that such a justfied person should begin to live/act more justly, if, in fact, he hasn't been made actually just/righteous? I mean, in Catholic teaching, as you probably know- and this is more or less consistent with EO teaching as well- the free gift of justification not only involves the forgiveness of sin but it also means that God's seed has been planted in us; as we're reconciled and enter fellowship/union with Him we enter a state of righteouness in which we're intended to walk but from which we may also stray, by living unjustly, returning to the flesh, etc. The will of man is integrally involved on that journey-because God wants it so as He draws us into ever increasing righteousness, i.e, love, intending to create something truly great and glorious-something like Himself.

This all begins with faith, in response to grace, resulting in a righteousness that produces such works as those mentioned or outlined in Matt 25:35, Rom 2:7, Rom 8:13, Eph 2:10, all works of grace just as faith is of grace and yet works that likewise we may resist and refuse to do and which in any case are said to determine our eternal destinies. We may, OTOH, turn away from Him as you say, failing to love as He does to put it most correctly. In all this we work out our salvation with Him with the gift of justice/righteousness given-or not.

fhansen said:

I wouldn't suggest that it's about polishing man up a bit-but it's also not about God creating man to be a sinner to begin with-as if sin/unrighteousness should be natural for man.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I think this starting point already implies that the end point will be a "polishing up of the Old Man".

fhansen said:

Something, something that's wrong, must be rectifed-and sin is a direct expression of that "something that's wrong". So, yes! -the Lord, not ourselves, is our righteousness, just as we can't even "live and move and have our being" apart from Him. The difference is that we still live and move and have our being while being spiritually dead-spiritually apart from Him- not even acknowledging His existence, but in that separated state we will fail to be righteous and to express that righteousness because we, with Adam, have the choice in the moral sphere to determine for ourselves whether God will be our God, with He determining right and wrong for us, or whether we will do so, being our own "god".

Click to expand...

I think, at this point, it goes a little awry for me. I mean, there are some points of agreement - but the language about what is "natural" for man, I believe, can be a little deceiving.

Firstly, I would back up and say that it is natural for man to sin outside of union with God; that sin is his natural "flesh" make-up. "Flesh" and "Spirit" were the original creation, yes, and when mankind fell the Spirit left and there was only "Flesh", bending in on itself. But I guess I just don't like this word "natural" - it comes with a lot of baggage.

This discussion around what is "natural" does imply that within our very make-up, DNA, or our being we are able to choose right - that choosing right is "natural", but that this was corrupted and we need the Holy Spirit to help us choose what is "natural" again. It seems right, but the subtle implication is that mankind is good on its own and just needs the good God to help us get back on the path of righteousness we were destined to be on.

I think this sort-of idea always leads down into a path where God is, whether we admit it or not, just polishing up the Old Man who seeks to be righteous on his own, and now just "uses" God / the Holy Spirit for that purpose.

In contrast, I would say (and I suppose this is Reformation doctrine) that what is "natural" for Man is sin, and slavery to such sin. The person must die to the natural (the Old Creation) and be raised into the New Creation. It's not enough to be restored to the Original, but to be made entirely New.

It could be semantics, but I think at the same time these semantics can in the end be quite important. What is happening in the born again person is not that they are being restored to what is natural, but they are being renewed to a New Creation. The Old goes, the New comes. The Old was corrupted, and it's not enough to go back but actually to go FORWARD.

This would probably contrast quite a bit with a lot Catholic teaching, I think, which is very much about going back to the Original creation - a restoration into the image of God (Eastern teaching as well, I would say). In a sense, I agree with that when we look at the beauty of the Original, and there is an obvious reality to God's restoration to His original intent. But not entirely to His original DESIGN. I would add that the Original is not what the book of Revelation shows us. Genesis shows us that aspects of the Original creation are certainly what we should expect in God's salvation, but it also shows the Original RENEWED - not just restored - a garden made into a city; God's dwelling with Man in a greater way than in the Garden.

fhansen said:

So, again, yes!-man sought to "be his own" righteousness, with dismal results. God being our righteousness means that we're restored to righteousness soley by virtue of entering realtionship/union with Him, He becoming our God again. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people".

Click to expand...

"Restored" to righteousness is probably the point of contention here between us, I think.

Is it that we are "restored" or rather that we are "born again" and made into a NEW creation? I say the latter two much more than the former.

fhansen said:

The faith, hope, and love that are intrinsic to that realtionship are now born out and proven by how we live our lives.

Click to expand...

"Proven" is another point of contention. What does this mean that it is "proven"? One could see "proven" in a soft sense, but it can very easily move into quite a "hard" requirement. History has proven this to be so.

fhansen said:

As Augustine put it, "God wrote on tablets of stone that which man failed to read in his heart." The law could still not justify us, however, because it lacked God, His life in us. Man must return to Him first of all, by faith in response to grace, and then He can begin to do His work in us.

Click to expand...

Ok, sure, we cannot return to the dead letter but we need the life-giving Spirit. I think we could agree there.

fhansen said:

Again, God being our righteousness doesn't mean that we have none once we're part of His family-as if sin is still expected -or suddenly ignored.

Click to expand...

God being our righteousness means we do not and never possess righteousness in our own being, but only in the life-giving Spirit which we are in union with. I think you might agree with this statement, but there are some subtleties here.

This would come down to a debate, I guess, between IMPUTED righteousness or INFUSED righteousness (and perhaps IMPARTED righteousness, too). I can agree with some infused righteousness, only so long as the understanding is that God is not making us righteous, in the sense that we are learning how to become something and will one day not need Him, but only that He is being our righteousness, in the sense that so long as we continue in faith and our union with God remains (by faith, not by works), we will do righteous things, and this will not and will never change. "Simul Iustus et Peccator.” Even in the new creation, except then God's dwelling is permanently with Man, which means that we won't sin not because of a new natural state but because our new bodies are always with God.

fhansen said:

So you'd manitain that justification is mainly the forgiveness of sins, related to having Christ's righteousness imputed to us? If so, why, do you think, that such a justfied person should begin to live/act more justly, if, in fact, he hasn't been made actually just/righteous? I mean, in Catholic teaching, as you probably know- and this is more or less consistent with EO teaching as well- the free gift of justification not only involves the forgiveness of sin but it also means that God's seed has been planted in us; as we're reconciled and enter fellowship/union with Him we enter a state of righteouness in which we're intended to walk but from which we may also stray, by living unjustly, returning to the flesh, etc. The will of man is integrally involved on that journey-because God wants it so as He draws us into ever increasing righteousness, i.e, love, intending to create something truly great and glorious-something like Himself.

This all begins with faith, in response to grace, resulting in a righteousness that produces such works as those mentioned or outlined in Matt 25:35, Rom 2:7, Rom 8:13, Eph 2:10, all works of grace just as faith is of grace and yet works that likewise we may resist and refuse to do and which in any case are said to determine our eternal destinies. We may, OTOH, turn away from Him as you say, failing to love as He does to put it most correctly. In all this we work out our salvation with Him with the gift of justice/righteousness given-or not.

Click to expand...

Regeneration. The regenerated person has the Holy Spirit, has new life from God in Christ by the Spirit. What the Apostle calls "the new man" in contrast to "the old man". The new man, alive by faith and the Spirit, lives in good works.

For Lutherans this struggle between the old man and the new man is the essential struggle of the Christian in this life, and part of the cross we are called to carry as Christ's disciples. This is the meaning of Simul iustus et peccator, that we are at once both saint and sinner.

The justified one is just before God; and regenerated, with new life from God, walks by faith, walks in the Spirit, etc.

Furthermore, it must be understood that Justification in Lutheranism isn't viewed as a singular moment or event, but a continual reality. Justification is the ongoing, continuing work and word which God speaks and accomplishes to us; God is justifying us by grace, through faith. Hence Word and Sacrament.

So that having been made alive by the Spirit, walking by faith, we have been created for good works in Christ Jesus and to walk in them. That is why good works, that is from whence comes good works. Not from my own natural powers, but from the renewed man that I have from and in Christ, and filled with the Spirit am called to walk in them. And as I am being sanctified, and continually renewed day by day by God's grace, I trust in God's work to conform me to the image of our Lord; that I might continue to be changed, continue to be transformed.

But there also continues to exist the old man, clinging on desperately, and always trying to reassert himself. Which is why I am called to drown the old man daily in repentance. The Law is preached to the mortification of my flesh, and the condemnation of my sin, that I may be confronted with the unpleasant truth of my sinfulness. And here, confess my sins, repent of my sins, and grieve over my sins--Lord have mercy on me a sinner. The preaching of the Gospel is the declaration and proclamation of the victory of Christ, the forgiveness of all our sins, the peace we have with God, etc. This wretched sinner is forgiven and beloved child of God; His Word and Sacraments tell me so.

So here, with a free conscience before God, we can love our neighbor. The righteousness of our works is good for our neighbor; but doesn't improve who and what we are before God. There's no points to score, there's no better seating at God's Table for some over others. We belong to Christ, and that makes us free men, free to love our neighbor. It is for freedom He has set us free. And whoever the Son sets free is free indeed.

What do we do with that freedom? Do we squander it, like the faithless servant; and by squandering it return back to slavery and bondage to sin and death? Or do we walk in the freedom we have in Christ?

But without God's grace there is no freedom. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, however, there is freedom.

-CryptoLutheran

HatGuy said:

Yes, but I think this starting point already implies that the end point will be a "polishing up of the Old Man".

Click to expand...

Maybe so, and I certainly don't mean to say that justification would leave us totally unpolished, unchanged for the better in terms of righteousness. God wants us to be righteous as His law commanded, but accomplished by Him and apart from the law which cannot accomplish that righteousness in us to begin with.

HatGuy said:

I think, at this point, it goes a little awry for me. I mean, there are some points of agreement - but the language about what is "natural" for man, I believe, can be a little deceiving.

Firstly, I would back up and say that it is natural for man to sin outside of union with God; that sin is his natural "flesh" make-up. "Flesh" and "Spirit" were the original creation, yes, and when mankind fell the Spirit left and there was only "Flesh", bending in on itself. But I guess I just don't like this word "natural" - it comes with a lot of baggage.

Click to expand...

Yes, man will sin outside of God-and I firmly maintained that only by union with God could man begin to refrain from it. While I knew my use of the term "natural" could confuse things my intent there was to say that God simply did not create man to be a sinner-so in that sense sin is unnatural. We must begin with that understanding: that sin/unrighteousness is foreign to and anomalous for man and all creation. And the reason it exists at all is because it's already unnatural and wrong and sinful for man to be disunited from God. Man was made for communion with God and is lost, dead, sick, in a state of disorder/injustice by virtue of not existing within that union, a union ultimately defined by and consisting of a relationship of love between us and Him.

HatGuy said:

This discussion around what is "natural" does imply that within our very make-up, DNA, or our being we are able to choose right - that choosing right is "natural", but that this was corrupted and we need the Holy Spirit to help us choose what is "natural" again. It seems right, but the subtle implication is that mankind is good on its own and just needs the good God to help us get back on the path of righteousness we were destined to be on.

Click to expand...

The implication is that man is not totally corrupted by the fall; the image of God still resides within but His voice is buried deep, now dimmed, drowned out and overridden by all the various, created, worldly voices out there, with man now turned away and no longer in touch with or heeding Him. The "natural law" is still written in his heart but, again, as Augustine would say about the law that God eventually revealed through Moses, "God wrote on tablets of stone that which man failed to read in his heart."

None of this means that man can possibly save himself; he wouldn't even know how/where to start. God must reach down to us in order for us to find Him. But there's something there to save, something still of worth, and that's what He's after. So God informs, educates, draws, appeals to, and graces man, stirring and moving him towards Himself, but does not simply change man into a being who suddenly, wholly, and necessarily changes and embraces Him- or loves Him with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, IOW. That man would be perfect-and sinless BTW.

HatGuy said:

I think this sort-of idea always leads down into a path where God is, whether we admit it or not, just polishing up the Old Man who seeks to be righteous on his own, and now just "uses" God / the Holy Spirit for that purpose.

Click to expand...

We have to remember that God allowed man to fall to begin with-and to struggle for centuries now with the consequences-so His intention has never been to totally override man's will but rather to progressively show man of the hows and whys of our absolute need for Him, to end up with the Incarnation giving us something truly worth believing in, trusting/hoping in, and loving far beyond the empty values and false idols of this world. The church has always insisted on the absolute need for grace in order for man to even begin to turn to God-and some of the best arguments used come from Augustine in his battle against Pelagianism. Anyway, man "uses" God only in the sense that he has no life without Him-man desperately needs God- while God uses man to bring about His plan of glorifying man, which reflects and exalts His glory, His ineffable goodness. The nature of love is always to will the best for the other.

HatGuy said:

It's not enough to be restored to the Original, but to be made entirely New.

Click to expand...

It's both-God wants us to be more that Adam was. And to be made entirely new is also more than only being imputed to be righteous. The ultimate goal is for man to love as God does-that's the essence of this new creation, the seed that's planted in those now justified. It should take root and blossom, producing much fruit.

HatGuy said:

"Proven" is another point of contention. What does this mean that it is "proven"? One could see "proven" in a soft sense, but it can very easily move into quite a "hard" requirement. History has proven this to be so.

Click to expand...

A problem is with some theologies that maintain that man now has no obligation, no requirements, no need to change-but that's not what the new covenant is all about as if God, with it, suddenly throws up His hands and says, "Never mind guys, I never really meant for you to feel obliged to obedience-that would be way too much to expect from you sinful, worthless wretches. Now, with my new covenant, no righteousness is expected at all. Only my Son can be righteous while you can only sin-so chill, don’t worry about it!” That’s not it. Man is still obliged to be righteous, but now it can finally be achieved, by the only true way, with God rather than apart from him, the way we’re born. “So then, brothers and sisters, we are debtors (sometimes translated, “we have an obligation”), not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” Rom 8:12-13

Properly understood, man is obligated to love, God and neighbor, and yet that obligation is only fulfilled willingly, or it cannot and will not be fulfilled at all. So it’s a very difficult job God has with man, to draw us from our obstinance, away from the flesh and from our pride that destroys us and into that love without which we won’t find our purpose, not to mention total happiness and satisfaction; it’s what we were made for. Anyway its ok to have obligation-obligation to do the right thing-and it’s not beyond God’s capabilities to get us there without completely overriding the will and totally changing us first. That would amount to puppetry.

HatGuy said:

This would probably contrast quite a bit with a lot Catholic teaching, I think, which is very much about going back to the Original creation - a restoration into the image of God (Eastern teaching as well, I would say).

Click to expand...

It's more than that. It’s about God not making junk-even if we can sure act like junk-and drawing from man the potential that He created him for. This begins with faith, based on man’s acknowledgement of his need for the God who’s been revealed to and who draws him. From the big picture God’s plan from the beginning, a plan that includes and involves the fall where man disassociated and turned away from Him, is to produce something truly great and noble, something better than He began with as He not only steers man back to union with Him but now, because of man’s willingness garnered in part by his experience as a prodigal in exile away from Him, with a new appreciation gained for His goodness as contrasted against a relatively loveless and godless and sinful world, man may be all the more ready to finally value and embrace and act upon the grace he receives, to open the door when God knocks.

HatGuy said:

God being our righteousness means we do not and never possess righteousness in our own being, but only in the life-giving Spirit which we are in union with. I think you might agree with this statement, but there are some subtleties here.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are some nuances-important ones. In truth we possess nothing anyway; everything, including our very existence, is dependent upon God- whether we even acknowledge His existence or not. And yet when we see, is it us seeing, or is it Him? When we touch, is it us touching or is it Him? We need to understand two things, I believe. One is that we do not lose our identities when we turn to God, becoming some kind of automatons, and the second is that God wants more for us than we can begin to know. Yes, He wants us to be personally righteous- and certainly not unrighteous. I think it gets a bit tedious to a Catholic hearing about how awful and helpless we are when we know that God, like a good parent, wants us to move on from there and understand that He wants us to be something, something like Himself- and to “own” that to the greatest extent a created being can-with His help -and with no ego involved incidentally. That’s what makes God so great-what He gives, what He wants for His creation- rather than just sort of bathing in His own glory, magnified by the difference between His infinite superiority-and our inferiority. He wants more for us. That’s what the cross tells us, in fact-that He’d even humble Himself as a servant and come down here and suffer and die in human flesh if that’s what it ultimately takes to elevate us out of our pit-if that’s what it takes for us to really come to know Him, to know love- while demonstrating His true intentions for us.

The insistence on our unrighteousness can seem overplayed after a point and doesn’t come across to some as the humility it might appear to be at first glance, but more like something a bit affected perhaps. Maybe it’s not the best part of human nature that would prefer no obligation to change-and to our participation in that change?

ViaCrucis said:

For Lutherans this struggle between the old man and the new man is the essential struggle of the Christian in this life, and part of the cross we are called to carry as Christ's disciples. This is the meaning of Simul iustus et peccator, that we are at once both saint and sinner.

Click to expand...

Where I find a problem is only where the concept of simul iustus et peccator is taken to mean that becoming sinless is unnecessary as a goal and obligation, that a believer looks holy in the eyes of God regardless. From that perspective the doctrine of Sola Fide can serve to blur the distinction between right and wrong as I see it, between whether or not justice means justice, righteousness means righteousness. Faith becomes a sort of isolater between us and condemnation for sin, replacing the need for actual righteousness with itself, instead of being the true means through which sin may finally be overcome.

Surely we depend on God's mercy from beginning to end along with His patience but at the end of the day sin may well estrange us all over again from the fellowship with Him that was realized as we came to believe. Because also from the beginning to end, grace is resistible by man.

Anyway, the question comes up, with answers offered that vary from one extreme to the other: If righteousness is solely imputed anyway, do we presume on faith to save us regardless of our actual state of righteousness? Can sin no longer separate us from God, or is the overcoming of sin guaranteed instead as long as we continue to believe? Is there some amount or gravity of sin that could cause our spiritual "re-death", or is all sin the same? Would we need a true change of heart and repentance if we were to fall back into serious sin, or should we just presume to be forgiven regardless? Certainly we cannot become righteous by mere observance of the law but...is personal righteousness still required of us? And is it even possible?

It seems to me, by the differing answers to those questions that I hear, that the door is left open regarding God's expectations for man; the line between the need for actual righteousnes in us -or not-becomes potentially blurred in people's minds. From my persepctive, once justified, we're now on a path or journey that must succeed overall in a progression towards perfection or the righteousness God requires of us in this life, with He knowing how well we should do with whatever gifts of grace we've been given.

Anyway, there're are agreements between our views, with some differences as well.

fhansen said:

Where I find a problem is only where the concept of simul iustus et peccator is taken to mean that becoming sinless is unnecessary as a goal and obligation, that a believer looks holy in the eyes of God regardless. From that perspective the doctrine of Sola Fide can serve to blur the distinction between right and wrong as I see it, between whether or not justice means justice, righteousness means righteousness. Faith becomes a sort of isolater between us and condemnation for sin, replacing the need for actual righteousness with itself, instead of being the true means through which sin may finally be overcome.

Surely we depend on God's mercy from beginning to end along with His patience but at the end of the day sin may well estrange us all over again from the fellowship with Him that was realized as we came to believe. Because also from the beginning to end, grace is resistible by man.

Anyway, the question comes up, with answers offered that vary from one extreme to the other: If righteousness is solely imputed anyway, do we presume on faith to save us regardless of our actual state of righteousness? Can sin no longer separate us from God, or is the overcoming of sin guaranteed instead as long as we continue to believe? Is there some amount or gravity of sin that could cause our spiritual "re-death", or is all sin the same? Would we need a true change of heart and repentance if we were to fall back into serious sin, or should we just presume to be forgiven regardless? Certainly we cannot become righteous by mere observance of the law but...is personal righteousness still required of us? And is it even possible?

It seems to me, by the differing answers to those questions that I hear, that the door is left open regarding God's expectations for man; the line between the need for actual righteousnes in us -or not-becomes potentially blurred in people's minds.

Click to expand...

You're right, in a sense faith does become a sort of "isolater" between us and condemnation for sin. Not the faith itself, but what is received through faith: Christ's righteousness, God's forgiveness, God's assurances and promises.

We stand guilt-free and innocent before God on Christ's account; we are in Christ. In Christ we have no sin, because our sins are forgiven, fully and freely pardoned.

That doesn't mean we are sinless, it is abundantly evident in our behavior, our words, our thoughts, our actions that we are sinners--we sin.

That's simul iustus et peccator.

I do not live in fear of a capricious and petty God who, depending on how well I can perform, how well I can live, how good I can try to be, may or may not save me.

That's God's promise to me in the Gospel, I belong to Jesus, I am found in Jesus, I have life and forgiveness and eternal life in Jesus.

I may or I may not "improve" in this or that area of life. I may overcome this or that particular sinful habit, but I manifestly don't overcome my own sin in this life. And never will, not in this life.

It is Christ who preserves me and keeps me through death and judgment to life and the resurrection of the dead, and eternity in the Age to Come. Nothing I do contributes to that.

This does not mean that I can murder, steal, and cheat my way through life and then claim "faith" as some kind of guard against condemnation. Sin chokes and kills faith. Faith cannot coexist with mortal sin. Though by "mortal sin" I do not mean particular sinful actions of a certain kind; but rather any and all sin that, left to grow into weeds, will choke out faith. That is why we must both drown the old man in repentance, and also have the new man fed and nourished by Word and Sacrament.

If you are thinking that I believe I can live a lawless and sinful life, live faithlessly, and still be saved in the end, then the answer is now. I don't believe that.

But this is why the distinction between Law and Gospel is necessary, and why the preaching of each is important. Law for repentance and sorrow over sin; Gospel for faith in Christ and the assured hope that is in Christ.

If the Law is being preached as the Law and the Gospel is being preached as the Gospel, then we have God's faithful word keeping us both sober minded about our sin and the vital importance of our life of repentance; and also holding us in Christ by the Spirit, through faith, and we are blanketed by the comfort and truth of God's infinitely abundant love and kindness. And it is this love and kindness of God that holds us and keeps us until the very end, in Himself.

The good that I do I do not do for myself, but for my neighbor. All that I do "for God" or for myself isn't good. The only good I do is that which helps my neighbor.

The only good that saves me is the good of Jesus Christ, the goodness of God saves me.

I therefore receive God's goodness as grace.
But then here in God's goodness I am invited to go and be good likewise to my neighbor.

Thus we live in Christ through faith, and in our neighbor through love.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

I do not live in fear of a capricious and petty God who, depending on how well I can perform, how well I can live, how good I can try to be, may or may not save me.

Click to expand...

And yet so many have no trouble believing that our salvation by that same God depends on our faith-still a performance issue in its own right that can exclude others from salvation. And would it be capricious for God to still require righteousness under the New Covenant, to require love, IOW, which should keep us oriented away from sin, especially "sin that leads to death"? Or should "snow-covered dung-heaps be acceptable-with no real change? That might seem to be the equivalent of a "white-washed tomb", clean on the outside only.

ViaCrucis said:

I may or I may not "improve" in this or that area of life. I may overcome this or that particular sinful habit, but I manifestly don't overcome my own sin in this life. And never will, not in this life.

Click to expand...

ViaCrucis said:

If you are thinking that I believe I can live a lawless and sinful life, live faithlessly, and still be saved in the end, then the answer is now. I don't believe that.

Click to expand...

But isn't there a bit of tension or conflict between these two statements above? In any case it seems that Rom 8:12-13 must be taken seriously.

ViaCrucis said:

This does not mean that I can murder, steal, and cheat my way through life and then claim "faith" as some kind of guard against condemnation. Sin chokes and kills faith. Faith cannot coexist with mortal sin. Though by "mortal sin" I do not mean particular sinful actions of a certain kind; but rather any and all sin that, left to grow into weeds, will choke out faith. That is why we must both drown the old man in repentance, and also have the new man fed and nourished by Word and Sacrament.

Click to expand...

In Catholicism mortal sin is said to choke out- oppose and destroy- love, love being that which excludes sin by its nature. Anyway, I think the following teachings on man's freedom apply here. These teachings presuppose church teachings on the necessity of grace:
1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28

fhansen said:

And yet so many have no trouble believing that our salvation by that same God depends on our faith-still a performance issue in its own right that can exclude others from salvation.

Click to expand...

How does believing that we are saved by Faith, and that Faith is not something that comes from ourselves, be called a "performance issue" on the part of the believer??

Albion said:

How does believing that we are saved by Faith, and that Faith is not something that comes from ourselves, be called a "performance issue" on the part of the believer??

Click to expand...

Because while faith is necessarily a gift, it's also a human choice. And the church teaches that any works performed by the man now justifed are likewise both gifts (Eph 2:10) and our choice- to act upon that grace-or not.

fhansen said:

Because while faith is necessarily a gift, it's also a human choice. And the church teaches that any works performed by the man now justifed are likewise both gifts (Eph 2:10) and our choice- to act upon that grace-or not.

Click to expand...

Remove the "it's also a human choice" and that eliminates the objection. Faith is something we receive from God, not an act of human volition.

It is from faith that the will is freed to make godly choices.

And this is very likely going to be one of those things that we simply aren't going to see eye-to-eye on. The unregenerate human will is not free. We have an enslaved will, a will held in bondage to our disordered passions.

This does not lead to Fatalism or Determinism, the position here is not that human beings are incapable of doing anything other than follow some sort of cosmic script. It simply means that man's passions, man's desires are entirely out of alignment with God's. And the will is unable to liberate the self from those disordered passions. Even in our works of temporal righteousness sin still remains present.

We both believe that the will is affected by Grace. But herein lay essential differences: It is not the will in cooperation with Grace that brings us into union with God. It is God who gives and unites Himself to us in Jesus Christ, and this is Grace. And it is out of that union, which is mine as a gift through faith, that I am made the free man of Jesus Christ to love my neighbor even as Jesus Christ has loved me.

The freedom of will is not the freedom to choose between right and wrong. The freedom of the will is the freedom to love others in the love we have received from God. So we find it written, "We love because He first loved us." It is God's love of us that we are saved, it is God's love of us that we are justified, and it is from that love that we can love in the freedom of God's grace.

Adam's disobedience was not an exercise in freedom, but an exercise in slavery. Adam had freedom, and then he sold himself into slavery--the same slavery that each and every one of us has. The slavery to death and to all our disordered passions. There is no convincing the captive who thinks his dungeon cell is a mansion that it is anything other than that, not without a radical transformation of some kind. Not without a drop of the veil, a dropping of the scales from his eyes, that he might see with eyes of faith, and hear with ears of faith. Only God accomplishes that, only God accomplishes that by sending forth His word, and by the power of the Spirit actually bring this radical transformation to us. That's Regeneration.

Only Someone who can break down the gates of the dungeon, overthrow the strongman, and tear down all the prison doors and free all the captives can actually bring freedom to the captives. That Someone is Jesus Christ, who has done just that very thing.

-CryptoLutheran

fhansen said:

Because while faith is necessarily a gift, it's also a human choice.

Click to expand...

Ah, then that's your mistake. No one can come to the Lord by his own strength; that's the whole point of us needing -- and God sending -- a Savior.

And the church teaches that any works performed by the man now justifed are likewise both gifts (Eph 2:10) and our choice- to act upon that grace-or not.

Click to expand...

Well, even this statement of yours doesn't deny that we come to Faith thanks to God and not by our own strength and/or merits. It simply tries to talk around the point.