No, the two are not mutually exclusive. Just because a person entered a right relationship with God (justification/state of grace) that does not mean they will remain in it.
Spe Salvi is magnificent work! Thanks graceandglory.
Right!
That’s the crux of the issue.
The point being, the error did not stop there. Differences have one quick solution: split. Schism became fashionable with thousands of sects thereafter. Culturally, it sent a spiralling strend accross the centuries in the western world: divorce mentality.
Maybe, but I prefer to blame that problem child on the 60s!
Correction. St. Paul says, “In hope we were saved.”
I know from my protestant years, that it means that they were never “saved” in the beginning. They apparently didn’t have what it takes to be “saved,” or endure until the end. They were like the seed that feel on the rocky path, they spring up but quickly die.
And who do you think are the “60’s”?
St. Paul and St. Peter agreed on a limited amount of knowledge between them, but argued about much. Paul even opposed Peter to his face. But, the one thing that they both agreed upon 100% is that God’s patience is Salvation. Martin Luther drew much from his positions during the Reformation upon that one agreed statement or “super truth” if you will from both Peter and Paul.
What does Paul say about it in Romans?
I understand. But if I’m not mistaken, Luther did not believe we would a) be judged on our works and b) our works do not sanctify us, make us holier.
Actually, works are part of our sanctification. Good works are part of our growth in grace. I don’t think Luther ever denied judgement at the end of the age. In fact Lutherans continue to adhere to the creed, which states He will return to “judge the living and the dead”. All he said was that we are justified by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone.
I agree, abuse and corruption should always and everywhere be confronted. I don’t think he meant to leave the Church, either, and was very saddened by what happened. His rebellion was seized upon by political and economic forces that had been brewing for centuries, and finally came to a head, using his polemic as the rocket.
I am aware of that perspective, but most of those in the OSAS tradition believe that Paul was saved, and that he knew he was saved, so how could Paul use these terms about himself?
No. Peter and Paul never “argued about much”. In fact, at the council of Jerusalem, Peter was Pauls greatest advocate from among the 12. Paul opposed Peter because Peter had made an infallible statement at the Council of Jerusalem, then later was not acting in accordance with his own teaching!