Faith and Works

[TonyBS]

Ok. Monergistic yet with the ability to resist God’s grace? We’re monergistic as well as far as believing that God, alone, saves. And yet man can still reject the justification required for salvation-we can refuse to cooperate either at the beginning or at any point in between then and our final judgment.

The Bahai writings also warn us to be ever understanding that it is by Gods Grace we are saved and that we must always make the effort to never stray from the path;

"He should not wish for others that which he doth not wish for himself, nor promise that which he doth not fulfil. With all his heart he should avoid fellowship with evil-doers, and pray for the remission of their sins. He should forgive the sinful, and never despise his low estate, for none knoweth what his own end shall be. How often hath a sinner attained, at the hour of death, to the essence of faith, and, quaffing the immortal draught, hath taken his flight unto the Concourse on high! And how often hath a devout believer, at the hour of his soul’s ascension, been so changed as to fall into the nethermost fire! reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-125.html

We tread a fine line and should always be thankful for Gods Love by Living the Life.

Regards Tony

 

[fhansen]

The Bahai writings also warn us to be ever understanding that it is by Gods Grace we are saved and that we must always make the effort to never stray from the path;

"He should not wish for others that which he doth not wish for himself, nor promise that which he doth not fulfil. With all his heart he should avoid fellowship with evil-doers, and pray for the remission of their sins. He should forgive the sinful, and never despise his low estate, for none knoweth what his own end shall be. How often hath a sinner attained, at the hour of death, to the essence of faith, and, quaffing the immortal draught, hath taken his flight unto the Concourse on high! And how often hath a devout believer, at the hour of his soul’s ascension, been so changed as to fall into the nethermost fire! reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-125.html

We tread a fine line and should always be thankful for Gods Love by Living the Life.

Regards Tony

I like that-although I doubt it would be particularly easy or common for a truly devout, steadfast believer to fall seriously at the last moment, if after having lived a life following and serving God for example.

 

[zz912]

Hi zz’

No I never said that but maybe I should .I am thinking of Jimmy Swaggert , or a few other once popular tv evangelists who fell into sin, later repented but lost a good part of their ministry. Their integrity suffered so also the power to preach and "testify’’ like they once had. However I do not believe any of them “lost their salvation”. I believe this is no new phenomenon, and any preacher needs the utmost integrity to persevere. Paul knew this , hence the one discourse in writing that was posted, about keeping his flesh under gracious control.

Blessings

Nope. Paul is not talking about losing his ministry, or losing his influence in spreading the Gospel in that passage. He’s talking about losing his salvation.

And people lose their salvation all the time. That is why Jesus warned us to “remain in Me”. If you don’t, you will lose your salvation and go to hell. That is why Paul warned as he did, even saying that he did not consider himself judged as saved. That is why most of the epistles in the NT were written. They were written to those who already believe, warning them to either keep the faith, or return to it, or they would lose their salvation.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi zz’

No I never said that but maybe I should .I am thinking of Jimmy Swaggert , or a few other once popular tv evangelists who fell into sin, later repented but lost a good part of their ministry. Their integrity suffered so also the power to preach and "testify’’ like they once had. However I do not believe any of them “lost their salvation”. I believe this is no new phenomenon, and any preacher needs the utmost integrity to persevere. Paul knew this , hence the one discourse in writing that was posted, about keeping his flesh under gracious control.

What if he didn’t repent, later?

We believe there is forgiveness, as many times as we turn back with remorse and repent.

Luke 17

Take heed to yourselves; if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him;4and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”

You are right that Paul was also concerned about behaving well for the sake of his ministry. But he also did not consider himself immune to falling away.

 

[KjetilK]

We are Monergistic.

Well, Luther wasn’t. He often employed the term ‘cooperation.’ It seems that you are conflating Lutheranism with Calvinism.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Well, Luther wasn’t. He often employed the term ‘cooperation.’ It seems that you are conflating Lutheranism with Calvinism.

I’m not confusing the two , and I respectfully disagree

 

[guanophore]

I agree guanophore,

But there are aspects of what dronald is saying which we acknowledge in our faith. For example, we believe in Initial Justification, where we are “saved” into the life of our Lord. We are forgiven and given the gift of faith. But, like you said, Scripture shows that this doesn’t assure us that we will endure to the end.

We also believe that through Purgatory, He will judge our deeds and reveal what merits glory and what merits suffering. Here, we have endured in faith, but have not overcome faults through faith in this world.

So there is judgement which separates those He acts to heaven from those He casts out, and there is judgment for deeds done by those who will be saved also.

Matthew 24

“But he who endures to the end will be saved.”

“Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time?**Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing.**Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions.*But if that wicked servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed,’**and begins to beat his fellow servants, and eats and drinks with the drunken,*the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know,**and will punish him, and put him with the hypocrites; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.

Thank you, yes, there are aspects of this about which we all agree.

I think the fallacy is that we as persons are somehow separated from our ministry, in the sense that how we conduct ourselves in this life, and implement our gifts (or not) have no impact on the outcome of our souls. Our “ministry” flows out of our identity in Christ, so to say that Paul is only talking about his work in ministry is inconsistent. Paul says that it is no longer he who lives, but Christ who lives in him, ,and that it is God that is at work in him to will and to do the good works. To that extent, there is no separation between his state of grace, and his “ministry”. And how is this principle to be applied to those who are not in full time ministry? Is it not the way they conduct their daily lives? How can this conduct be separated from the state of grace ( or not) in which they reside? Either we are sheep, or goats.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, it is a work of God. He is the primary cause, we are secondary causes.

It reminds me of how scripture was penned. Men, moved by the Spirit, spoke from God. He is the primary author, and human secondary.

 

[guanophore]

Yes you can resist God’s grace , that is a tenant of lutheran monergism ( luthers view and that of other Lutheran reformers )

Is this referred to as monergism? Did Calvin change the meaning of the term as Luther used it, like he changed the meaning of Eucharist?

It is no wonder I am having trouble grasping the differences, when the words are defined differently in different faith traditions.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not confusing the two , and I respectfully disagree

Can you provide me a link or document that will help me understand the Lutheran idea of monergism?

 

[fhansen]

It reminds me of how scripture was penned. Men, moved by the Spirit, spoke from God. He is the primary author, and human secondary.

Yes, good analogy; it’s that way with all works that God has planned and inspired. And it’s not as if those human authors were mere puppets, or stenographers- *as if they played no role. *From the Catechism:

**106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71 **

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Is this referred to as monergism? Did Calvin change the meaning of the term as Luther used it, like he changed the meaning of Eucharist?

It is no wonder I am having trouble grasping the differences, when the words are defined differently in different faith traditions.

Ok both Lutherans , Calvinists , and Zwinglians accept the basic meaning of the word monergism, simply it means salvation is not by cooperation ,it is totally God’s doing .However there are differences in our understandings

Lutheran monergism
1.No cooperation
2.Grace is resistable
3.Falling away is possible due to number 2

Calvinist and Zwinglian monergism
1.No cooperation
2. Irresistible grace
3.preservation of the saints

Hope the helps guanophore , Starwars

 

[fhansen]

Ok both Lutherans , Calvinists , and Zwinglians accept the basic meaning of the word monergism, simply it means salvation is not by cooperation ,it is totally God’s doing .However there are differences in our understandings

Lutheran monergism
1.No cooperation
2.Grace is resistable
3.Falling away is possible due to number 2grace?

Seems like we have some differences among Lutherans here on this. Anyway, regarding 1 & 2 I would ask, if one doesn’t resist grace, then what do they do with it?

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Seems like we have some differences among Lutherans here on this. Anyway, regarding 1 & 2 I would ask, if one doesn’t resist grace, then what do they do with it?

First one is always resisting grace , but the Holy Spirit gives us the faith to believe in spite of our resistance, second , to answer the question, trust the atonement that Christ has done for you , what do we do , nothing , just receive grace by faith .

 

[KjetilK]

Lutheran monergism
1.No cooperation
2.Grace is resistable
3.Falling away is possible due to number 2

Lutheranism is monergistic with reference to our initial justification, but so is Roman Catholicism.

Lutheranism, however, is NOT monergistic with reference to salvation as such, as this includes sanctification. Luther had no problem using the Latin term cooperatio. See Knut Alfsvåg, “God’s fellow workers: The understanding of the relationship between the human and the divine in Maximus Confessor and Martin Luther” (Studia Theologica 62, 2008): 175-193, esp. p.184.

 

[guanophore]

Ok both Lutherans , Calvinists , and Zwinglians accept the basic meaning of the word monergism, simply it means salvation is not by cooperation ,it is totally God’s doing .However there are differences in our understandings

Lutheran monergism
1.No cooperation
2.Grace is resistable
3.Falling away is possible due to number 2

Calvinist and Zwinglian monergism
1.No cooperation
2. Irresistible grace
3.preservation of the saints

Hope the helps guanophore , Starwars

It does not help me with an official document. It makes me wonder if American Lutheranism has been contaminated by Calvanism?

I also cannot figure out how, if grace is resistable, it can be monergism. It seems to me (unless you define the term differently) salvation would require the consent/participation of the recipient, which rules out the basic sense of monergism.

 

[fhansen]

First one is always resisting grace , but the Holy Spirit gives us the faith to believe in spite of our resistance, second , to answer the question, trust the atonement that Christ has done for you , what do we do , nothing , just receive grace by faith .

The question is whether or not we can resist that grace-the gift of faith-to refuse it and not be saved. Do we need to respond, and can we refuse to do so, or does God cause us to respond in spite of our wills? Are our wills infallibly moved to accept and believe in Christ unto justification without our consent?

 

[benhur]

How about if they had not repented, or if their repentance was not at all sincere?

of course if you reject the faith, even blaspheme the Holy Ghost you are lost. Just do not think that is what Paul is talking about. The 10 or so verses posted have the topic of his ministry, and the need of keeping integrity. But I understand the CC’s take on it, it is reasonable but just think the other view is more reasonable.

Blessings

 

[steido01]

Can you provide me a link or document that will help me understand the Lutheran idea of monergism?

bookofconcord.org/historical-14.php

 

[benhur]

The question is whether or not we can resist that grace-the gift of faith-to refuse it and not be saved. Do we need to respond, and can we refuse to do so, or does God cause us to respond in spite of our wills? Are our wills infallibly moved to accept and believe in Christ unto justification without our consent?

Hi f,

It is like asking did God give Adam free will. I mean He created Adam with perfect “equipment” (soul, spirit, and will etc.) to commune and be one with God. Sin damaged that. God must simply restore, even create anew in us, as He did Adam at the beginning. Of course Adam had no choice at the very beginning that is to be created perfect. He certainly had choice afterwards, both to sin and to receive reconciliation, and have faith in their new covenant/promise. However, God did not wait for a response from Adam, but proceeded with the remedy (shedding blood/covering for their sin). Adam received God’s goodness (did not tear of animal skin and go back to fig leaf). I suppose you could say God “influenced” Adam’s will with overwhelming goodness such that he could not refuse. The truer test of will/faith came later, when despite living out negative consequences of sin (not so much goodness- newly found toil, hardship). Adam still kept the faith in covenant/promise. We also begin to see others not will to keep the faith, and are told specifically when one “walked with God”, for many did not.

A lot of talking to the choir here, but God must revive old, dead equipment, will and all, for us to believe. His goodness is so much relative to the badness of the alternative, that I am not sure how much consent was active (we had “dead " equipment”). For sure, absolutely, consent is there after the fact of regeneration. I guess self preservation, is the best a fallen soul has, yet by themselves avail us nothing except perhaps a foothold for gracious intervention.

Not sure if the analogy is in scripture liking it to lassoing a wild stallion. If so, it is in the makeup of the horse to be "led’, have one master, but totally willing against that lasso. Our old nature consents nothing to God apprehending us.

Blessings