For Lutherans...

[reen12]

BTW, here’s an interesting link, on the conflicting

veiws of justification - with numerous references to the

Council of Trent:

biblebb.com/files/MAC/justification.htm

reen12

 

[Assurance]

I know that WBB (hey, I really hope you’ll talk to me again) and others (reen12?) defended the statement from Session VI , Justification, Chapter IX, from Trent by saying that it needed to be viewed in its historical context, vs. the radical protestants (it is titled" Against the Vain Confidence of the Heretics"!) re: its statements about certainty of salvation which they seemed to be saying did not really apply to faithful Roman Catholics, who could have rock-solid security that if they were to die at this moment, they could know they would make it to heaven (after purgatory), because of the work of Christ (for them AND in them, I would imagine)

I was pretty content to let that go, thinking that the tract on “Assurance of Salvation?” from Catholic Answers made my case that Roman Catholic teaching necessarily introduces doubt into the faith-life of the believer. But now, after re-reading it, I don’t think I can do that. After all, it says:

For as no pious person ought to doubt the mercy of God, the merit of Christ and the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments *, so EACH ONE [note: this can be translated EVERYONE], when he considers himself and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension concerning his own grace, since NO ONE can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God. *
Got that? NO ONE can know with the certainty of faith that he has obtained the grace of God.

I defy this and say that Christ Jesus is big enough even to continually forgive and overcome even my doubts. Before I talk about how faith saves, I want to put the emphasis on how Jesus saves. He is the mighty object of our faith that gives even the weakest faith security. I don’t put my faith in my works or even in my faith - I put it in Him.

And I am sure many Roman Catholics do to, thank God. And so I say again - many in Rome are living by a Lutheran understanding of faith and assurance, even as they vigorously try to deny that this is the case.

Let me leave you with a quote from “the second Martin”, Martin Chemnitz, the man who was primarily responsible for the last section of the Book of Concord, the Formula of Concord, which is the document that Lutherans adhere to (like the Catholic Catechism). He probably wrote this shortly after Trent, I’d imagine (he has a four volume work called "the Examination of the Council of Trent). They are hard words, but most appropriate, I think:

“The point at issue between us and the papists is that they teach that the sinner cannot and must not stand in sure confidence that he is in grace and that his sins have been remitted to him- even when in earnest repentance and true faith created in us by the Holy Spirit on the basis of the Word of God he lays hold on the promise of grace and at the same time upon the Mediator Himself, the Son of God who is our righteousness. To be sure, they say, he can and must have a strong hope for the good things promised him out of the mercy of God, and yet these things must be left without sure confidence in the midst of fluctuating doubt. This doubt they include not among the sins and infirmities of our flesh, but among the virtues of faith, so that unless this doubt is present to adorn and commend our faith, such trust is only the empty confidence of heretics and is not justifying faith.” (Justification: the chief article of Christian doctrine; as expounded in Loci Theologici, Martin Chemnitz, translated by J.A.O. Preus)

I believe that anything that takes away from the rock-solid certainty of Christ’s work in the life of the believer is patently anti-Christian. This is why I am not a Roman Catholic, but a catholic - an evangelical catholic.

 

[reen12]

Good morning, isfatherwrong?,

I read your last post, and thought I’d re-post part of
one of my efforts, further up the thread.

What I wanted to address is:

-Trent was defending the Sacrament of Penance as
the only sure way that a sinner could be certain of forgivness.

To me, the wording is obfuscatory, and it took me 30
minutes to parse it.

The issue being addressed is not that of justification,
but that of the certainty of forgiveness - when a person
has indeed sinned seriously.

In short, Trent is saying that an individual who “boasts”
that h/her sins are forgiven without auricular confession,
relying on faith [which Trent says could be soley subjective,
in terms of certainty] cannot be certain of forgiveness.

Here’s the material from the earlier post:

quote: reen12

From material posted by Isfatherwrong?:

quoting from the Council of Trent:

Quote:

For as no pious person ought to doubt the mercy of God, the merit of Christ and the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, so each one, when he considers himself and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension concerning his own grace, since no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.

I’ve spent 30 minutes, reading and re-reading the full quote from
Trent, provided further up the thread, by Isfatherwrong?

What it boils down to is:

-forgiveness of sins can only be had, with certainty, through the sacrament of Penance - because the Church has assured us that this is the case.

-Anyone, outside the Church, who believes h/her sins are
forgiven, outside this sacrament, cannot be certain of same.

Trent:

Quote:
…yet it must not be said that sins are forgiven or have been forgiven to anyone who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the remission of his sins…

and

Trent:

Quote:
Moreover, it must not be maintained, that they who are truly justified must needs, without any doubt whatever, convince themselves that they are justified, and that no one is absolved from sins and justified except he that believes with certainty that he is absolved and justified,[48] and that absolution and justification are effected by this faith alone

And the finish of this:
AGAINST THE VAIN CONFIDENCE OF HERETICS is:

Quote:
Trent
since no one can know with the certainty of faith, which
cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace
read: forgiveness] of God.

Removing the descriptive [as well as emotive term]
“heretic”, what Trent is saying, here, is:

You cannot rely on your own faith that you are forgiven;
you cannot be *certain *that this is a reality, with a faith
that “cannot be subject to error.”

No sacrament of penance, no certainty of forgivenss
possible.

Do you see that it was certainly of the forgiveness of
particular sins, rather than the broader issue of justification, that was being addressed [defended] by Trent ?

What is confusing is the phrase: “…obtained the grace of God.”
What it means, is: “actually had their sins forgiven, in a
particular instance, with certainty.”

I do not agree with Trent, BTW.

I didn’t write it! I just try to unpack it.

Do you see any flaw in my interpretation of that
paragraph?

Best,
reen12

 

[Assurance]

reen12,

Thank you for your most recent post. I will do some reflection on it. My initial thought is that I think the forgiveness of sins and justification are more closely related than you may think they are. I need to think about it. Also, maybe I need to read all of Trent and more Catholic commentary on it, but I really don’t understand how those words about NO ONE being sure could mean something other than that, even after taking penance (repentance, right?) into acount. I believe the old Lutherans looked into this quite a bit and discovered that Rome was saying that even after penance had been done that a believer COULD STILL NOT BE SURE (even so, by putting the onus on us here, they take away the comfort and unconditional nature of the Gospel) about their standing with God.

Nevertheless, of course I would disagree that doing penance (“satisfaction” in repentance) must be the only way of being sure anyway, while still maintaining that “faith exists in repentance” (Melanchton, Apology to the Augsburg Confession), even as “penance” or “satisfaction” as a part of that repentance is not always realized as perfectly as it could be or ought to be.

Will think, read more. Thanks for the help.

 

[reen12]

Hi, isfatherwrong?

quote: isfatherwrong

My initial thought is that I think the forgiveness of sins and justification are more closely related than you may think they are.

and

…but I really don’t understand how those words about NO ONE being sure could mean something other than that, even after taking penance (repentance, right?) into acount.

I think I see where the difficulty lies.

For Catholics, serious sin [read “mortal sin”] can only
be forgiven through sacramental confession. {call this 1.]

When the person walks out of the confessional, at that moment
in time they are “guilt-free” with certainty.

You are correct, I think, in holding that justification is
involved - in the sense that, even if a person can know
with surety at that moment [RCC position], that h/she
is in a “state of grace” their “feeling” of the certainty of
being justified, on a moment to moment basis, from
that moment forward, is not available, as it is in
Lutheranism. [call this 2.]

I’m willing to entertain objections from an RC on this,
but this has been my lifetime understanding of same,
and the reason I am no longer an RC.

Best,
reen12

 

[Assurance]

reen12,

Interesting. I call that “feeling” faith - of course it is based on far more than feelings, as my previous posts have shown.

The idea that you can at that very moment you take part in the Sacrament (is it safe to just call it Confession/Absolution) is something that had not occured to me, but maybe that is an accurate way of looking at it (seems to correspond with what I read in Trent).

Nevertheless, it makes me think of the ever present threat of “ex opere operato” which means that one is justified (forgiven) strictly on the basis of having partaken in the act - something that I believe some Scholastics did indeed believe in Luther’s time.

In any case, the meaning and importance of faith in all of this seems to get very lost and diminished, I think.

Thanks reen. Will be thinking more.

 

[reen12]

Hi, isfatherwrong,

quote: isfatherwrong?

Interesting. I call that “feeling” faith - of course it is based on far more than feelings, as my previous posts have shown.

I understand that justification is more than a “feeling”, but I
additionally maintain that it is this “emotional” uncertainty
that makes all the difference, in the Christian life.

God created us rational animals, with emotions, in His
image and likeness.

Analogy: a kid has been told that h/she is loved by
h/her father. That is “intellectual” knowledge.

If this kid senses that this love is “conditional”, h/her
relationship with that father will be diffenent, entirely,
than a kid who knows h/her father loves, unconditionally.

The kid will always be “on edge.” “uncertain.”
The equivalent, IMO, of "am I certain that I am in
“the state of grace.” i.e. “Would I be accepted into
heaven, if I died right now?”

Now, unconditionally does not equate with “do whatever
you want”, but is the knowledge that the father will love
h/her even when they fail to follow his guidance. Even if,
for a time, the kid is “unrepentant.” [Prodigal Son]

So, IMHO, justification does have a marked emotional
effect, depending on which definition of justification one
holds with. “certainty” versus “non-certainty”.
If I say I’m certain, I may be accused of “presumption”
or “it is impossible to know the mind of God.”

“But what about trusting in His promises?”
*

Perhaps you’d have to have been raised with same,
to get the full import of what I’m saying.

Best,

reen12*

 

[Assurance]

OK, the Catholic Answers affiliated guy I wrote to about certainty of salvation got back to me - he sent me an article from This Rock which you can access in its entirety at:

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea1.asp

Here is the part of the article by James Akin (“Justification: Setting the Record Straight”, 1999) that deals with assurance:

1. Assurance of Salvation

This is one of the most misunderstood subjects relating to justification. Both sides have been needlessly polarized on the question of what kind of assurance one can have regarding salvation.

Too often, Lutherans have made it sound as if you can have absolute assurance that you will be saved. But they will admit that, due to the fallen nature of the human intellect and our capacity for self-deception (not to mention the possibility of falling from grace, which Lutherans acknowledge), you cannot have infallible certitude regarding salvation.

Too often Catholics have made it sound as if it is not possible to have any assurance of salvation. This is based on a misreading of the Council of Trent. The council stated only that one cannot “know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error” (DJ 9; emphasis added) and that one cannot know “with an absolute and infallible certainty, [that he will] have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special revelation” (DJ, can. 16; emphasis added).

So the two sides are really in agreement-assurance is possible, but not infallible assurance (barring special revelation). Thus the Joint Declaration affirms: “We confess together that the faithful can rely on the mercy and promises of God.
In spite of their own weakness and the manifold threats to their faith, on the strength of Christ’s death and resurrection they can build on the effective promise of God’s grace in Word and Sacrament and so be sure of this grace. . . . In trust in God’s promise [believers] are assured of their salvation, but are never secure looking at themselves. . . . No one may doubt God’s mercy and Christ’s merit. Every person, however, may be concerned about his salvation when he looks upon his own weaknesses and shortcomings” (JD 34-36).

This is the letter I sent (to the editor of this Rock):

Message: Hello editor,

Hello. I have been posting on the Catholic Answers forums under “For Lutherans…” as “isfatherwrong?”. I am an LC-MS Lutheran who is trying to figure out what the RCC church teaches regading assurance of salvation. I maintain that by introducing the distinction between “infallible certainty” and plain “certainty” in your tract (and I assume the Magisterium does this in the RCC catechism, Vatican II, Trent, elsewhere…?) there is potential for Christians to doubt that the forgiveness of God in Christ when given at absolution can really remove all of their sins and give them the confidence that if they were to die at this moment, they would eventually make it to heaven (through purgatory).

What exactly, does the RCC teach is the difference between infallible certainty and certainty? If the difference is that only God can have infallible certainty, how exactly, is that relevant to us? Again, when the RCC church says that one may have certainty, do they mean that one can be 100%, rock-solid certain that if they were to die at this moment, they would eventually make it to heaven with Jesus?

Let me just say this for now: to my knowledge, the Joint Declaration was made with the kinds of Lutherans who now embrace women’s ordination, gay lifestyles, etc. or are in communion with those who do. They were compromised Lutherans.

Aside from that, what does everyone think? Was my question about the distinctions between and meanings of the terms “certainty” and “infallible certainty” answered sufficiently? I am going to think about it for a while…

 

[Assurance]

Hello again.

I wanted to clear up my last post. In it, it is unclear that the second quote (the letter I sent to the editor of This Rock, or as I said “the Catholic Answers affiliated person”) was the only letter I sent. The editor of this Rock responded by linking me to the Akin article from this Rock.

Akin has written a similar article (on the Joint Declaration on Justification) for Catholic Dossier (James Akin, “Consensus on Justification: How Far and How Much Farther?”, Catholic Dossier7:5 [Sept.-Oct. 2001]: 14-21) and in this article this is what he says about assurance:

The sixth aspect of justification to be taken up is “Assurance of Salvation.” Many have thought that there is a sharper division between the two groups here than in fact there is. While the subject of assurance is greatly (and, in fact, exaggeratedly) stressed in Protestant circles, even those Protestants who assert that it is impossible to lose salvation typically acknowledge that one cannot know with infallible certitude that one has not deceived oneself about the authenticity of one’s conversion to God. Consequently, while all may have the firmest assurance of God’s promises, they may not have infallible certitude in their own attainment of those promises.

This is all that Trent insisted upon when it declared that “no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God” (op. cit., ch. 9). Since even the more extreme Protestant views tend to acknowledge this, the controversy over assurance is often misdirected.

Lutherans, for their part, do not hold that salvation cannot be lost. Consequently, the JD is able to forthrightly say of Christians that “In trust in God’s promise they are assured of their salvation, but are never secure looking at themselves” (JD 35)

OK, I’m really thinking and praying about Akin’s comments a lot. I hope to have a response to them and how they correspond with what I’ve said on this thread so far in the near future.

Prayers to all who have suffered from Hurrican Katrina. Lord, have mercy.

 

[Desert_Father]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!

One more small question to add: why the name “Lutherans”, when Luther said he didn’t want people naming themselves after him?

In Christ,
Rand

He also said: “But don’t forget Luther.” :ehh:

 

[Desert_Father]

WBB:

I found this rather offensive. The teaching of the Catholic Church does not tempt me to doubt anything.

I am a Luther Scholar, now most definately Roman Catholic, occasionally lecture on Luther at the University level, and I think there is a misunderstanding here. Luther suffered from unwanted thoughts and doubts that occasionally poped into his mind, as most of us with inquisitive minds do. I’m going to misspell the German, but then I misspell in at least four different languages: “Einfectogen” (little doubts). This troubled him to distraction, almost to self distruction, as he thought it was proof of his ultimate lack of faith. He finally came to terms with this affliction by understanding that it was not the temptation that could be a sin, but the responce; therefore these thorns in the flesh were actually a gift sent by God as an opportunity to streighten faith. He certainly did not accuse the Church of this and there is no occasion for offence.

With your comments on the sacraments, if Lutherans have the same theology that Catholics do, then why are they Lutheran? I have often thought that were Luther alive today, he would probably still be an Augustinian monk or at least still in the Catholic Church. (What I am getting at is that I don’t believe Lutherans have the same sacramental theology that Catholics do, which is obvious when it comes to the idea of Sacramental Confession and Reconciliation.)

It’s hard to say what the sacremental theology of the various Lutheran confessions is. Luther, Melanthon, and the German Scolastics who followed him never could agree upon what is a sacrement, or how many there are. As close as they came was to say that Baptism and the Eucherist are sacrements. The rest are open to this day. As close as Luther himself came was to say that: “The Sacrements must be respected, whatever their number.” Bu the way, there is no closed Canon of Scripture in the Lutheran confessions ether.

With regard to the infallibly certain stuff, as I have suggested in prior posts, I suggest you ask one of the Apologists at Catholic Answers if they can clarify what their tracts state.

With regard to Trent, I continue to disagree with you that you are interpreting it correctly, and I am interpreting it wrong. Trent was called to refute the errors taught by the protestant reformers, and its language and promulgations need to be viewed with this in mind.

Hi reen!

Actually, the Catholic Church does not dispute private repentence. It is part of true contrition, however, the normative way that Catholics are absolved (set free) is through the words of the priest who is representing the Body of Christ (Catholic term is in persona Christi) since in sinning we not only break our relationship with God, but we also break our relationship with His bride, the Church. I don’t believe that the Church has distorted anything with regard to confession and absolution. Jesus sent the Apostles into the world to preach the Gospel, baptize, and forgive sins in His name. This is exactly what our priests do as official representatives of the Body of Christ. These laws indeed are “man-made” since Jesus is a man. How could they be otherwise?

Ah! Here we have the basic difference between Orthadox and Lutheran theology. Does man have an active part in his own salvation, or is he only the recipiant of it? Luther felt himself incapable of cooperating with God, so he made man the inactive recepiant. But scripture and tradition planely show that man was created to cooperate in the “tending of the garden.” Did not Eve fail to cooperate, while Mary did? (This is why Lutherans do not honor her) Did not the ancient Isralites have to cooperate with God to win victories. Did not our Lord preach living according to the law? Did not Paul tell us to “work out our own salvation”? Unfortunately, while Luther never denied the use of personal confession and penetance (only castegating the practice of troubleing the soul for things to confess), the lack of a valid priesthood deprived Lutherans of the option. At that, under the “priesthood of all believers” any baptized Christian is held to have the authority to forgive sins.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Isfatherwrong?,

I don’t think we disagree with much. However, in my opinion, it is not because I hold the Lutheran faith, it is because you hold the Catholic faith.

Please forgive me for jumping in on a conversation, especiall

 

[Assurance]

Desert Father,

I was wondering if you could provide a source for the quote you mentioned. I’d like to look at the context of it.

As I reflect on Jimmy Akin’s words about assurance in the Joint Declaration on Justification (which again, I think is the crux of what divides the RCC and the Lutherans), I am also looking at the actual quotation from the JDJ. Here it is, for others perusal:

4.6 Assurance of Salvation

34.We confess together that the faithful can rely on the mercy and promises of God. In spite of their own weakness and the manifold threats to their faith, on the strength of Christ’s death and resurrection they can build on the effective promise of God’s grace in Word and Sacrament and so be sure of this grace.

35.This was emphasized in a particular way by the Reformers: in the midst of temptation, believers should not look to themselves but look solely to Christ and trust only him. In trust in God’s promise they are assured of their salvation, but are never secure looking at themselves.

36.Catholics can share the concern of the Reformers to ground faith in the objective reality of Christ’s promise, to look away from one’s own experience, and to trust in Christ’s forgiving word alone (cf. Mt 16:19; 18:18). With the Second Vatican Council, Catholics state: to have faith is to entrust oneself totally to God,[19] who liberates us from the darkness of sin and death and awakens us to eternal life.[20] In this sense, one cannot believe in God and at the same time consider the divine promise untrustworthy. No one may doubt God’s mercy and Christ’s merit. Every person, however, may be concerned about his salvation when he looks upon his own weaknesses and shortcomings. Recognizing his own failures, however, the believer may yet be certain that God intends his salvation. [See Sources for section 4.6].

I hope to get around to making comments on all this next week.

 

[Assurance]

Hello all. After much thinking and praying, I am ready to speak.

The following is my commentary on James Akin’s article from “This Rock” which you can find above (post 126):

1. Assurance of Salvation

This is one of the most misunderstood subjects relating to justification. Both sides have been needlessly polarized on the question of what kind of assurance one can have regarding salvation.

I am sad to say that I must disagree with Mr. Akin. Please read on.

Too often, Lutherans have made it sound as if you can have absolute assurance that you will be saved. But they will admit that, due to the fallen nature of the human intellect and our capacity for self-deception (not to mention the possibility of falling from grace, which Lutherans acknowledge), you cannot have infallible certitude regarding salvation.

No deception on Mr. Akin’s part, I’m sure, but this simply is not the whole story. Genuine Lutherans (those who take the Scriptures and their Confessions – the Book of Concord – seriously) have always taught that you can have absolute assurance that you will be saved if you die as a believer in Jesus Christ (whether you are consciously exercising that faith at the moment of death [or the second coming] or not) – this is known as a “good death”. Since Lutherans have always taught that Christian faith (trust) by definition looks to the outside of one’s self (if I say I trust you, am I really talking about a quality in me or a quality in you?), we can, and tell others that they can (should! must!) have absolute assurance that by believing/trusting in Jesus they are in a state of grace and if they were to die at this moment, they would be saved. One may have doubts (“Lord help me in my unbelief!”), but these are not an essential part of faith (as if faith would not be complete without doubt) nor are they to be encouraged. Christians don’t have faith in the strength of our faith (this is looking inwardly, which faith does not do), but faith in the strength of the Savior – this is what makes it “Christian" faith. One falls away from grace simply because one stops believing in Christ, and therefore we must “keep the faith”. We do this by constantly exercising it, asking God to have mercy on us and to help us keep the faith – namely the sacred truth that He forgives us for the sake of His Son Jesus Christ.

Too often Catholics have made it sound as if it is not possible to have any assurance of salvation. This is based on a misreading of the Council of Trent. The council stated only that one cannot “know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error” (DJ 9; emphasis added) and that one cannot know “with an absolute and infallible certainty, [that he will] have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special revelation” (DJ, can. 16; emphasis added).

An assurance of salvation which can be subject to error is simply not assurance. There is no misreading of Trent here, as best I can tell. It simply says that faith cannot be certain that it is not in error, period. Again, if Trent is indeed talking about a believer’s present faith (which I believe is the case), namely having confidence that if they were to die they would eventually get to heaven because of Jesus Christ (through purgatory of course), they are in fact simply saying that one cannot be certain that their faith is not in error. Regarding whether believer’s can have infallible certainty about perseverance to the end, here we might actually agree with Rome (though not necessarily about a “special revelation” exception) – simply because our sinful flesh which remains (as we say, we are “sinner and saint at the same time”) can lure us from the faith. In Christ’s strength, we must always fight in the spiritual battle that surrounds us to keep the faith (Romans 7) – meaning that we believe that God forgives our sins in Christ and will help us to overcome faith-destroying sin – until the final trumpet sounds.

So the two sides are really in agreement-assurance is possible, but not infallible assurance (barring special revelation). Thus the Joint Declaration affirms: “We confess together that the faithful can rely on the mercy and promises of God.
In spite of their own weakness and the manifold threats to their faith, on the strength of Christ’s death and resurrection they can build on the effective promise of God’s grace in Word and Sacrament and so be sure of this grace. . . . In trust in God’s promise [believers] are assured of their salvation, but are never secure looking at themselves. . . . No one may doubt God’s mercy and Christ’s merit. Every person, however, may be concerned about his salvation when he looks upon his own weaknesses and shortcomings” (JD 34-36).

…see next post…

 

[Assurance]

PART II: The following is my continued response to James Akin’s discussion of “Assurance of Salvation” from the Joint Declaration of Justification (see above)

…I must say, at first glance, this reads absolutely wonderfully. A Lutheran is thrilled that Rome says such a thing! That is, until they consider this very disheartening fact: In this context, Rome and the Lutherans are defining “grace” completely differently, and therefore the “agreement” is really not much to get excited about (and I would say, ultimately is misleading). Rome defines grace as being “infused”, and it is akin to a power, an energy, a substance, and this plays out in our actions or works. Therefore, the statement “they can build on the effective promise of God’s grace in Word and Sacrament and so be sure of this grace”, means that Christians can cooperate with grace to produce good works and thereby be justified – so grace turns into works and this plays a role in our continual justification. Because of this, it’s really hard to avoid the conclusion that by cooperating with grace we earn our salvation in some sense. Some Lutherans have commented that for Rome, it is almost as if “grace” is a code-word for works (not that you can simply replace one for the other, but you can probably see what they are getting at). On the other hand, for Lutherans (and other Protestants) grace in justification is simply God’s gracious will towards sinners in Christ (as Leif Grane says, “Grace is the very way God expresses himself” and , “Justifying faith, therefore, is not a human virtue or quality, but the relationship with God itself”, quoted in “The Augsburg Confession: A Commentary” 60, 61). In other words, when we are talking about justification, for Rome “grace” describes the power from a Person and for Lutherans it describes the Person Himself (His disposition towards us for Christ’s sake). Knowing this, I’m afraid the divide is still very wide. (By the way, I also wonder if a key question might be this: “In the RC system, on what basis can anyone be given assurance of God’s grace without having done any ‘building’?” [death-bed conversions come to mind])

As for the statement, “In trust in God’s promise [believers] are assured of their salvation, but are never secure looking at themselves. . . . No one may doubt God’s mercy and Christ’s merit. Every person, however, may be concerned about his salvation when he looks upon his own weaknesses and shortcomings", I don’t know what to say! The first part is fine because Lutherans have never said that we are secure looking at themselves, because they have always emphasized, as I did earlier, that faith by definition looks outside of itself. We would further say that a believer should not even look upon his own weaknesses and shortcomings when regarding our salvation, but recognizing one’s sins and weaknesses, turn to Christ to fully cover everything – even our doubts! When the JDD says that “every person (individual) may be concerned about his salvation…”, I would agree that this may indeed happen, but is the JDJ (read from Rome’s perspective) in any way saying that this is ever a good thing for faith to do – that it ever should happen, at least, in some cases?

When the JDJ says that “the faithful can rely on the mercy and promises of God” and that “No one may doubt God’s mercy and Christ’s merit”, I take this to mean that no one may do this in a general sense [ie, question the validity or power of Christ’s universal atonement] whereas the next phrase “every person may be concerned…” would seem to be addressed to each individual as that universal salvation pertains to them specifically, where doubt is at issue. In other words, I think this means that, yes, Christ died for the sins of the world – and being in the world this salvation is available to you – but now you must use grace in such a way, namely through your deeds, to [in some cases] make it your possession and keep it as your possession – and in this process there is doubt, which I believe Rome does not think is a bad thing (see the quote from Martin Chemnitz at post #120)

On the contrary, I again assert that it is good for a Christian to believe that God forgives them in Christ fully and freely, taking on their sin and giving them His righteousness, and that it is not good for them to doubt that if they were to die while believing this that they might not make it to heaven (though purgatory). You see, I think Satan, not Jesus, wants to doubt the promises of God in Christ.

…continued…see next post…

 

[Assurance]

Part III: This is my continued response to Jame’s Akin (see above)

To help in understanding what I’ve written above, let me add that Lutherans say faith (trust) is not like works in any sense, but is simply the instrument (that God gives us!) that receives God’s grace (which is not an energy!). Indeed, “‘This is how God wants to be known and worshipped,” says Melancthon, ‘that we accept his blessings and receive them because of his mercy rather than because of our own merits’ (Apology to the Augsburg Confession 4, 60).” Also, faith, as one pastor has said, is like your “trick-or-treat” bag – you don’t talk about the bag, you talk only about what’s in the bag – and yet, without the bag, you won’t possess anything.

Its amazing how at first glance, that statement can look so good to me – and then to realize how much I think Rome and the Lutherans really are talking past each other. I really think its likely that those involved in the JDJ were really more concerned with an outward visible unity than a true spiritual unity. We need to be more honest and upfront with the terms!

OK, now the following is from James Akin’s comments about assurance of salvation as discussed in the Joint Declaration in the magazine “Catholic Dossier” (see post 3127):

The sixth aspect of justification to be taken up is “Assurance of Salvation.” Many have thought that there is a sharper division between the two groups here than in fact there is. While the subject of assurance is greatly (and, in fact, exaggeratedly) stressed in Protestant circles, even those Protestants who assert that it is impossible to lose salvation typically acknowledge that one cannot know with infallible certitude that one has not deceived oneself about the authenticity of one’s conversion to God. Consequently, while all may have the firmest assurance of God’s promises, they may not have infallible certitude in their own attainment of those promises.

Again, contra Mr. Akin, I think there is still a very sharp division here. I don’t think this subject is greatly exaggerated in Protestant circles, but believe this is the key element of the doctrine of justification that started the whole Reformation. It is true that along with Catholics many followers of Calvin will talk about people not being able to tell whether or not they have had an authentic conversion to God, but that is because they do not focus on the cross quite like Lutherans do (and get tangled up into “have I done enough and the right kind of good works”, predestination and “once-saved, always-saved” quagmires). Lutherans however, insist that there is always blessed assurance in the cross alone – and of course this faith “exists in repentance”. Mr. Akin says that “while all may have the firmest assurance of God’s promises, they may not have infallible certitude in their own attainment of those promises”. And so I ask, how is that really firm assurance? Evidently, we have firm assurance that God, in some general sense, has secured the universal salvation of the world and will accomplish His purposes – and yet, this does not apply to us as an individual who believes in Jesus? In other words, we can’t know for sure that we would make it to heaven (eventually, after purgatory) if we died at this very instant through our faith in Jesus Christ? My faith is not infallible, but He is, and so why can I not have infallible assurance right now?

This is all that Trent insisted upon when it declared that “no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God” (op. cit., ch. 9). Since even the more extreme Protestant views tend to acknowledge this, the controversy over assurance is often misdirected.

Well then, it seems to me that Trent insisted upon quite a lot here in stating that NO ONE could know whether they had obtained the grace of God in Christ – because their faith might be faulty! Lutherans say that faith may be weak or strong, but the object of faith, Jesus Christ, is what can give us absolute assurance that we have obtained the grace of God and that we have a secure hope of eternal life were we to die at this instant. Evidently, devout and true Lutheranism is even more extreme than the most extreme Protestant views!

Lutherans, for their part, do not hold that salvation cannot be lost. Consequently, the JD is able to forthrightly say of Christians that “In trust in God’s promise they are assured of their salvation, but are never secure looking at themselves” (JD 35)

Please see my answer in the next post…

 

[Assurance]

Part IV - This is my continued response to James Akin:

True – Lutherans do not hold that salvation cannot be lost. If only this was all that divided us, but I am sad to say it seems that there is much more that divides us here. This statement that Akin quotes in the JDJ is simply stating the Reformer’s position. The JDJ goes on to say, “Catholics can share the concern of the Reformers to ground faith in the objective reality of Christ’s promise…” but eventually gets around to saying: “Every person, however, may be concerned about his salvation when he looks upon his own weaknesses and shortcomings. Recognizing his own failures, however, the believer may yet be certain that God intends his salvation.” Now in one sense this is not a terrible statement, as Lutherans again would emphasize the importance of persevering in faith unto final salvation (were saved, are being saved, will be saved…), but on the other hand, it gives absolutely no assurance to the individual that he is in fact currently in a state of grace because of “God’s mercy and Christ’s merit”, which can be interpreted to mean a “universal salvation” in general for the world. Why didn’t they just say “Recognizing his own failures, however, the believer may yet be certain that he stands in the grace of God” (in other words, present tense)? After all, this person is a believer in Jesus who not only takes away our sins, but reveals them to us through His Word by the Spirit! No - contra this, Lutheran doctrine gives us assurance in the now and throughout our lives, because the fact that Christ’s forgiveness is for YOU in the Lord’s Supper carries on into everyday life. We know because of this and the Word of God in the Scriptures that God not only intends our salvation, but that we are saved to the hilt right now by Christ Jesus our Absolute Assurance (though faith, which we say is knowledge, assent, and trust). Therefore, there is absolutely no real comfort in this statement in the JDJ for the conscience of the believer that is highly sensitized to the high expectations of God’s Holy Law. Such teaching will only throw them into despair: “Have I repented enough? Have I done enough? Have I prayed enough? Have I been contrite enough? Is my “attrition” enough? Etc.” Sometimes, in the midst of severe trials (like hurricanes for instance) that push us to ask eternal questions and wonder how God is disposed towards us, the simple phase “God is love” and the assurance that He INTENDS our salvation aren’t sufficient to convince the terrified conscience that God really is for Him. We need sure promises from someone who is strong enough to save us from it all. Fortunately, we have these promises. We have The Promise – Jesus Christ.

In sum, a Lutheran pastor friend of mine has written that: “[Sin] is a state of slavish self-justification, where the being of a person is no longer seen as underwritten by God, who provides for all the needs of body and soul, but by the person’s own acts. What is at stake here is the very identity of the human being: am I the sum of my works, as Aristotle would have it? Even more pointedly, do I create myself through my works? Or do I receive my being – am I justified – from the outside and only as such perform works?”

Likewise, I perceive Rome as being more interested in establishing (creating), via their authority, a unity that is to their liking rather than recognizing and realizing the gift of unity that the Apostle Paul says is already there (and that we receive from the outside) and that we are to keep. This unity is the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ (I Cor 15 creed) that gives us ALL THINGS now, and as best I can tell from my evaluation of Scripture (trying to be like the Bereans in Acts 17) and the Church Fathers, the Lutherans are the closest to attaining this.

Again – what’s this all really about? As a pastor counseled me regarding Rome’s distinguishing between assurance/certainty and infallible assurance/certainty, “assurance and certainty about salvation and election are not abstract philosophical truths that can be considered apart from faith and the gospel. If and as long as there is genuine faith in the gospel, there is blessed assurance. May that assurance abide with us always.”

I’ll say it again. Many in the RCC actually believe this – the Lutheran doctrine I have been sharing – and not official RC doctrine. Thank God for that!

And with this post… I am retiring for at least one month. I look forward to coming back here and seeing if anyone has engaged me on this stuff. I sure hope so. It’s been great being challenged on this board, and I hope to do so again in the future when I can carve out some more time.

Love in Christ to all,
isfatherwrong?

 

[Philthy]

AKIN:

“Too often, Lutherans have made it sound as if you can have absolute assurance that you will be saved. But they will admit that, due to the fallen nature of the human intellect and our capacity for self-deception (not to mention the possibility of falling from grace, which Lutherans acknowledge), you cannot have infallible certitude regarding salvation.”

Isfatherwrong?:

…this simply is not the whole story. Genuine Lutherans … have always taught that you can have absolute assurance that you will be saved if you die as a believer in Jesus Christ (whether you are consciously exercising that faith at the moment of death … or not)

It sounds like he is describing, and refuting, absolute assurance NOW of salvation at your eventual death (FUTURE). This is in contrast to absolute assurance (AT THE POINT OF DEATH) of salvation (AT THE POINT OF DEATH) - which you have described. Your distinction between being “a believer in Jesus Christ” and “whether you are consciously exercising that faith at the moment of death” seems a bit peculiar to me - don’t expect such a distinction to be clearly understood by more than 1 person on this side of eternity…
Isfatherwrong?:

Since Lutherans have always taught that Christian faith (trust) by definition looks to the outside of one’s self (if I say I trust you, am I really talking about a quality in me or a quality in you?), we can, and tell others that they can (should! must!) have absolute assurance that by believing/trusting in Jesus they are in a state of grace and if they were to die at this moment, they would be saved. One may have doubts (“Lord help me in my unbelief!”), but these are not an essential part of faith (as if faith would not be complete without doubt) nor are they to be encouraged. Christians don’t have faith in the strength of our faith (this is looking inwardly, which faith does not do), but faith in the strength of the Savior – this is what makes it “Christian" faith. One falls away from grace simply because one stops believing in Christ, and therefore we must “keep the faith”. We do this by constantly exercising it, asking God to have mercy on us and to help us keep the faith – namely the sacred truth that He forgives us for the sake of His Son Jesus Christ.

Very interesting distinction in trusting - is it “really talking about a quality in me or a quality in you?” You seem to believe it is the latter, and I would agree. But that is not the topic at hand - what we are really discussing is how we have knowledge of our trust in something, not what it simply means to trust. There is a differece between believing you trust and actually trusting: the former is a state of mind, the latter is confirmed in act and mind. Like it or not, our actions(keeping the commandments) and the holy Spirit are the guides we have been given.
I always feel, and am very sensitive to, the insinuation that somehow if one does not hold to “absolute assurance of salvation” that they are inherently denying who Christ is and what He has accomplished. That somehow ones view of Christ is less than it should be. I disagree.
AKIN:
).
Isfatherwrong?:

An assurance of salvation which can be subject to error is simply not assurance. Trent here, as best I can tell…says that faith cannot be certain that it is not in error, period. Again, if Trent is indeed talking about a believer’s present faith (which I believe is the case), namely having confidence that if they were to die they would eventually get to heaven because of Jesus Christ (through purgatory of course), they are in fact simply saying that one cannot be certain that their faith is not in error. Regarding whether believer’s can have infallible certainty about perseverance to the end, here we might actually agree with Rome (though not necessarily about a “special revelation” exception) – simply because our sinful flesh which remains (as we say, we are “sinner and saint at the same time”) can lure us from the faith. In Christ’s strength, we must always fight in the spiritual battle that surrounds us to keep the faith (Romans 7) – meaning that we believe that God forgives our sins in Christ and will help us to overcome faith-destroying sin – until the final trumpet sounds.

So your stance is that you can have absolute assurance, right now, that if you died at this instant (which you won’t) you would go to heaven, but that one can not have absolute certainty with respect to perseverence to the end ( which is what will actually happen - to have to live and persevere) and therefore can not have, ultimately, assurance of salvation. Am I correct?

Too tired to continue-

Phil

 

[Assurance]

Phil,

Thanks for the reply. Let me go real quick here (limited time):

So your stance is that you can have absolute assurance, right now, that if you died at this instant (which you won’t) you would go to heaven, but that one can not have absolute certainty with respect to perseverence to the end ( which is what will actually happen - to have to live and persevere) and therefore can not have, ultimately, assurance of salvation. Am I correct?

Yes. We can be assured that we will make it to heaven so long as we keep the faith, ie, continue to believe that Christ forgives the very real sins of us sinners through His finished work, His perfect life and innocent death. The reason I said “faith, whether conscious or not” is because when we sleep we are not really conscious and aware of our faith, a baptized infant is not aware of the faith quite like your or I, and one may wonder whether a Christian Alzheimer’s patient is really exercising a great awareness of the faith in Jesus they once could articulate and speak about in a very real way.

It sounds like he is describing, and refuting, absolute assurance NOW of salvation at your eventual death (FUTURE). This is in contrast to absolute assurance (AT THE POINT OF DEATH) of salvation (AT THE POINT OF DEATH) - which you have described.

No, I don’t think that is what he is saying. He is simply saying that one cannot have certainty that their present faith is not in error. I simply ask, what more is there for the shattered sinner to know other than Jesus has taken away all your sins and has made a way home for them? Come to the banquet and be glad! Here, with Jesus, you will be freed from your sins which entangle and destroy you, from death, and from the devil. Come!

how we have knowledge of our trust in something, not what it simply means to trust. There is a differece between believing you trust and actually trusting: the former is a state of mind, the latter is confirmed in act and mind. Like it or not, our actions(keeping the commandments) and the holy Spirit are the guides we have been given.
I always feel, and am very sensitive to, the insinuation that somehow if one does not hold to “absolute assurance of salvation” that they are inherently denying who Christ is and what He has accomplished. That somehow ones view of Christ is less than it should be. I disagree.

You ask how we have knowledge of our trust? What is there to say but “by believing the promises of God!” Surely to hear Christ’s content-full words and to believe them is to know Him. We have knowledge by BELIEVING that He forgives and frees us in Christ! By BELIEVING that He has given us all things, including those good works that He has given us to do! Now if we are beseiged by and give into the temptations of the flesh (worldly desire) and of the mind (worldly philosophy), this certainly plays out in our actions. I agree that trust is confirmed in act and mind - but that is the point, it is confirmed, ie it is revealed in the fruit, not created! (also, don’t forget the Romans 7 war) And yes, surely the commandments are the guides we have been given. To not huddle close to the Shepherd (as reen12 puts it) is to fall into the thickets of great danger, to be amidst sin which is not of God and is doubt-inducing and faith-destroying. We won’t hold on to the faith if we play around with sin - Paul says that those who do these things will not inheret the Kingdom of God, ie, they are literally on the road to hell, which is finally achieved through unbelief / disownment of God (if we disown Him, He will disown us).

As to your feeling very sensitive to the insinuation that somehow if one does not hold to “absolute assurance of salvation” that they are inherently denying who Christ is and what He has accomplished that then one’s view of Christ is less than it should be, I certainly understand your sensitivity. I believe one who does not have such assurance and is concerned about their right relationship with God should be COMFORTED with questions like these?: “Do you have a Savior?” “And which sins do you fear He has not died for?” “And you desire to follow Him, yes?”. That said, I think WE ALL deny who Christ is and what He has accomplished EVERY DAY! We don’t believe!

And so we cry “Lord, help me in my unbelief!” At this moment, He does not intimidatingly glare at us and say “Where is your faith?” Much less does He say to us sinners “Where are your works empowered by my grace”? We are the beggars with the bowl, who with trembling hands say “Please sir, may I have some more?” And He has mercy. He says, “Your sins are forgiven. God and sin no more”. And thankful for this, we go forth in the power of His love, only imperfectly carrying out His will as He works powerfully in us and all we keep contributing is our sin.

Hope this helps Philthy.

Love in Christ,
isfatherwrong?

 

[Philthy]

Phil,

Yes. We can be assured that we will make it to heaven so long as we keep the faith

We’re all on board with this!

, ie, continue to believe that Christ forgives the very real sins of us sinners through His finished work, His perfect life and innocent death.

Scripture is not perfectly clear on how we “know” we are believers.
1 John Chapter 3 deals well with this. Keeping the commandments is inseparable from faith in Christ: love God and love one another.

No, I don’t think that is what he is saying. He is simply saying that one cannot have certainty that their present faith is not in error.

I’ll have to look at it again, and perhaps some other stuff he has written. I didnt get that from it, and it seems to go against JPll’s:
“Peace of mind is knowing you are loved by God and that you are doing his will” Simple yet profound…

You ask how we have knowledge of our trust? What is there to say but “by believing the promises of God!” Surely to hear Christ’s content-full words and to believe them is to know Him. We have knowledge by BELIEVING that He forgives and frees us in Christ! By BELIEVING that He has given us all things, including those good works that He has given us to do! Now if we are beseiged by and give into the temptations of the flesh (worldly desire) and of the mind (worldly philosophy), this certainly plays out in our actions. **I agree that trust is confirmed in act and mind - but that is the point, it is confirmed, ie it is revealed in the fruit, not created! **

Yes. This is critical. You cannot have knowledge of your trust apart from your actions (works). Beleiving you believe is not the biblical standard, and it is not enough to rely on. Knowing/Having assurance that you believe/have faith - is the topic, and that is both internal (examination of heart) and external(examination of acts of love). Again, see 1 John 3. The fact that trust is not “created” by ones works is not the point - its irrelevent. That would be a point to make if someone were promoting salvation through works alone. Neither Catholics nor Protestants believe in salvation by works alone.

As to your feeling very sensitive to the insinuation that somehow if one does not hold to “absolute assurance of salvation” that they are inherently denying who Christ is and what He has accomplished that then one’s view of Christ is less than it should be, I certainly understand your sensitivity. I believe one who does not have such assurance and is concerned about their right relationship with God should be COMFORTED with questions like these?: “Do you have a Savior?” “And which sins do you fear He has not died for?” “And you desire to follow Him, yes?”. That said, I think WE ALL deny who Christ is and what He has accomplished EVERY DAY! We don’t believe!

And so we cry “Lord, help me in my unbelief!” At this moment, He does not intimidatingly glare at us and say “Where is your faith?” Much less does He say to us sinners “Where are your works empowered by my grace”? We are the beggars with the bowl, who with trembling hands say “Please sir, may I have some more?” And He has mercy. He says, “Your sins are forgiven. God and sin no more”. And thankful for this, we go forth in the power of His love, only imperfectly carrying out His will as He works powerfully in us and all we keep contributing is our sin.

Hope this helps Philthy.
Love in Christ,
isfatherwrong?

Thanks - actually it does and I like your writings. I get way too analytical with such stuff because it requires a certain rigor to avoid ending up with 3 opinions for each controversy and sometimes I lose the emotion. I know Jesus is there for me, patiently waiting for me to simply turn to Him and I have felt his embrace enough times to know that He is where I belong…

Phil

 

[Tonks40]

Isfatherwrong?:

Yes. We can be assured that we will make it to heaven so long as we keep the faith, ie, continue to believe that Christ forgives the very real sins of us sinners through His finished work, His perfect life and innocent death. The reason I said “faith, whether conscious or not” is because when we sleep we are not really conscious and aware of our faith, a baptized infant is not aware of the faith quite like your or I, and one may wonder whether a Christian Alzheimer’s patient is really exercising a great awareness of the faith in Jesus they once could articulate and speak about in a very real way.

Sounds like you’re describing Grace - the Grace that God gives us freely and undeservedly. Faith in itself is a work by man. We, as humans solely, cannot be aware of the Graces of God conciously, unless we pay attention, and come to the realization of the great gift He has given us. Man can only be aware insofar as our limited abilities to comprehend.