Imputed Justification and Free Will

[ltwin]

At least for Arminians, Roger Olson’s outline of the Order of Salvation is illustrative:

So here is my attempt to lay out an Arminian ordo:

1. God’s electing grace in Christ of all who will believe in him;
2. Christ’s atoning, reconciling death for all sinners;
3. Prevenient grace given by God to sinners through the Word (calling, convicting, illuminating, enabling);
4. Conversion (repentance and faith) enabled by assisting, prevenient grace;
5. Regeneration, justification, adoption, union with Christ, indwelling of the Holy Spirit;
6. Sanctification;
7. Glorification.

Remember—these are not necessarily chronologically sequential. Especially 3, 4, 5 and 6 may be temporally simultaneous. (Of course, some Arminians will view all as temporally simultaneous in God’s awareness as God does not experience temporal sequence of events.)

Now, some Arminians, especially high church, sacramental Arminians, will want to insert baptism into the ordo. I would simply say they include that with 3—baptism as a means of prevenient grace. They will want to add “the water” after “through.”

Some Arminians will view 6 as a process beginning with 5 and ending only with 7 while others, especially Wesleyans, will view 6 as potentially complete before 7.

The main point is this: In this Arminian ordo, in contrast to a typical Catholic one, a clear logical distinction is made between 4, 5 and 6. 6 is in no way a cause of 4 or 5. In contrast to a typical Calvinist ordo, 5 logically follows 4.

 

[fhansen]

PS - And yes, OSAS is a completely separate discussion from the “anatomy” of Salvation. We cover it in the same class, but on a different day. The distinctions between Calvinism and Arminianism come in when talking about the timing and the causes of Regeneration and Justification.

But in any case the Ptotestant OSAS position necessarily separates justification and sanctification, no?

 

[ltwin]

But in any case the Ptotestant OSAS position necessarily separates justification and sanctification, no?

Not all Protestants believe in OSAS; therefore, it’s a separate discussion. How you define “perseverance of the saints” is almost irrelevant to how you outline way or order of salvation.

 

[manualman]

But in any case the Ptotestant OSAS position necessarily separates justification and sanctification, no?

You could never get the weirdness of OSAS without first making the blunder of considering justification and sanctification as separate things. This is the bad fruit of protestant theological emphases on the subject.

In fairness, that bad theology came about as a reaction to the frequency of people in the catholic church acting as though salvation could be earned or bought. Catholicism never taught this, but it is not a hard misunderstanding to make from the way we understand and teach about how Grace saves and transforms us and that this is both a spiritual reality and one manifested in our lives.

In short, ‘cheap Grace’ is the ditch protestants tend to fall into while ‘earned heaven’ (sometimes manifesting as scrupulosity) is perhaps historically the ditch catholics are more likely to fall into. Neither ditch is a good place to be. We can probably all agree on that.

 

[fhansen]

Not all Protestants believe in OSAS; therefore, it’s a separate discussion. How you define “perseverance of the saints” is almost irrelevant to how you outline way or order of salvation.

I didn’t say all Protestants believe it. But the posters’ point was that Protestantism doesn’t separate justification and sanctification- while the non-Catholic doctrine of OSAS does that very thing I believe.

 

[BeProfOSX]

But in any case the Ptotestant OSAS position necessarily separates justification and sanctification, no?

Not necessarily. OSAS isn’t a “you say the prayer, get saved, and then you can go off and do whatever you like” proposition. It’s a proposition that says, “If you really are saved, then you will act like it.”

I mean… I believe in OSAS and when I am presented with someone who is living like the devil and hides behind, “Well… I said the Sinner’s Prayer once…” My very first inclination is to ask them, “Are you sure you’re really saved?” Faith without works is dead and if there’s no real works to be seen, then it’s kind of hard to conclude anything other than there’s no real faith there, either.

To beat the coin analogy horse long after its expiration: You can see one side of the coin without seeing the other. You can talk about one side of the coin without talking about the other. You can even know all there is to know about the one side of the coin without knowing one blessed thing about the other. What you can’t do, however, is have one side of the coin without having the other.

Again, this isn’t supposed to be a discussion on OSAS, but even for old, dyed in the wool Calvinists like me, Sanctification and Justification always come together as part of the totality of what Salvation is.

PS - Since the Arminian ordo salutis has shown up, I will present the Calvinist version:

Regeneration → Justification → Sanctification → Resurrection.

I suppose that to be technically correct in the strictest sense one would have to say that Justification, Sanctification, and Resurrection are each separate necessary consequences of Regeneration, but the important point when making a distinction between Calvinism and everything else, is that Regeneration must precede Justification.

 

[ltwin]

I didn’t say all Protestants believe it. But the posters’ point was that Protestantism doesn’t separate justification and sanctification- while the non-Catholic doctrine of OSAS does that very thing I believe.

Actually, the poster’s point was that Protestants do distinguish between justification and sanctification. But Protestants DONT separate sanctification from salvation. Justification and Sanctification are both part of salvation, but they are simply distinguished to a greater degree than in Catholic theology.

Even people who believe in OSAS can also believe that those who are justified will be sanctified. All OSAS is is the belief that those who are truly saved cannot fall away. Therefore, if someone has truly been justified by faith, they must become sanctified eventually.

 

[manualman]

I mean… I believe in OSAS and when I am presented with someone who is living like the devil and hides behind, “Well… I said the Sinner’s Prayer once…” My very first inclination is to ask them, “Are you sure you’re really saved?” Faith without works is dead and if there’s no real works to be seen, then it’s kind of hard to conclude anything other than there’s no real faith there, either.

This either breaks down in real life or proves that OSAS really means that nobody can ever really know who IS saved. I met Dan Barker (famous in-your-face-atheist) once and he alone really shatters the idea of OSAS. He once was an ardent evangelical who unquestionably had surrendered himself to Christ for years in his early life. A large number of people who are still believers today repented and received Christ through his witness and example. Yet today he spends almost all his energy attempting to get people to disbelieve in the very existence of God.

If someone like him was able to deceive himself and others into thinking he was a believers, but never really was then NOBODY can really know if they are real believers or just self-deceivers… Or OSAS is hooey.

I really wish I could have met him when he was having his crisis of faith. I think people like him wind up confronting the falsity of certain evangelical beliefs and react by rejecting God altogether instead of just rejecting false doctrines about Him. Very sad.

 

[fhansen]

Not necessarily. OSAS isn’t a “you say the prayer, get saved, and then you can go off and do whatever you like” proposition. It’s a proposition that says, “If you really are saved, then you will act like it.”

But doesn’t this render the doctrine moot, and therefore worthless? The whole thing becomes subjective. I’m saved if I really think I’m saved; works/fruit/lack of sin offering some support for that notion? We’re right back to the Catholic doctrine of guarded assurance without 100% certainty. Otherwise the reasoning is circular-we’re just making a general statement: that those who will be saved will, um, be saved, without knowing exactly who that will be until the end of the day.

 

[thecone137]

I’ll handle a couple of responses at once here…

First, yes I can easily see how someone might be offended that a wealthy benefactor swoops in and pays of their debt for them, but that feeling of offense doesn’t nullify the free will of either party, at least in my mind it doesn’t. One of the things we (and I mean we here, including me) often miss in these sorts of discussions is that Free Will cuts both ways. If we can freely chose to do something, then God also has that same free choice to do as He wills. Indeed, I would argue that God’s omniscience and omnipotence makes Him the only being that can truly do whatever He wants.

…

Could you expand on how someone paying off one’s debts without your consent does not eliminate one’s free will?

 

[thecone137]

I don’t like the analogy because coins CAN be experienced one side at a time. I’m not convinced that justification and sanctification can be divided even for the sake of discussion. Perhaps a better analogy (though perhaps on the verge of irreverent) is the way that Coke is both sugar water and carbonation. Separately, the sweet and the bubbles make no sense (or aesthetic appeal) and why try? It’s intended to be received in combination. Trying to pull them apart only leads to error and confusion about God and His will for us. He’s neither sticky sweet or bitterly bubbly, but PERFECT!

I get it that at root protestants are reacting against perceived abuses in the 16th century church which made it seem like heaven could be bought or earned. But the proposed cure is at least as bad as the disease. The idea that salvation (call it justification if you like) is separate from sanctification is every bit as deadly as the poor fools who sold indulgences. (Incidentally, it’s not incorrect in principal to note that sacrificing one’s financial wellbeing for a greater cause is a potential moment of Grace. It just has little to do with the amount given and everything to do with the motivation process.)

How about an analogy of the Trinity? Some place emphasis on the three (Persons) and some place emphasis on the one (God).

 

[thecone137]

I’ll handle a couple of responses at once here…

1 - Protestants separate Justification from Sanctification. The later may (or may not be) a necessary consequence of the former, but those two things are, nevertheless, two completely separate concerns for Protestants. Catholics and Orthodox see it completely the other way round: Justification and Sanctification are fully integrated into a single whole to the extent that it’s impossible to talk about either one without talking about the other. If Catholics/Orthodox are guilty of not understanding that Protestants make a hard distinction on these points, then we Protestants are at least as guilty as not understanding that they make a hard non-distinction between them. That non-distinction is as important to their understanding of salvation as our distinction is to ours and I think we just don’t get that sometimes.

Just my two cents…

Can free will be retained throughout the process of Sanctification (as Protestants see it)?

 

[BeProfOSX]

Can free will be retained throughout the process of Sanctification (as Protestants see it)?

We don’t think you ever lost it. You, regardless of your status before God, are free to do whatever you want, but outside of experiencing Regeneration, the problem is that what you want is to do evil. Our view there isn’t uniquely Calvinist or even Protestant. We get it right from St. Augustine.

After Regeneration, well… things get a little more sticky for us… we all agree that you will gradually begin to want to love and serve God more and more, indeed a gradual turning of the heart away from sin and towards God is as good a definition of Sanctification as any other I can think of; but we disagree on whether or not you can every really complete that process in this life. Wesleyan/Methodists and other ‘Holiness’ theologies think you can. Everybody else in Protestantism thinks you can’t.

We all agree, though, that one of the primary effects of the Resurrection will be that our hearts will finally be fully and completely cleansed from any desire to sin at all. I understand that this is something that we share in common with Catholics and Orthodox.

 

[fhansen]

Actually, the poster’s point was that Protestants do distinguish between justification and sanctification.

No, I was responding to post #20.

 

[concretecamper]

Something I read that sums it up. Psalm 51:1-2 - O God, blot out my transgressions, wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. This cleansing requires an inner change of heart. Many Protestants believe that we are so depraved that God only covers our sins up by declaring us righteous (imputing Christ’s righteousness to us). The Catholic (and Scriptural view), however, is that God is powerful enough to blot out our sins and remove them. The view that God just declares us righteous by covering us up, denigrates the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives, who continues the work of Christ through His work of justification and sanctification (infusing His grace into souls and changing the inner person). Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[Marie5890]

Catholic view of the Psalter

newadvent.org/cathen/12533a.htm

 

[simspt]

Essentially the case. As I stated above, we have no free will to pursue or actively seek faith in God, without the Holy Spirit’s work in our hearts.

From the Augsburg Confession:

BTW, Article XVIII was approved by the Roman Confutation.

Jon

Are the 1 billion muslims in the world today seeking God?
Luther was too pessimistic.
Calvin even more so.

 

[JonNC]

Are the 1 billion muslims in the world today seeking God?
Luther was too pessimistic.
Calvin even more so.

It is a statement against pelagianism and semi pelagianism The article in Augsburg I referred to was approved by the Confutators.
It has nothing to do with optimism or pessimism but with the fall. If Muslims are seeking God it is because the Spirit is guiding them.

Jon

 

[simspt]

It is a statement against pelagianism and semi pelagianism The article in Augsburg I referred to was approved by the Confutators.
It has nothing to do with optimism or pessimism but with the fall. If Muslims are seeking God it is because the Spirit is guiding them.

Jon

I was thinking of Luther’s view that all good works are nothing more than mortal sins. His break w/ classical philosophical ethics e.g. the way to happiness is virtue. Luther’s view that moral striving is irrelevant to our salvation, reason is irrelevant and free will is irrelevant. Luther hates the idea of free will and improving yourself using it. Faith alone excludes free will, good works and reason. All of our good works are mortal sins!! This isn’t Scriptural IMO nor does this theological commitment hold up to the empirical evidence. People do get better and do good works that get them closer to God, the works of the Saints are not hideous mortal sins!! Luther’s effort to convince people that good works are meaningless towards salvation but only good for the sake of others i.e. your neighbor I’m sure was comforting to people who were anxious about going to hell due to their uncertainty about whether they were loving God enough. To reject Luther’s overly pessimistic view of good works and free will and their relation to salvation does not amount to the acceptance of the erroneous heresy of believing we can earn or that we deserve or achieve are own salvation.