Is faith a work?--An apparent point of disagreement between Catholics and WELS Lutherans

[Trebor135]

At a WELS Lutheran Bible study yesterday, the question of how faith is created and sustained came up. I was told that (1) God’s grace, through baptism and the Holy Spirit, creates faith; and (2) that one cannot assent through the will or intellect to believe in God (who is too big for us to comprehend and thus to accept), but that it is thanks solely to Him that this faith is sustained; but (3) that one can assent through the will and intellect to reject God. In other words, gaining faith is not something we play a part in, but losing faith definitely takes our participation. We can use free will against God, but not for Him.

John Martignoni of the Bible Christian Society, in Issue #140 of his “Apologetics for the Masses” newsletter, points to John 6:27-29 as evidence from the Bible that faith is a work:

“Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life…Then they said to Him, ‘What must we do to be doing the works of God?’ Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him Whom He has sent.’”

Does this seem like a good passage to bring up in response to this Lutheran doctrine? After all, if one can only reject God, how can Jesus tell us to actively do something–believing in Him–when this is impossible for us to do as a result of our fallen nature. Are there other passages that make the same point clearly and concisely? Have I misunderstood anything about this passage or any aspect of Catholic or WELS Lutheran teaching in this area? Is one at risk of wandering into the Pelagian heresy by claiming that humans can perform a work–belief in Christ–to gain or merit, in some way, entry into heaven?

 

[Pitcharan]

At a WELS Lutheran Bible study yesterday, the question of how faith is created and sustained came up. I was told that (1) God’s grace, through baptism and the Holy Spirit, creates faith; and (2) that one cannot assent through the will or intellect to believe in God (who is too big for us to comprehend and thus to accept), but that it is thanks solely to Him that this faith is sustained; but (3) that one can assent through the will and intellect to reject God. In other words, gaining faith is not something we play a part in, but losing faith definitely takes our participation. We can use free will against God, but not for Him.

…

I think each one of us should introspect and ask ourselves: IS IT IN OUR POWER TO BELIEVE OR NOT TO BELIEVE? Why would the disciples ask Jesus to help them increase their faith? My many such ponderings led to this learning and I also share all the thoughts and inspirations that led to it: Faith is belief in truth in the absence of tangible evidence by virtue of spiritual vision; the vision is a reward of good works of love (including, obedience, humility, gratitude, compassion). My thoughts and inspirations on faith through humility are based on the parables in Lk 11:5-8, 11-13 & 18:1-8

Having taught His disciples how to pray, our Lord continues to dwell on the subject in order to complete this most important teaching in its entirety.

In an effort to draw them deeper into the subject, He opens this parable of a man who rushes to his friend at midnight, to borrow some bread to set before his unexpected guest.

Our Lord’s suggestions sound strange for a moment. Why does He expect us to go on pestering till we get what we want? This parable presses us to chip away until we discover the most precious diamond. This is what I read of the whole thing:
• As no one would like to be disturbed at midnight, it is unlikely that the friend will oblige.
• Expecting the friend to act favourably as a ‘matter of right’ indicates pride.
• Pride is easily hurt and hence bound to fail.
• Persistent pleading comes from ‘gravity of need’ and indicates a humbled state.
• Humility endures and is sure to win.
• Prayer is for dire needs; this may be inferred by turning to Proverb 30:8 for the meaning of ‘daily bread’ and what to pray for.
• Patience, perseverance, humility, contriteness and longsuffering are all foundations of prayer.
• Our faith in prayer grows as we experience the fruits.

It became quite clear that humility, patience in prayer and faith are very much inter-related. The sum up of this teaching, is the assiduous process of building faith, in which:
• the (name removed by moderator)ut is humility,
• the process is longsuffering and
• the value-added output is faith.

Take a look at the life of the patriarch Abraham, father of faith. Is not the process so conspicuous in his life story? Consider the parable of the persistent widow which our Lord additionally gives, for us to pray without losing heart:

A persistent widow receives justice from a judge who neither feared God nor regarded men.

The judge gave in, simply because he was unable to withstand the persistent pestering of the poor widow.

If an uncompassionate judge could relent to persistent prayer, why should God’s elect have any reason to lose heart while waiting for mercy from the author of compassion?

Then our Lord goes on to conclude with the words: “However, when the Son of Man comes will He find faith on earth?”. (Lk 18:8b)

The paramount value our Lord attaches to this teaching can be systematically deducted by following the teaching sequence together with the content:

Firstly He teaches us how to pray with a most beautiful and complete example: *“Our father …” *(Lk 11:2-4)

He then begins with the parable of the man who rushes at midnight to his friend for bread. (Lk 11:5-8)
He urges us to ask, knock and seek and assures us that we will certainly receive. (Lk 11:9-10)

He reinforces the teaching with three short parables on how, we who are evil respond when our own children ask us for worldly gifts. (Lk 11:11-13)

He revisits the subject in the parable of the persistent widow. (Lk 18:1-8)

After several rounds of parabolic teaching, last but not the least, He affords us the golden opportunity of seeing His teaching come alive in Mt 15 : 21-28 (also Mk 7 : 24-30):

When the gentile mother of a demon-possessed girl approaches Jesus, He tests her by saying: “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.”

He deliberately does this in order to give a live demo of ‘how humility and patient suffering produce steadfastness and faith.’

She answered Him, “Yes Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs from the masters’ table.”

Then Jesus answered and said to her “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.”

In the above real life incident we see how faith causes prayers to be heard. It is also true that the same faith was born as a result of an answered prayer.

A careful review of the teaching from start, will now enable us to see clearly that there is an (name removed by moderator)ut in the form of humble prayer, and a process that involves patient waiting, which produces faith in us when we experience the fruit.

Though we may construe the answer to patient prayer as the output, the faith we develop in prayer is the ultimate output.

To be more precise:
• Faith is sown as small seed when a patient prayer is answered.
• The new born faith helps us to gain more blessings through prayer.
• As we experience the power of humble patient prayer, our faith grows.

Jesus’ formula for increasing faith: *So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, “We are unworthy servants, we have only done our duty.” *(Lk 17:10)

 

[SecretBeliever]

Pitcharan, that was a great post, thank you. That helped me out a lot. I have been attending a WELS church for the past few years and Trebor135, I am familiar with the teaching you mention. I too can’t understand it. I’ve got nothing substantial or profound to say. But I did read somewhere recently that: In the Old Testament, we have examples of how people had free will to choose good or evil (or belief or unbelief, etc.). But the WELS teaching says we don’t have the choice. Does that mean God took away half of our will; that we now only have the ability to choose evil? (Or choose unbelief or however you want to say it) That doesn’t make sense. It seems like there is no escape from duality; therefore there is no escape from having two halves of a will. Of course God’s grace is helping us along, no question. But it seems that that doesn’t mean we’ve got no choice at all, it seems that you still have to choose whether to act upon the Holy Spirit’s promptings.

 

[Trebor135]

Pitcharan, that was a great post, thank you. That helped me out a lot. I have been attending a WELS church for the past few years and Trebor135, I am familiar with the teaching you mention. I too can’t understand it. I’ve got nothing substantial or profound to say. But I did read somewhere recently that: In the Old Testament, we have examples of how people had free will to choose good or evil (or belief or unbelief, etc.). But the WELS teaching says we don’t have the choice. Does that mean God took away half of our will; that we now only have the ability to choose evil? (Or choose unbelief or however you want to say it) That doesn’t make sense. It seems like there is no escape from duality; therefore there is no escape from having two halves of a will. Of course God’s grace is helping us along, no question. But it seems that that doesn’t mean we’ve got no choice at all, it seems that you still have to choose whether to act upon the Holy Spirit’s promptings.

Exactly. Do you know, or do any WELS Lutherans on CAF know, what Scripture passages are employed to back up this unusual-seeming belief…?

 

[steve_b]

At a WELS Lutheran Bible study yesterday, the question of how faith is created and sustained came up. I was told that (1) God’s grace, through baptism and the Holy Spirit, creates faith; and (2) that one cannot assent through the will or intellect to believe in God (who is too big for us to comprehend and thus to accept), but that it is thanks solely to Him that this faith is sustained; but (3) that one can assent through the will and intellect to reject God. In other words, gaining faith is not something we play a part in, but losing faith definitely takes our participation. We can use free will against God, but not for Him.

John Martignoni of the Bible Christian Society, in Issue #140 of his “Apologetics for the Masses” newsletter, points to John 6:27-29 as evidence from the Bible that faith is a work:

“Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life…Then they said to Him, ‘What must we do to be doing the works of God?’ Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him Whom He has sent.’”

Does this seem like a good passage to bring up in response to this Lutheran doctrine? After all, if one can only reject God, how can Jesus tell us to actively do something–believing in Him–when this is impossible for us to do as a result of our fallen nature. Are there other passages that make the same point clearly and concisely? Have I misunderstood anything about this passage or any aspect of Catholic or WELS Lutheran teaching in this area? Is one at risk of wandering into the Pelagian heresy by claiming that humans can perform a work–belief in Christ–to gain or merit, in some way, entry into heaven?

Have you read the CCC on faith? There’s 10 pages of entries
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=faith&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

Faith is a gift from God. But as Peter writes

2 Pet 1:
5 For this very reason make every effort to add to your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; 11 so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 12 Therefore I intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. 13 I think it right, as long as I am in this body, * to arouse you by way of reminder, 14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. 15 And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.

IOW this is really important to do.

 

[SecretBeliever]

Trebor135, I think they just refer to those verses that emphasize the gift of the Holy Spirit etc. And the pastor of the church just sort of brushed off the point-blank question as a “mystery” as far as I remember (in a Bible study). But of course I think Luther threw out the whole context when he emphasized “total depravity” which I guess he took to mean that we can’t cooperate with God’s grace at all. Yes, I’m sure a Lutheran on here could explain it much better.

SteveB, Thanks for quoting the 2 Peter 1:5-15 verses. Those that you have highlighted certainly look to me like things that we have to do.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Trebor135, I think they just refer to those verses that emphasize the gift of the Holy Spirit etc. And the pastor of the church just sort of brushed off the point-blank question as a “mystery” as far as I remember (in a Bible study). But of course I think Luther threw out the whole context when he emphasized “total depravity” which I guess he took to mean that we can’t cooperate with God’s grace at all. Yes, I’m sure a Lutheran on here could explain it much better.

SteveB, Thanks for quoting the 2 Peter 1:5-15 verses. Those that you have highlighted certainly look to me like things that we have to do.

I’m not a WELS Lutheran, but I would suggest a visit to their website which I believe is www.wels.net. You will probably find their arguments best stated in their “frequently asked questions.”

Actually, the idea of “total depravity” has been, over time, more associated with Reformed (Calvinist) theology rather than Lutheranism–although these two have been sort of mish-mashed in some Lutheran groups. Luther’s most famous statements on the matter of free-will were in dialogue/dispute with specific documents on human free-will published by Erasmus, so they have to be taken in context.

It’s also good to remember that Lutheran beliefs vary among Lutheran groups of which there are many. WELS is small group within Lutheran groups in the US.

 

[SecretBeliever]

Hi Dave,

Yep, I knew that “total depravity” is what the T in TULIP means, which like you said is more Calvinist; they did mention that at the WELS Bible study. I don’t know much about what the dialogue between Luther and Erasmus entailed, but in general the WELS pastor would say that Luther averred that there is absolutely no good in mankind whatsoever, other than what is granted by God’s grace. The WELS website says:

“The Bible and Lutherans teach that faith is a repentant sinner’s acceptance of Jesus Christ as his only Savior and full trust in his worthiness for forgiveness of sins and salvation. Such faith is not a personal achievement or an act of human worthiness. The Holy Spirit creates faith. Whoever remains in this faith to the end of life will be saved eternally. Salvation is not possible without faith.
John 1:12; Acts 10:43; Galatians 2:16; Acts 16:30,31; John 3:36; Matthew 24:13”

It says “A repentant sinner’s acceptance of Jesus Christ” and “full trust” which seems like the person still has to do something even if it is just allowing something to happen. The person still has to have some say in the matter. Also, “not a personal achievement or an act of human worthiness” – well, achievement and worthiness would refer to my own “talent” – I’d say, of course, I’m not perfect by any means. Also, “the Holy Spirit creates faith” – Yes, He does, however, you have got to do something with what He gives you, do you not?

The Lutheran pastor gives the example of someone depositing money in your bank account. You can use it or not but it’s there. “You can use it” still means you are going to do something with it.

I started having serious questions about that concept; even while the Lutherans claim that the Baptists et al saying “decision for Christ” is wrong, their faith statement quoted above says, “repentant sinner’s acceptance…”. Also, I can’t get past the fact that there are so many different Protestant denominations, each with their own claim to the truth (which of course is covered exhaustively on this website). Like you said, even different groups of Lutherans believe different things.

 

[JonNC]

=Trebor135;7106701]At a WELS Lutheran Bible study yesterday, the question of how faith is created and sustained came up. I was told that (1) God’s grace, through baptism and the Holy Spirit, creates faith; and (2) that one cannot assent through the will or intellect to believe in God (who is too big for us to comprehend and thus to accept), but that it is thanks solely to Him that this faith is sustained; but (3) that one can assent through the will and intellect to reject God. In other words, gaining faith is not something we play a part in, but losing faith definitely takes our participation. We can use free will against God, but not for Him.

I’m not WELS, but LCMS. Just in general from my reading of the Lutheran Confessions, 1 is a reasonable explanation of Lutheran belief regarding how we come to faith. 2 is not my understanding, but rather that we are bound to sin, and therefore cannot of our own ability come to faith. 3 is correct.

John Martignoni of the Bible Christian Society, in

Issue #140 of his “Apologetics for the Masses” newsletter, points to John 6:27-29 as evidence from the Bible that faith is a work:

“Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life…Then they said to Him, ‘What must we do to be doing the works of God?’ Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him Whom He has sent.’”

This statement assumes we have come to faith. It is a call to sanctification, which is in many ways synergistic. Good works are approved and, in fact required.

Does this seem like a good passage to bring up in response to this Lutheran doctrine? After all, if one can only reject God, how can Jesus tell us to actively do something–believing in Him–when this is impossible for us to do as a result of our fallen nature. Are there other passages that make the same point clearly and concisely? Have I misunderstood anything about this passage or any aspect of Catholic or WELS Lutheran teaching in this area? Is one at risk of wandering into the Pelagian heresy by claiming that humans can perform a work–belief in Christ–to gain or merit, in some way, entry into heaven?

My understanding of Pelagianism is that we can by our own efforts come to saving faith, though I’m no expert. Jesus tells us to actively work out our salvation in fear and trembling, but of course that implies that faith is already present.

Jon

 

[Pitcharan]

Pitcharan, that was a great post, thank you. That helped me out a lot.

Thank you; I’m happy for you if it has helped you and invite your prayers that I become humble and remain so always

…I did read somewhere recently that: In the Old Testament, we have examples of how people had free will to choose good or evil (or belief or unbelief, etc.). But the WELS teaching says we don’t have the choice. Does that mean God took away half of our will; that we now only have the ability to choose evil? (Or choose unbelief or however you want to say it) …

When it comes to belief or unbelief, my understanding is this: those who choose good over evil will receive the gift of faith; examples: the humble centurion and the humble gentile woman who endured being compared to a dog for the sake of her child’s healing. Those who choose evil over good will become spiritually blind and hence will not be able to believe in spite of great evidence. Recall Pharoah who was not impressed with the eleven signs shown by God through Moses and the unbelieving Pharisees who sought to kill Jesus for healing people on Sabbath day

 

[Pitcharan]

… Whoever remains in this faith to the end of life will be saved eternally. Salvation is not possible without faith.
John 1:12; Acts 10:43; Galatians 2:16; Acts 16:30,31; John 3:36; Matthew 24:13"…

Faith is belief in truth in the absence of tangible evidence by virtue of spiritual vision; the vision is **a reward of good works of love **(including, obedience, humility, gratitude, compassion).

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. (1Co3 13:13)

"Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little." (Lk 7:47)

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Hi Dave,

“The Bible and Lutherans teach that faith is a repentant sinner’s acceptance of Jesus Christ as his only Savior…”

I started having serious questions about that concept; even while the Lutherans claim that the Baptists et al saying “decision for Christ” is wrong, their faith statement quoted above says, “repentant sinner’s acceptance…”.

Good observation–this is very much Baptist/Revivalist language and I wouldn’t say typical of Lutherans by and large. (The “decision for Christ” language especially (!) sounds like a self-initiated “work” that most Lutherans would not see as part of the economy of salvation.) But there’s a lot of cross-over these days between Lutherans and Evangelicals, so all sorts of interesting re-combinant theologies spring up.

I of course can’t and would never speak for all Lutherans , but I think most Lutherans would say that saving grace is received at Baptism, with particular emphasis on a “Romans 6” understanding of the sacrament (Baptism into Christ; dead to sin; raised to new life). Even after Baptism though, Christians remain both justified and sinner (paradoxically). Regular confession–which is practiced communally–is important so that one not to fall into a life of such serious sin that you reject the grace you’ve received at baptism. There’s really no “decision for Christ” moment in the classical Lutheran understanding (as I understand it), unless you look at it as an on going or daily decision to “take up your cross” or something like that. Lutherans would see good works as not done for God’s benefit (God doesn’t need our works; nor do they help us get on God’s “good side”) but that good works benefit the neighbor and thus fulfill the will of God. Honestly, I don’t think many Catholics would argue with most of this thinking, but I could be wrong there.

I think that faith/works is really more of an Evangelical/Catholic issue than truly a Lutheran/Catholic issue. imo.

 

[SecretBeliever]

Good morning,

I don’t know how to do multiple quote sources so bear with me…(I’ve put my questions in blue)

Quote from Trebor135: …(3) that one can assent through the will and intellect to reject God. In other words, gaining faith is not something we play a part in, but losing faith definitely takes our participation. We can use free will against God, but not for Him.

Quote from JonNC: 3 is correct.

But that’s what I’m wondering; how is 3) correct? It seems like the one-sided free will situation again. Did God make an exception to both sides of the free will coin? Did He take away half of our will in the New Testament? That’s what I’m having trouble understanding.

Quote from JonNC: John Martignoni of the Bible Christian Society: in Issue #140 of his “Apologetics for the Masses” newsletter, points to John 6:27-29 as evidence from the Bible that faith is a work:

“Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life…Then they said to Him, ‘What must we do to be doing the works of God?’ Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him Whom He has sent.’”

Quote from JonNC: This statement assumes we have come to faith. It is a call to sanctification, which is in many ways synergistic. Good works are approved and, in fact required.

But that’s the difficulty (and somewhat off the subject, I apologize): what do we “get” by doing required good works? If we repent of our sin of not doing good works regularly and still obtain salvation, what difference does it make? If it does make a difference, then we do cooperate with God toward our salvation.

Quote from Trebor 135: Does this seem like a good passage to bring up in response to this Lutheran doctrine? After all, if one can only reject God, how can Jesus tell us to actively do something–believing in Him–when this is impossible for us to do as a result of our fallen nature. Are there other passages that make the same point clearly and concisely? Have I misunderstood anything about this passage or any aspect of Catholic or WELS Lutheran teaching in this area? Is one at risk of wandering into the Pelagian heresy by claiming that humans can perform a work–belief in Christ–to gain or merit, in some way, entry into heaven?

Quote from JonNC: My understanding of Pelagianism is that we can by our own efforts come to saving faith, though I’m no expert. Jesus tells us to actively work out our salvation in fear and trembling, but of course that implies that faith is already present.

Right, we cannot come to faith by our own efforts, we must have the grace of God “helping” us to do this; I can’t remember but I think the term is “prevenient” grace (someone correct me, I’m not sure exactly) as in, the push-start from God to get you going.

Quote from Pitcharan: When it comes to belief or unbelief, my understanding is this: those who choose good over evil will receive the gift of faith; examples: the humble centurion and the humble gentile woman who endured being compared to a dog for the sake of her child’s healing. Those who choose evil over good will become spiritually blind and hence will not be able to believe in spite of great evidence. Recall Pharoah who was not impressed with the eleven signs shown by God through Moses and the unbelieving Pharisees who sought to kill Jesus for healing people on Sabbath day.

That is interesting, I never looked at obtaining faith in that way. I need to read the CCC again as posted above.

Quote from Dave: Lutherans would see good works as not done for God’s benefit (God doesn’t need our works; nor do they help us get on God’s “good side”) but that good works benefit the neighbor and thus fulfill the will of God.

Right, I agree with that, but…you still have to get faith in the first place; it seems like the Calvinist viewpoint would get into the argument that if you’re one of the elect, your “fate” so to speak is you’re going to get faith, whether you like it or not! Being facetious, but you get my drift.

 

[steve_b]

But that’s what I’m wondering; how is 3) correct? It seems like the one-sided free will situation again. Did God make an exception to both sides of the free will coin? Did He take away half of our will in the New Testament? That’s what I’m having trouble understanding.

But that’s the difficulty (and somewhat off the subject, I apologize): what do we “get” by doing required good works? If we repent of our sin of not doing good works regularly and still obtain salvation, what difference does it make? If it does make a difference, then we do cooperate with God toward our salvation.

Right, we cannot come to faith by our own efforts, we must have the grace of God “helping” us to do this; I can’t remember but I think the term is “prevenient” grace (someone correct me, I’m not sure exactly) as in, the push-start from God to get you going.

That is interesting, I never looked at obtaining faith in that way. I need to read the CCC again as posted above.

Right, I agree with that, but…you still have to get faith in the first place; it seems like the Calvinist viewpoint would get into the argument that if you’re one of the elect, your “fate” so to speak is you’re going to get faith, whether you like it or not! Being facetious, but you get my drift.

Based on the topic

We are saved by faith working in love [Gal 5:6]

How much work is that going to take on our part?

2 Pet 1:
5 For this very reason make every effort to add to your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; 11 so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 12 Therefore I intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. 13 I think it right, as long as I am in this body, * to arouse you by way of reminder, 14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. 15 And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.

Peter is stressing

• Be zealous about what is taught here, to confirm your call and election. IOW don’t be haphazard about this
• Peter names conditions. If one does what is taught, and one does them in increasing amounts, they won’t fall. AND they will be richly provided for by entrance into heaven. The converse is also true. if one doesn’t do these things taught, they will fall, they won’t be part of the elect, they won’t go to heaven.
• That’s why Peter is so concerned that his listeners remember these things he’s saying ALWAYS and never forget what he’s saying here. He even says, “I will see to it that after I’m gone, you will be able at any time to recall these things” That’s how important this message is.

As an aside, Peter writes this letter from Rome.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Quote from Dave: Lutherans would see good works as not done for God’s benefit (God doesn’t need our works; nor do they help us get on God’s “good side”) but that good works benefit the neighbor and thus fulfill the will of God.

Right, I agree with that, but…you still have to get faith in the first place; it seems like the Calvinist viewpoint would get into the argument that if you’re one of the elect, your “fate” so to speak is you’re going to get faith, whether you like it or not! Being facetious, but you get my drift.

Yes, you’re exactly right on the Calvinist viewpoint as near as I can tell. Thus the other petals of the TULIP

Luther didn’t want to go down that route (predestined election) because I think he knew that it can be really problematic; imo, this issue is a bit unresolved in classical Lutheran theology. I think Lutherans today would definitely say that salvific grace is a gift, received at baptism. Faith and good works all flow from that salvific grace, so they are also pure gift. As for people who are not baptized, I think most Lutherans would just sort of leave it up to God–very similar to (and even influenced by, probably) the thinking in Lumen Gentium 16, e.g.

Again, your previous observations about WELS make me thinking that they were/are more highly influenced by Reformed theology than the average Lutheran body–so your own results may vary In 19th century Prussia, for example, the Lutheran and Reformed church were merged by the king. So where a particular Lutheran group emigrated from historically has had a significant subsequent influence on their own group’s theology and liturgy (or lack thereof). I have no idea where the WELS group is from historically or what their reasons were for immigrating.

 

[Newbie2]

Seems to me that in order to ascribe to the Lutheran POV, one has to redefine or limit “freewill”. I don’t have the reference with me, but Luther himself seems to have to reject the notion of freewill in one of his writings…I’ll have to look it up. I was rather surprised when I first read it.

If the concept of freewill does indeed exist, then it begs the question as to how it we can only have one option available to us (rejecting) when there are two possible options (rejecting or accepting).

If we have no choice in accepting Christ except to actively reject him, then we are not making a choice i.e. exercising our free well unless we actively reject him. That doesn’t make any sense.

As Rush puts it in the song “Freewill”; "You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice…If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".

 

[JonNC]

=Newbie2;7112529]Seems to me that in order to ascribe to the Lutheran POV, one has to redefine or limit “freewill”. I don’t have the reference with me, but Luther himself seems to have to reject the notion of freewill in one of his writings…I’ll have to look it up. I was rather surprised when I first read it.

I think Luther did play with it a bit in Bondage of the Will, but the important thing to remember is that it is not Luther who determines Lutheran doctrine, but scripture as rightly reflected by the Lutheran confessions. I am bound, as a Lutheran, to scripture and the confessions, not Luther the man.

If the concept of freewill does indeed exist, then it begs the question as to how it we can only have one option available to us (rejecting) when there are two possible options (rejecting or accepting).

I don’t think the Lutheran view is that of regarding accepting, but as receiving. Once received, we have the free will to reject.

If we have no choice in accepting Christ except to actively reject him, then we are not making a choice i.e. exercising our free well unless we actively reject him. That doesn’t make any sense.

If one wishes to refer to what follows receiving faith as accepting the responsibility of responding to that gift of grace, that is, participating in our sanctification, ok.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=SecretBeliever;7108014]Trebor135, I think they just refer to those verses that emphasize the gift of the Holy Spirit etc. And the pastor of the church just sort of brushed off the point-blank question as a “mystery” as far as I remember (in a Bible study). But of course I think Luther threw out the whole context when he emphasized “total depravity” which I guess he took to mean that we can’t cooperate with God’s grace at all. Yes, I’m sure a Lutheran on here could explain it much better.

Total depravity, in Lutheran thinking, is a recognition that we cannot on our own, come to faith, that there must be grace to bring us to faith. Grace is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and so, therefore, is faith.

Jon

 

[simspt]

Here r some interesting questions posed by some of my Lutheran friends to Calvinists.
11 Questions on Calvinism & the Calvinist’s Worldview
©Answers in Action, 1996

1. It is often said by Calvinists that dead men can’t respond. As you say, “you are dead in your trespasses & sins.” Eph. 2:1.

In Romans 6, it says that “in the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.”

If being dead in sin means one can’t respond to God then does being dead to sin mean that the Christian cannot respond to sin?

1. Even though God does perfectly know all human thoughts, can man have thoughts that have never been thought before (i.e. ex-nihilo thoughts)?

If these thoughts are not free (e.g., they are determined) then has God caused all thoughts, including evil ones, which would make God the author of sin and evil and man not responsible?

If, on the other hand, these thoughts are free, then how can God remain sovereign according to the Calvinist definition of sovereignty?

1. The Bible says in 1 Timothy 2:4, “God our Savior wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.”

It also states that God wants all men to be saved in 2 Peter 3:9, Matthew 23:37 and in Ezekiel 33:11 and 18:30. Obviously not all men are saved.

How does Calvinism explain this? Does the God of Calvinism have two wills that are in direct contradiction and hence have a multiple personality disorder?

1. Calvinism excludes individual faith from the salvation process, classifying such faith as a work.

How can Calvinists classify faith as a work when Paul specifically excludes faith from works in Romans 3:27-28 and 4:5?

1. Jonah 2:8 says that “those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be theirs.”

If, as Calvinism teaches, God determined before time began who would be reprobates, and therefore does not extend the grace to them by which they could be saved, how logically can we understand this verse’s statement that these reprobates, “forfeited the grace that could be theirs.?”

1. The Bible says in John 6:44, “no one can come to me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.” The same word “draw” is used in John 12:32 which says, “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth will draw all men unto myself.” Matthew 23:37 says that men can resist God’s will.

How do you answer this problem in Calvinism?

1. You say that even the “good” acts of sinners are “bad” because they come from a completely depraved nature. Is it a “bad” act to rationally apprehend the truthfulness of apologetics?

If so, why has God commanded us to practice apologetics to sinners, which causes them to do a bad act? Doesn’t that mean that God causes sinners’ bad acts?

If you say “yes,” doesn’t that make God a bad guy?

1. When Calvinism is shown to have logical contradictions, Calvinists usually reply that God’s thoughts are unsearchable, and therefore the logical problems that Calvinism has, for example divine election and human responsibility, exhaustive sovereignty and human free will, and God’s having two contradictory wills, are solved by invoking the phrase, “well that’s a mystery.”

If you can solve your logic problems by copping out with the term mystery, why can’t the Arminian types, atheists and others pull the same move?

1. The Bible says in 2 Thessalonians 2:10 that reprobates “perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.”

From your Calvinistic worldview, how can it logically be said that a reprobate refuses to love the truth and so be saved, when your God determines that the reprobate can’t love the truth, can’t be saved, and therefore doesn’t refuse God at all?

1. You have said that nothing thwarts the will of God, and you also have said that a man’s will cannot be free or else God would not be absolutely sovereign.

Doesn’t this mean that God determines (or is the cause of) evil and the evil acts of men for his sovereign pleasure?

1. In Romans 9 where God says, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy” why do you automatically assume that God does not want to have mercy on all but only have mercy on the select few when God clearly tells us in Romans 11:32 that, “God has bound all men over to disobedience so that He may have mercy on them all?”

If you say that all means all classes of men, but not all men in every class, then why does it not mean all classes of men but not all men in every class in Romans 3:23 where it says, “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God?”

 

[Pitcharan]

…
Quote from Trebor135: …(3) that one can assent through the will and intellect to reject God. In other words, gaining faith is not something we play a part in, but losing faith definitely takes our participation. We can use free will against God, but not for Him.

Quote from JonNC: 3 is correct.

But that’s what I’m wondering; how is 3) correct? It seems like the one-sided free will situation again. Did God make an exception to both sides of the free will coin? Did He take away half of our will in the New Testament? That’s what I’m having trouble understanding.

As I already pointed out, both gain and loss of faith are brought about by our participation. We gain faith through good works of love including humble obedience, gratitude, compassion, … We fail to gain and even lose faith because of pride, arrogance, …