Luther - and God's Judgment

[JonNC]

I would also like to know. I am in full agreement with the Catholic Church’s position on faith AND works, and reject the Lutheran “faith alone” position. This is the primary source of scripture that I often use with other Lutherans to have them reconcile this with “faith alone”…I’m interested to see some responses.

Hi Julie,
And what is your view on the difference between the Catholic view of “faith and works” and the Lutheran view of “faith alone”?
I’ll let Catholic speak of “faith and works”, but the Lutheran view of faith alone is clearly described in the Epitome. Luther, however, also speaks of faith working through love:

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

Faith alone is the expression of our understanding that justification is only by grace through faith in Christ. And that is the only thing it is about. Faith is the way we access justification, not by our own means, merits and actions, but by the grace of God, for Christ’s sake.

What faith alone is not, is a license to merely proclaim faith and not have actions that are a part of faith. Above, Luther says, “To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith.”

Also, in the often quoted preface to St. James, Luther counters the argument that “faith alone, combined with faith without works is dead, means Luther thought a dead faith can save”, by saying: We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a reigned faith. “Without works” is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works.”

A saving faith must have good works, but it is not the works that save.

Jon

 

[IowaJay]

In short, we do not have the ability, of our own will, to come to justification. To believe that we do is pelagianism. . . . And as you say, this does not seem to be a contradiction from Catholic teaching either, at least not when one reads the JDDJ.

Jon

The Catholic position rejecting Pelagianism was eloquently stated by the Early Church Fathers at the Council of Orange in 529 AD:

Canon 5 - "If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism – if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles. . . "

Canon 7 - "If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God. . . . "

Catholic scholar Louis Bouyer cites the passages in his work “The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism” and notes that a belief in these canons from the Council of Orange is binding on Catholics due to Pope Boniface’s recognition of the Council in 531 AD. You can read the relevant portion of the book in a google books preview starting around page 65.

books.google.com/books?id=dTVjTpcG1RsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=spirit+and+forms+of+protestantism&hl=en&ei=WDu3TdOnEqXg0QHv48gC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=council%20of%20orange&f=false

 

[JonNC]

The Catholic position rejecting Pelagianism was eloquently stated by the Early Church Fathers at the Council of Orange in 529 AD:

Canon 5 - "If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism – if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles. . . "

Canon 7 - "If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God. . . . "

Catholic scholar Louis Bouyer cites the passages in his work “The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism” and notes that a belief in these canons from the Council of Orange is binding on Catholics due to Pope Boniface’s recognition of the Council in 531 AD. You can read the relevant portion of the book in a google books preview starting around page 65.

books.google.com/books?id=dTVjTpcG1RsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=spirit+and+forms+of+protestantism&hl=en&ei=WDu3TdOnEqXg0QHv48gC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=council%20of%20orange&f=false

Sounds rather agreeable to me, Iowa.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

James Akin, in his essay, Justification by Faith Alone, makes this comment:

One will note, in the definitions of the virtues offered above, the similarity between hope and the way Protestants normally define “faith”; that is, as an unconditional “placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit.” The definition Protestants normally give to “faith” is the definition Catholics use for “hope.”
However, the Protestant idea of faith by no means excludes what Catholics refer to as faith, since every Evangelical would (or should) say that a person with saving faith will believe whatever God says because God is absolutely truthful and incapable of making an error. Thus the Protestant concept of faith normally includes both the Catholic concept of faith and the Catholic concept of hope.
**Thus if a Protestant further specifies that saving faith is a faith which “works by charity” then the two soteriological slogans become equivalents. The reason is that a faith which works by charity is a faith which produces acts of love. But a faith which produces acts of love is a faith which includes the virtue of charity, the virtue of charity is the thing that enables us to perform acts of supernatural love in the first place. So a Protestant who says saving faith is a faith which works by charity, as per Galatians 5:6, is saying the same thing as a Catholic when a Catholic says that we are saved by faith, hope, and charity.**We may put the relationship between the two concepts as follows:
Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity

catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/justification-salvation/justification-by-faith-alone-by-james-akin/

Jon

 

[joemccarron]

As far as differences between Lutheran and Catholic views on this I suppose we could set forth the teachings in Trent and those in the Book of Concord and compare them side by side. Similarly you can do the same with James, Mathew, Romans and Galatians. But I’m not sure that would really give you much of the truth of how the two churches differ.

In my experience of growing up catholic and then also being somewhat involved in a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church for about 9 years (attending services there about ½ the Sundays) I would say the differences in practice are more a matter of emphasis. Paul’s letters are often aimed at emphasizing gentiles do not need to engage in the Judaic customs in order to be Christians. The gospels on the other hand tend not emphasize this theme.

I would guess the Lutheran church I attended had a sermon on one of Paul’s epistles about 20% of the time (80% of the time on the Gospel) where the Catholic mass homily is on the gospel about 99% of the time. The emphasis on it being all God and our inability to accomplish salvation is definitely present in the Lutheran church much more. The slogans themselves Faith alone Grace alone and scripture alone are difficult to avoid in any Lutheran setting. Now maybe I am more sensitive to them because I am a Catholic and understand that these slogans were reactions against the CC.

How are these slogans understood by the church? Well I can’t read minds but I definitely hear things that are very much in line with Luther’s writings and Augsburg and its defense and no suggestion of Iowa’s interpretation that Melanchthon must have been talking only about the unbaptized.

I would point out this sort of split between official doctrine and lay understanding can of course also be seen in Catholic Churches. As I’m sure most readers of these forums would understand. This forum is one that amoung other things informs Catholics like myself about our faith.

The Lutheran sermons deal with the cross. Whereas the Catholic homilies tend to talk about where we are in terms of living up to God’s command and what we should do to move closer to God. How can we do that better? Etc. This can of course vary from pastor to pastor and priest to priest but I definitely have noticed this general difference.

I don’t think either church would disagree with what the other says. But I do think I can tell a definite difference in emphasis. Anecdotal? Yes but after learning some of the history and listening to the lectures on the confessions it all makes much more sense.
I was never really too sure on where the Lutheran doctrine departed from Luther himself on this topic of justification. Someone said his explanation of how our free will influences our salvation are just his “private opinions.” But Luther disagreed. Faith alone and his understanding was to his mind the bedrock of his reform.

“Of this article [justification] nothing may be yielded or conceded, though heaven and earth and whatever will not abide, fall to ruin; for ‘there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved,’ says St. Peter (Acts 4:12); ‘and with His stripes we are healed’ (Is. 53:5). And on this article all that we teach and practice is based, against the pope, the devil, and the world. That is why we must be very certain of this doctrine and not doubt; otherwise all is lost, and the pope and the devil and all things gain the victory over us and are adjudged right.”

See this and other quotes where he explains how important he thinks his particular view of justification is here:
presenttruthmag.com/archive/III/3-4.htm

It seems to me that if the Formula of Concord truly stands for the position that we are saved only by our willful cooperation with Jesus’s work, then Luther probably would have split from Lutheranism had he just lived a bit longer.
While the reformulation can be interpreted as you state I still get more of a “Lutheranian” ?lutherlike? form of “faith alone” from many Lutherans, and indeed other protestants. That language is somewhat foreign to me.
As a Catholic the analogy of the Sheep and the Goats can be interpreted in a straight forward fashion. I better be loving and charitable to others in my life or I may find myself bleating instead of bahing on judgment day, and that is not good. Based on what you are saying about the importance of good works cooperating with faith (and not just being an irrelevant fruit/byproduct of faith) I think Lutherans may view this passage the same way.

Yet this passage is rarely used by Lutherans in explaining how we will be judged despite the fact that it is 1) directly from Jesus, and 2) directly stating why some will go to heaven and some to hell.

Instead Lutherans often reference parts of Paul’s letters when he is more directly addressing certain Jewish customs and how they are not necessary for gentile Christians to observe. Luther and Melanchthon then extrapolate from this a set of ideas of free will and a quite convoluted explanation of how we will be judged etc. This strikes me as odd. The Gospel message seems much more plain and accessible than all this jargon about justification in the book of concord.

But again all religions have proven extremely capable of making the simple very convoluted – Catholics are not excepted. So please don’t think I believe Lutherans have any special standing in this regard.

 

[JonNC]

=joemccarron;7808411]As far as differences between Lutheran and Catholic views on this I suppose we could set forth the teachings in Trent and those in the Book of Concord and compare them side by side. Similarly you can do the same with James, Mathew, Romans and Galatians. But I’m not sure that would really give you much of the truth of how the two churches differ.

I always wondered what a comparison of the Book of Concord and the CCC would look like.

In my experience of growing up catholic and then also being somewhat involved in a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church for about 9 years (attending services there about ½ the Sundays) I would say the differences in practice are more a matter of emphasis. Paul’s letters are often aimed at emphasizing gentiles do not need to engage in the Judaic customs in order to be Christians. The gospels on the other hand tend not emphasize this theme.

I would guess the Lutheran church I attended had a sermon on one of Paul’s epistles about 20% of the time (80% of the time on the Gospel) where the Catholic mass homily is on the gospel about 99% of the time. The emphasis on it being all God and our inability to accomplish salvation is definitely present in the Lutheran church much more.

It is in the Catholic Church, too, if one reads the link Iowa presented. The question is, what are we talking about? The ability of any human to come to God by his own means, actions, or desires does not exist, not without the help of the Holy Spirit. If this is what you mean, then yes. If you mean that even our ability to stay regenerate, in our weakended state, is dependent on Holy Spirit’s help, through the Church and the sacraments and the word, then yes. If you mean that we have no choice in the matter, that we lack free will to reject grace once we are justified, then no.

The slogans themselves Faith alone Grace alone and scripture alone are difficult to avoid in any Lutheran setting. Now maybe I am more sensitive to them because I am a Catholic and understand that these slogans were reactions against the CC.

I would see no reason to deny the importantce of grace alone through faith alone, nor am I embarrassed be the practice of sola scriptura in it original practice and intent. I am embarrassed that our words as Lutherans, and the words of Catholics have and continue to divide His Church.

How are these slogans understood by the church? Well I can’t read minds but I definitely hear things that are very much in line with Luther’s writings and Augsburg and its defense and no suggestion of Iowa’s interpretation that Melanchthon must have been talking only about the unbaptized.

It isn’t Iowa’s interpretation, but the actual teaching of Lutheranism. I do admit to poor catechesis amongst Lutherans.

The Lutheran sermons deal with the cross. Whereas the Catholic homilies tend to talk about where we are in terms of living up to God’s command and what we should do to move closer to God. How can we do that better? Etc. This can of course vary from pastor to pastor and priest to priest but I definitely have noticed this general difference.I don’t think either church would disagree with what the other says. But I do think I can tell a definite difference in emphasis. Anecdotal? Yes but after learning some of the history and listening to the lectures on the confessions it all makes much more sense.
I was never really too sure on where the Lutheran doctrine departed from Luther himself on this topic of justification. Someone said his explanation of how our free will influences our salvation are just his “private opinions.” But Luther disagreed. Faith alone and his understanding was to his mind the bedrock of his reform.

Again, not embarrassed by the emphasis on the cross, as that is the source od salvation. But you are right that your observation is anecdotal. A life-long Lutheran here that has heard many semons with the emphasis on sanctification, growth in grace, our role in sanctification.

“Of this article [justification] nothing may be yielded or conceded, though heaven and earth and whatever will not abide, fall to ruin; for ‘there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved,’ says St. Peter (Acts 4:12); ‘and with His stripes we are healed’ (Is. 53:5). And on this article all that we teach and practice is based, against the pope, the devil, and the world. That is why we must be very certain of this doctrine and not doubt; otherwise all is lost, and the pope and the devil and all things gain the victory over us and are adjudged right.”

Yes, in the Reformation era, words were often harsh, both ways. I wonder here how Luther would respond to the Joint Declaration - certainly it would be different in tenor than his words in the 1500’s. Alas, different times.

It seems to me that if the Formula of Concord truly stands for the position that we are saved only by our willful cooperation with Jesus’s work, then Luther probably would have split from Lutheranism had he just lived a bit longer.

It doesn’t, and I would split too if it did. We are clearly not saved only by our willful cooperation with Jesus work.

continued

 

[JonNC]

While the reformulation can be interpreted as you state I still get more of a “Lutheranian” ?lutherlike? form of “faith alone” from many Lutherans, and indeed other protestants. That language is somewhat foreign to me.

It is not a reformulation. The confessions have said what they’ve said for 500 years.

As a Catholic the analogy of the Sheep and the Goats can be interpreted in a straight forward fashion. I better be loving and charitable to others in my life or I may find myself bleating instead of bahing on judgment day, and that is not good. Based on what you are saying about the importance of good works cooperating with faith (and not just being an irrelevant fruit/byproduct of faith) I think Lutherans may view this passage the same way.

Pretty much.

Yet this passage is rarely used by Lutherans in explaining how we will be judged despite the fact that it is 1) directly from Jesus, and 2) directly stating why some will go to heaven and some to hell.

How do you know this?

More later.
Jon

 

[IowaJay]

I agree with what Jon says, and would add the following:

Regarding Melanchthon’s discussion of free will in the Augsburg Confession and the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, I think it is pretty clear from the context he is clearly making a distinction between the will of the unbaptized versus the will of the baptized which has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

The German version of Article XVIII of the Augsburg Confession states:

"Concerning free will, it is taught that a human being has some measure of free will,so as to live an “honorable life and to choose among the things reason comprehends. However, without the grace, help, and operation of the Holy Spirit a human being cannot become pleasing to God, fear or believe in God with the whole heart, or expel innate evil lusts from the heart. . . …”

The Holy Spirit dwells in a Christian due to baptism which regenerates the soul and the will. Melanchthon is saying that when the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian, then, he is able to please God and expel evil from his heart. Prior to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, people do not have the ability to do that. After the indwelling of the Spirit, they can with the Spirit’s help.

The Latin translation of the AC is perhaps even more explicit as to this point (the AC was simultaneously published in German and Latin):

"Concerning free will they (followers of the AC) teach that the human will has some freedom producing civil righteousness and for choosing things subject to reason. However, it does not have the power to produce the righteousness of God or spiritual righteousness without the Holy Spirit because “those who are natural do not receive the gifts of God’s Holy Spirit. [1 Cor. 2:14]. But this righteousness is worked in the heart when the Holy Spirit is received through the Word. In Book III of the Hypognosticon Augustine says this in so many words: 'We confess that all human beings have a free will that possesses the judgment of reason. It does not enable them, without God, to begin - much less complete - anything that pertains to God, but only to perform the good or evil deeds of this life… . . '”

So, again, Melanchthon is noting that those who have received the Holy Spirit do have the power to produce righteousness, and righteousness does come from their heart. A clear distinction is made between the will of those who have and have not received the Holy Spirit, and to repeat, that Spirit comes through baptism.

Melanchthon, like other Lutherans, never taught the idea of “once saved always saved.” What does that mean? It means that the will of those whose will has been regenerated have the ability to reject God or follow through with the grace given them by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit received at baptism.

The relevant section of the Formula of Concord I cited before talks about the free will of the regenerate, which although is present, is still weak. That is exactly the point Melanchthon is making in Section XVIII of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession when he states: “It is difficult even for the saints to retain such faith; it is impossible for the ungodly.” That sentence explicitly indicates a clearly distinction between the will of those who have received the Holy Spirit and versus those who have not. The ungodly have no ability to come to God on their own willpower - faith is a gift from God. Those who have the Holy Spirit - the saints referred to in than sentence - still struggle to retain their faith. That struggle indicates a liberated will which can either choose to reject the gift or struggle to retain it.

Finally, with regard to Matthew 25, Lutherans preach on Matthew 25 just as much as Catholics, as our three year lectionary cycle is practically the same. I even mentioned Matthew 25 in my Easter sermon since this year’s Easter Gospel text was from only a few chapters later - Matthew 28.

I hope that helps, joemccarron. I certainly can believe why you have the impression of Lutheranism that you do based on what you’ve heard. However, as Jon indicated, not a lot of Lutherans know what our official teaching documents found in the Book of Concord actually state. I’ve found that much of our Catholic heritage that is lacking in modern Lutheran practices can be found in the Book of Concord, such as acknowledgments that there are more than two sacraments, that Mary was ever-virgin and is rightly called the Mother of God, that Mary and the saints pray for us, etc. That’s a subject for another thread though.

 

[IowaJay]

By way of a final post-script to the discussion on Melanchthon’s teachings in the Augsburg Confession and the Apology thereto, here is what the Catholic response to the AC (the “Confutation”) had to say about Article XVIII regarding free will:

“In the eighteenth article they (the proponents of the AC) confess the power of the Free Will - viz. that it has the power to work a civil righteousness, but that it has not, without the Holy Ghost, the virtue to work the righteousness of God. This confession is received and approved.”

As to the teachings of the Augsburg Confession in general, this is what then-Cardinal Ratzinger had to say about it in his book “Principles of Catholic Theology”:

“Since Vinzenz Pfnur published his definitive article on this subject in 1975, the question of a Catholic recognition of the Confessio Augustana** has been the subject of impassioned debate. . . . In a lecture in Graz in January 1976 I commended Pfnur’s thesis in principle - and still do commend it - as a goal for ecumenism and hence as an indication of the right course for it to follow.” (pp.218-19).

Admittedly, the following discussion of the subject by Cardinal Ratzinger is highly nuanced, but I don’t think he would have made such a statement, or even been a part of the discussion, if he believed Melanchthon was teaching rank heresy in any part the Augsburg Confession.

 

[joemccarron]

Thank everyone for your comments.

Reading a bit further on the issue I see that the Missouri synod did not agree with the JDDJ. I imagine that this is why you interpret these text different than the Professor at Concordia.

 

[ignatius777]

First, Joe, it might hgelp to know what the source of your reading is, but in brief, you are right that salvation is available only by grace. So, in that sense, it is all God. However, Lutherans believe that we have free will, free will to deny grace, reject Christ, and, effectively, choose condemnation.
Justification is accessed by grace through faith in Christ, whose sacrifice made our salvation possible.

May I suggest the Lutheran Confessions as a good source to understanding what Lutheranism teaches?

Does this help?

Jon

You are absolutely correct that salvation is POSSIBLE only through the grace of God.

 

[hn160]

This is what our Apology of the Augsburg Confession has to say on Free Will.

Article XVIII. Free Will]
1 Our opponents accept Article XVIII on free will, but they add several proofs which are hardly applicable in this matter. They also add a caution, lest too much be conceded to free will, as in Pelagianism, or all liberty be denied it, as in Manichaeism.7 2 Well and good; but what is the difference between the Pelagians and our opponents, since both believe that without the Holy Spirit men can love God and perform “the essence of the acts” required by his commandments and that without the Holy Spirit men can merit grace and justification by works that reason produces on its own? 3 How many absurdities follow from these Pelagian notions which the schools teach with great authority! In the article on justification8 we quoted Augustine’s emphatic refutation of these notions, based on Paul.
4 We are not denying freedom to the human will. The human will has freedom to choose among the works and things which reason by itself can grasp. To some extent it can achieve civil righteousness or the righteousness of works. It can talk about God and express its worship of him in outward works. It can obey rulers and parents. Externally, it can choose to keep the hands from murder, adultery, or theft. Since human nature still has reason and judgment about the things that the senses can grasp, it also retains a choice in these things, as well as the liberty and ability to achieve civil righteousness. This righteousness which the carnal nature — that is, the reason — can achieve on its own without the Holy Spirit, Scripture calls the righteousness of the flesh. 5 But so great is the power of concupiscence that men obey their evil impulses more often than their sound judgment, while the devil, who as Paul says (Eph. 2:2) is at work in the ungodly, never stops inciting this feeble nature to various offenses. For these reasons even civil righteousness is rare among men, as we see from the fact that even philosophers who seem to have wanted this righteousness did not achieve it. 6 Moreover, it is false to say that a man does not sin if, outside the state of grace, he does the works prescribed in the commandments; to this they add that such works, by the merit of congruity, earn the forgiveness of sins and justification. Without the Holy Spirit human hearts have neither the fear of God nor trust in God nor the faith that God hears, forgives, helps, or saves them. Therefore they are ungodly; for “a bad tree cannot bear good fruit” (Matt. 7:18) and “without faith it is impossible to please” God (Heb. 11:6).
(tr-337) 7 Although we concede to free will the liberty and ability to do the outward works of the law, we do not ascribe to it the spiritual capacity for true fear of God, true faith in God, true knowledge and trust that God considers, hears, and forgives us. These are the real works of the first table,9 which the human heart cannot perform without the Holy Spirit. As Paul says (1 Cor. 2:14), “The natural man,” that is, the man who uses only his natural powers, “does not perceive the things of God.” 8 Men can easily determine this if they consider what their hearts believe about God’s will, whether they really believe that God regards and hears them. Even for the saints it is hard to keep this faith; for the ungodly it is impossible. As we have said before, it comes into being when terrified hearts hear the Gospel and receive consolation.
9 Therefore we may profitably distinguish between civil righteousness and spiritual righteousness, attributing the former to the free will and the latter to the operation of the Holy Spirit in the regenerate. This safeguards outward discipline, because all men ought to know that God requires this civil righteousness and that, to some extent, we can achieve it. At the same time it shows the difference between human righteousness and spiritual righteousness, between philosophical teaching and the teaching of the Holy Spirit; and it points out the need for the Holy Spirit. 10 This distinction is not our invention but the clear teaching of the Scriptures. Augustine discusses it too,1 and more recently William of Paris has discussed it very well.2 But it has been criminally suppressed by those who dream that men can obey the law of God without the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit is given to them out of regard for the merit of this obedience.

 

[joemccarron]

First, Joe, it might hgelp to know what the source of your reading is, but in brief, you are right that salvation is available only by grace. So, in that sense, it is all God. However, Lutherans believe that we have free will, free will to deny grace, reject Christ, and, effectively, choose condemnation.
Justification is accessed by grace through faith in Christ, whose sacrifice made our salvation possible.

May I suggest the Lutheran Confessions as a good source to understanding what Lutheranism teaches?

Does this help?

Jon

You are absolutely correct that salvation is POSSIBLE only through the grace of God.

I would agree with Ignatius that “salvation is POSSIBLE only through the grace of God.” But I disagree that what he quoted from jonnc is “absolutely correct”.

It is one thing to say that salvation requires grace. That does not mean that our salvation (or damnation) is in a sense “all God.” If it’s all God, then God is truly judging himself, and not us, on judgment day. Claiming that our salvation “requires God” implies that it is therefore somehow means its “all God” is illogical.

Grace is a gift and as is our ability to know and trust in God – our faith. But that does not mean that we have nothing to do with this. We need to accept and persevere in these gifts.

Iowa Jay after reading through your posts again, I think it is unclear whether the AC was talking about baptism, or for that matter, the Catholic response was talking about baptism. I think it could be read that way but I can understand how it can be read with the Concordia Professor’s understanding as well. As a Catholic I really don’t have a dog in that fight so to speak.

I go by faith and works according to Jesus’s straight forward command to love each other. I think trying to separate the two and talking of “faith alone” is very dangerous. But I do appreciate the Lutheran’s on this board helping me gain a better understanding of how the different churches interpret the faith alone doctrine.

 

[JonNC]

=joemccarron;7920067]I would agree with Ignatius that “salvation is POSSIBLE only through the grace of God.” But I disagree that what he quoted from jonnc is “absolutely correct”.

It is one thing to say that salvation requires grace. That does not mean that our salvation (or damnation) is in a sense “all God.” If it’s all God, then God is truly judging himself, and not us, on judgment day. Claiming that our salvation “requires God” implies that it is therefore somehow means its “all God” is illogical.

It depends on what you mean by “its all God”. Salvation is possible only because of God. Condemnation, on the other hand, is not God’s wish, not for anyone. We can, if we reject grace, choose condemnation.

Grace is a gift and as is our ability to know and trust in God – our faith. But that does not mean that we have nothing to do with this. We need to accept and persevere in these gifts.

It seems to me that Lutherans would say, we need to *receive * and persevere in these gifts.

Iowa Jay after reading through your posts again, I think it is unclear whether the AC was talking about baptism, or for that matter, the Catholic response was talking about baptism. I think it could be read that way but I can understand how it can be read with the Concordia Professor’s understanding as well. As a Catholic I really don’t have a dog in that fight so to speak.

I go by faith and works according to Jesus’s straight forward command to love each other. I think trying to separate the two and talking of “faith alone” is very dangerous. But I do appreciate the Lutheran’s on this board helping me gain a better understanding of how the different churches interpret the faith alone doctrine.

A Lutheran should never talk about faith alone without talking about works. Justification and sanctification are clearly linked - justification does not exist without sanctification. As Luther said, "It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works.” So, by definition, faith alone means faith working through love.

Jon

 

[Stepson]

I go by faith and works according to Jesus’s straight forward command to love each other.

Well said. If we have faith, then we have either do good works and hopefully get put with the sheep or we choose not to and roll the dice. For me the above statement of faith and carrying out the second highest command hits the nail. It’s a safe bet to put it in a crude Pascal’s wager kind of a way.

 

[hn160]

I go by faith and works according to Jesus’s straight forward command to love each other. I think trying to separate the two and talking of “faith alone” is very dangerous. But I do appreciate the Lutheran’s on this board helping me gain a better understanding of how the different churches interpret the faith alone doctrine.

If we have faith in Christ, our good works will follow to serve our fellow man, our good works count as nothing before God. Our justification before God is our belief in Christ.

 

[hn160]

I go by faith and works according to Jesus’s straight forward command to love each other. I think trying to separate the two and talking of “faith alone” is very dangerous. But I do appreciate the Lutheran’s on this board helping me gain a better understanding of how the different churches interpret the faith alone doctrine.

If we have faith in Christ, our good works will follow to serve our fellow man, our good works count as nothing before God. Our justification before God is our belief in Christ.