C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
Wow Assurance thats a lot to go through right now I will get back asap.
- Status
H
hurst
Guest
Perhaps I was not clear enough. By “Ask God part”, I meant the “asking”. To ask is to do something, address a request, either verbally or mentally.hurst:
It is faith and not a good work. This statement which you referenced is from Luther’s famous introductory comments to the book of Romans. He is clearly speaking this to believers who already have faith, so he is essentially saying “You trust God – ask Him to give you more trust”. Note what it says in Luther’s small catechism regarding the third article of the Apostle’s Creed:
Do you think that to “Ask God” means faith? To rephrase it, then, one would say
(Believe/Have faith that) God will work faith in you, or you will remain forever without faith, no matter what you wish, say or can do.
There are several problems with this, though.
- In spite of you saying he was talking to people who already have faith, he says that they “will remain forever without faith” - implying they don’t have it - if they don’t do whatever he meant (asking or believing).
- Your supporting quote actually contradicts that he means faith, because he says “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ”.
- If you mean they will lose all faith if they do not ask for additional faith, then that would make sense. But it does not say that, nor have you indicated it meant that. It is another example of the obscure and contradictory language I have seen in Luther’s writings.
But then one would not need to bother with asking. One has to at least “give” attention and “give” a request. That is not pure receptivity. Pure receptivity would be a cup. It just sits there as you fill it. But a cup doesn’t ask. A person holding the cup asks.
Ok, but how did that faith get there? Did God put it there against your will? But that is not faith. Faith is an act of the will to believe.
Who hear and understand it. An infant cannot understand it, nor can an Australian Aborigine, nor a person in a coma.
Understanding something is also still not enough, though. In those same scriptures, we read of pharisees who heard and understood Jesus, but refused to believe, refused to have faith.
The Word does not create faith against the will of the recipient. It takes cooperation, willingness. And for that, one must have free will capable of responding to the invitation to believe.
That is reasonable.
But it takes an act of the will to either read or listen to it, to understand it, and finally to believe what one understands by it. Reading Scripture is considered a good work. Preaching the Gospel is a good work. Without such good works, one will not be able to choose to exercise faith in Jesus Christ.
And yet, those who do not yet believe and hear it for the first time must perform an act of faith before having faith. Not all hearers do this, not all choose to believe. If the will were incapable of doing any good, then no one would decide to have faith or believe the Gospel. If the will were only able to passively receive, then everyone who heard the Gospel would believe. As it is, some do and some don’t. This demonstrates that the will is capable of being active in rejecting or accepting the Gospel message and truth. And it is up to the will to freely decide to believe, and then act or live in faith for all it does thereafter.
(continued)
H
hurst
Guest
I think you are confusing creation with redemption. God created us without our consent, and afterwards using the nature He gave us, we are able to accept or reject Him by our free will. But God will not save us without our consent, because we already have a nature with memory, intellect, and will; and it is our nature we must use to accept or reject the redemption Christ already paid on our behalf.hurst:
Again, I think all of this is answered above. Man does not cooperate with God for his salvation – God alone creates faith. Once he has been saved, he is able to cooperate with God – only in the sense that he is able to reject that life which he has been given. What prompts one to reject and disown that life (unbelief, dis-trust) is sin which chokes and kills faith (false doctrine is in here too).
But you are essentially saying God saves us not only without our cooperation, but also against our will, which you assert is helplessly passive, and that He creates faith in us by the Gospel. You then say that sin causes some of us to reject that salvation.
The problem with that is we all already have sin before we are saved. How is it that some of us are still able to believe?
Our natural free will is capable of desiring its natural good. It does not know about the supernatural, and thus cannot of itself desire it. But when it is elevated by grace and is made aware of it, it is capable of cooperating while yet still being able to reject it. But this holds also for one who did not sin: it is not a feature of fallen man only, but of natural man. Grace is needed whether we have sinned or not, because by nature we cannot lift ourselves up to the supernatural.
hurst
H
hurst
Guest
Please allow me to say it here, since it will be short.
Why is this? Again - what of the individual Christian in particular? Could Trent really be any more clear?: For even as no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.
The underline part does not mean being in the state of grace as much as it means being in possession of grace and confirmed in good. Only in Heaven will we be in possession of it.
When we are in the state of grace, it means we have the life of grace right now, though only by means of grasping it with our free will in faith and obedience.
If we had nothing to do with it, then why does Christ say this:hurst:
I can’t agree with this – I think God adopts us wholesale and brings us into the Kingdom and we have nothing to do with it.
Matthew 13:15 For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
Anyway, the reason we had nothing to do with Him creating us is because we had no nature by which we could exercise free will and interact with God.
But now that we do have a nature with free will, we can interact and choose to cooperate or not.
New nature? That new “nature” is Christ Himself.
2 Corinthians 5:17 If then any be in Christ a new creature, the old things are passed away, behold all things are made new.
Ephesians 4:24 And put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth.
John 15:5 I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.
In this new nature, which is the supernatural man Christ, we do not sin.
1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God, committeth not sin: for his seed abideth in him, and he can not sin, because he is born of God.
But while in this life, we are only joined to it by our free will through charity in giving ourselves:
Matthew 16:25 For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.
Thus, we cannot sin “in” this new man, but by our free will we can revert to our old ways.
1 John 2:1 My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just:
But it is the same nature doing the willing that we were originally created with. Supernatural grace does not destroy nature, but elevates it.
I agree the reward is not heaven itself. But the reward is given in the next life. And that means the works we do in faith will result in a reward in the next life, such as a mansion of souls we helped save, or perhaps a whole city. And we will share their joy. So while God ultimately gets all the glory, He manages it in such a way that we participate in it according to our works (in faith) done in this life. This is to underscore the value of our free will and what it chooses to do.
hurst
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Yikes, it’s the return of the thread that won’t go away.
Regards,
James Swan
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/
Regards,
James Swan
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/
F
FM483
Guest
Yes James. You are dealing with the philosophy of Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism. The Gospel is so powerful that the Old Adam in mankind cannot grasp it by his own reason or strength. The New Creation born within man by the Gospel can grasp this truth through the vehicle of Faith. This is why you are encountering circular arguments and endless diatribes - you are usually addressing the Old Adam within posters! The Old Adam(Romans 7,8) can never comprehend the Gospel. In fact, this Old Adam confuses what the word “Grace” even means. The Scriptures refer to Grace primarily as the ATTITUDE of God towards mankind on account of Christ - not a power source. I encounter miscommunications of this sort all the time when speaking to Mormons, who use similar terminology yet with totally different meanings.
Frank
S
Steven_Merten
Guest
Hello All,
My, this is a reunion.
Right on Catholic Dude! Luther! Read Read! is number two out of 13,139 threads on the Views for Apologetics threads at CAF. Good going!
Seems like there have been quite a few people believing in your position and not Luther’s. 271 (93.13%) of votes out of 290 believe that Luther did pervert the scriptures. I think it is clear that people can see through Luther, and his backers, to see the damage he has done.
Take care,
Steven Merten
My, this is a reunion.
Right on Catholic Dude! Luther! Read Read! is number two out of 13,139 threads on the Views for Apologetics threads at CAF. Good going!
Seems like there have been quite a few people believing in your position and not Luther’s. 271 (93.13%) of votes out of 290 believe that Luther did pervert the scriptures. I think it is clear that people can see through Luther, and his backers, to see the damage he has done.
Take care,
Steven Merten
A
Assurance
Guest
Mickey, as I have explained, Lutherans do not hold to consubstantiation either. I can accept your second statement wholeheartedly. As to it being either bread or body, for instance, I don’t see it as a strict either-or and leave it as a mystery as to how this all happens.
Hurst,
I think we are veering off-topic here. We are now getting into a debate about the issue of free will. Tell you what – I’ll respond on this topic here and if you want, take the final word. This kind of conversation probably belongs on another thread, as this one started out with an individual (Catholic Dude) who was wondering about Luther’s attitude about committing sin.
Yes, and I suppose that you could call this a work in that sense. However, if one has the DESIRE to ask this of God already faith at work (and “this is the work of God – that you believe…”) in a person, due to the Word of God. In other words, in the most important sense, they have already “come to the feast”, as they have heard the call of God and believed it (see post # 567 and its accompanying links which goes into more detail on this issue)
A
Assurance
Guest
No, I don’t think “Ask God” (whether verbally or mentally) means faith. It is an ACT OF FAITH. If one asks God for faith it is because that person already has faith. The faith is already there by the Word. As to your points, you raise a good one in 1., and I admit that I was wrong here – Luther is addressing believers and unbelievers (though at this point in history they certainly would have been baptized) – in that case I would simply say if a person reads Luther’s words and is prompted to ask for faith in Christ for the forgiveness of His sins, the person has already been given faith – He in fact already trusts in the Word / promises of God. Luther would certainly admit as much and did elsewhere. As Luther says, faith can’t help but come out in thoughts, words and deeds, of course! As to the statement, “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ” Luther is simply saying that he is a Christian not because he exercised His will (which Luther believed had absolutely no power in spiritual matters, as the will of the unregenerate will never choose God), but because God did. The reason one believes is because of God, not one’s self. Regarding your statement, “If you mean they will lose all faith if they do not ask for additional faith, then that would make sense. But it does not say that, nor have you indicated it meant that. It is another example of the obscure and contradictory language I have seen in Luther’s writings”, I’m not sure how I did not indicate it meant that. As I said above however, I was wrong and Luther was also talking to unbelievers, as you have pointed out. I think my explanation above clears this up, and, therefore, in this case at least, I don’t think that we can really say this is an example of obscure and contradictory language in Luther.
I guess you’re right – one would not need bother – the point is that one cannot help but bother because they have already become convinced that all their sin is on Christ and He is their sin bearer and hence they faith can’t help but ask Him for forgiveness when they still feel their sinful nature pressing against them. Paradoxical I know, but I think true (in my experience it is). I cry “Lord have mercy” although I know He does and has and will – its why I ask. As far as “giving” attention, I’ll grant you that – one must hear the Word of God. However, throughout our lives, I think a lot of our hearing has nothing to do with our “willing” it – we can’t help but hear those who surround us and make their way into our lives through various means. The biggest example is little babies – they are pure receptivity. Further, I don’t equate the trust that babies, for example have with their parents as an act of the will, but I think its genuine trust. Lutherans define faith as trust, assent, and knowledge, but we look at trust as the absolute key from which the other portions of faith naturally develop and flow. I think we are much more like cups than you think we are. Using reason, I think you are looking at how one obtains the faith delivered to all the saints in a very rationalistic way, which for the most part ignores trust. Think of Jesus saying that we should let the little infants COME to Him. Think about John the Baptist leaping in his mother’s womb (Luke 1:44: “For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.”). Think about the Psalmist in Psalm 22 saying that he has trusted the Lord from his mother’s breast. It seems to me that your understanding here is far too restrictive.
A
Assurance
Guest
Hurst, faith got there by the Word being sown into the heart. When this happens our will has nothing to do with it. Think about the parable of the sower – where is the direct rejection of the Word that you seem to think happens? What does it say in John 1: “not by human decision…not by the will of man…” Again, faith is not so much an act of the will to believe (by the way, how specifically, would you define “will”?), but is trust that is born from the Word of God, which is perfect love in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Again, I think you place too much emphasis on understanding - you are looking at things very rationalistically from my point of view. Yes, Matt 13 talks about the heart understanding it, but if you were to ask me: “When did you first understand that your father loved you perfectly and unconditionally?”, I would have to say that I BECAME CONSCIOUS (in the way that we understand this!) OF THAT UNDERSTANDING – namely that my father was truly lovingly involved with me at every point of my life - at a certain point in my life. Even more ridiculous would be for me to say that by an act of my will I DECIDED that my father loved me unconditionally. Now that I think about it, I think there are occasions where the Word very well may create faith against the will of the recipient – I appeal to Augustine (while not adopting double predestination) that God transforms our will so that we are drawn to trust him with joy and not dragged into the Kingdom of God kicking and screaming.
A
Assurance
Guest
Again, of the things you mention above which are “acts of the will” (I’ve said above, I think some are hardly such), they are done with people who have been given the gift of faith, and who trust in Christ as their confidence for their salvation, even as they remain sinners in some very real sense. Of course the person who does not exercise their faith in the manner above will be far more susceptible to the dangers of sin (parable of sower again). Again, I reject this concept of the unbeliever “choosing to believe” – as to why some who hear the Gospel do not believe, I am willing to leave this a mystery – I know we are just to sow the Word at every occasion, speaking the truth in love. I leave the rest up to God. There could be any myriad of factors why seeds germinate in one heart and not another, why the Word is effective in one case and not the other (Not spoken in love? Not spoken with strength/authority?), why Satan steals the seed from one heart and not another, why God appoints for some to believe at one time and not another (Acts 13), why the prayer of one parent for their child’s soul is effective and another is not, etc (notice I’ve done everything but put the onus/blame on the unbelieving person receiving the Word – which is always our first reaction as sinful and corrupted people). Its not my job. My job is to know that I am loved perfectly in Christ and have eternal life and salvation and forgiveness of sins and all that comes with knowing Him right NOW / ALREADY (John 17:3) and that I am to do good works (that God has prepared in advance in Christ for me to do) towards my neighbor in my vocation so that God may be justified before them and that they may glorify the Lord.
Again, I think all of this is answered above. Man does not cooperate with God for his salvation – God alone creates faith. Once he has been saved, he is able to cooperate with God – only in the sense that he is able to reject that life which he has been given. What prompts one to reject and disown that life (unbelief, dis-trust) is sin which chokes and kills faith (false doctrine is in here too).
I am willing to leave this as a mystery. I’ll admit that Scripture seems to clearly show that some wills are hopelessly hardened vs the grace of God, but I note that curiously, in the Scriptures, the people this seems to happen to are the ones who are in God’s visible “Church” (I’m thinking OT and NT). In any case, I think that you attribute far too much power and confidence to our fallen nature. In my mind, the Word of God – the Gospel – the message of forgiveness of sins and regeneration in, with, and through Christ – and not our good works – is our only hope. See my answers directly above.
A
Assurance
Guest
Well, we believe very differently here. I have addressed this issue before at length elsewhere and won’t go into detail here. Suffice it to say that we believe that man was created in an “infantile perfection” in a full relationship with God who dwelled with man. Man did not need to be elevated in any sense as he already had a full relationship with God that was to develop naturally. So we don’t have the dichotomy you have here. The fall into sin is a surprise in our theology. Now, people are completely dead in sin and have no free will apart from the Word of God which creates faith. Further, what would one’s “natural good” be anyway as opposed to as opposed to its “supernatural good”?
Hurst, from my perspective there is no distinction between being in a state of grace and being in possession of grace and confirmed in good. In Jesus Christ, I have heaven now. Where Jesus is, namely in His Word and Sacrament, I have heaven as well. He is committed to me and bigger than my imperfect repentance, penance and good works which, when I examine them closely, might cause me to wonder if I really am His. He is bigger than my doubts and my weaknesses. He has given me His Word that though His perfect life and innocent death – His blood and righteousness - I am His betrothed, and I believe that indeed I WILL SEE and know the consummation of this rock solid Word and promise at His return. I pray to God in Christ daily that I would never fall from Him – that He would continue to strengthen my trust in Him in love. Insofar as I am new in Him I strive to be found in Him and His perfect life – for by abiding in those good works that He has called me to walk in from the beginning while being confident (trusting Him) that He has cleansed and cleanses all my sin, I remain protected from the faith-destroying and doubt-inducing effects of sinful thoughts AND actions. By faith in Him I am “confirmed in good” – namely, what my parents put in me via the word and I once accepted passively, I now accept actively, with a will that is fully functional and able to understand faith (faith seeking understanding) – to know how faith is not only about simple trust in Christ through His promises, but also about knowledge and assent. I am learning that Roman Catholicism does not see things quite like this! There is so much doubt that is introduced as something that one must always have, as I think this quote from Trent clearly shows.
A
Assurance
Guest
I don’t think this is accurate. I think the new man is synonymous the “inner man” (see Romans 7, II Cor 4) that Paul talks about. It is that new identity that we receive when we dwell with THE New Man, Jesus Christ. And where faith (trust) is, Christ is present.
I say that insofar as we are new men in Christ, we do not sin. Insofar as we are old men (of the flesh) we are sinners and need to be slayed with the Law of God, which is His hammer, that we may be bound and healed by His Gospel once again.
We disagree. I believe God’s attitude towards us (grace) changes us into completely new people - we are given an utterly new nature - though in this life, we still always have Old Adam to war against (Romans 7).
Hurst, I am happy to say that we agree with one another wholeheartedly! As a whole, I don’t think the Roman Catholic idea that our inheritance is our eternal salvation is correct. I believe we already have eternal salvation in Christ.
A
Assurance
Guest
Again, I will let hurst have the last word here (at least in public - on these forums), as I understand that this is not completely “on topic”.
For those just looking at this massive thread now, it was started by one “Catholic Dude” who was wondering about Luther’s attitude towards committing sin.
For those just looking at this massive thread now, it was started by one “Catholic Dude” who was wondering about Luther’s attitude towards committing sin.
H
hurst
Guest
Assurance,
Thanks for your detailed responses. I see no reason to delve deeper since it is off-topic, which I didn’t realize at the time.
hurst
S
Steven_Merten
Guest
Hello Catholic Dude,
myfavoritmartin has some questions about Martin Luther in the Sacred Scripture forum. In this thread, you seem to have worked through quite a bit of what Martin Luther has done. I think it would be an asset for you to possibly post at myfavoritmartin’s question martin luther heretic or visionist
Hello Myfavoritmartin,
You may want to check out this thread of Catholic Dude’s for insite on Martin Luther. Catholic Dude has quite a thread here.
myfavoritmartin has some questions about Martin Luther in the Sacred Scripture forum. In this thread, you seem to have worked through quite a bit of what Martin Luther has done. I think it would be an asset for you to possibly post at myfavoritmartin’s question martin luther heretic or visionist
Hello Myfavoritmartin,
You may want to check out this thread of Catholic Dude’s for insite on Martin Luther. Catholic Dude has quite a thread here.
- Status