Lutherans: Justification & Eternal Security

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Dude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What you are essentially saying is that you DO believe in Eternal Security, in spite of the fact it is rejected in the Book of Concord?
You are not at all alone, I am starting to hear more and more Lutherans say they really do believe in Eternal Security.
I was raised Southern Baptist (and plan on enrolling in RCIA very soon), and Southern Baptists do believe in eternal security. Have your read Charles Stanley’s book “Eternal Security”?

The difference is that the Lutherans believe that a willful rejection of Christ leads to a forfeit of the gift of salvation that Christ gives. A person in the Stanley school of thought believes that even if one turns away from Christ willfully and lives a life of sin, if they truly believed when they confessed Christ at some point in their life, that the person will still be saved in the end. No amount of sin and apostacy can cause one to lose salvation, even an outward rejection of Christ’s gift.
 
No amount of sin and apostacy can cause one to lose salvation, even an outward rejection of Christ’s gift.
An outward rejection of Christ’s gift would be evidence that the person did not truly accept that gift in the first place. At least that is how I would expect the OSAS advocates to address the matter.
 
An outward rejection of Christ’s gift would be evidence that the person did not truly accept that gift in the first place. At least that is how I would expect the OSAS advocates to address the matter.
That would be one way to look at it.

But there have been many people that have been raised in the Church and then have gone on to reject Gods teaching. An example would be Joseph Smith of the Mormon Faith. He was raised a Christian and then decided that he wanted to be a prophet and created a religion. Since we are not God and cannot look into his heart, we have to go on the assumption that a one point he was a Christian as he professed to. He very well could have been a non-believer from the very start but only God can make that judgment.
 
An outward rejection of Christ’s gift would be evidence that the person did not truly accept that gift in the first place. At least that is how I would expect the OSAS advocates to address the matter.
That describes perseverence of the saints, which is often confused with eternal security. They are not the same doctrine. Perseverence of the saints teaches that if a person rejects Christ at some point, they were never truly saved. All who are truly saved will persevere to the end.
 
God has indeed declared the entire world not guilty because of the sinless life and innocent death of his own eternal Son. That is “objective justification” (the entire world has been declared not guilty - whether they believe it or not does not change the fact of what Jesus has finished for the world). But without faith worked in us by the Holy Spirit through that gospel message, that truth will not benefit anyone now or forever. But the Holy Spirit teaches us to believe that what Jesus did for the world he most certainly must have done for me. That is what we call “subjective justification.”

But that is not the same as predestination. Predestination (or election, as it is also called) is a comforting doctrine meant for Christians who are troubled by the weakness of their faith in the face of trials and temptations. As we despair of being able to “hold on” to our faith by our own power (which indeed we cannot), Scripture teaches us a wonderfully encouraging truth. God chose us to be his own from all eternity. Therefore our faith is a gift which God from all eternity chose to work in our hearts in our lifetime through the gospel in Word and Sacraments. And not only did he choose in eternity to bring us to faith, he promises also to keep us in faith until eternity through that same gospel in Word and Sacraments. In other words, our salvation through faith in Jesus Christ is certain in the grace of God from eternity to eternity. This teaching leads us to make use of the means of grace with comfort and joy as we recognize their eternal significance in our lives. Ephesians 1:3-6 and Romans 8:28-30 are two of the best places to turn in Scripture for this doctrine of our election.

“If God did not predestine any to damnation, then can we assume all were initially predestined to salvation?” Here is where we must be careful that we don’t let our reason stand in judgment of what Scripture says. It is an absolute truth of Scripture that God equally desires the salvation of all. It is also an absolute truth of Scripture that God has elected some who will through faith inherit that eternal life. However, Scripture does not allow us to teach that God in eternity elected some to be damned. We cannot grasp with our limited human reason how all these statements can be fully and equally true. But Scripture teaches them all. When such curious questions arise, then I must remember that predestination was not revealed to us to satisfy every curious question that arises in our hearts. Our election is revealed to comfort the troubled Christian. Look at Psalm 131 and be reminded that there are times we must simply tell our reason to be still!

“Faith is the result of predestination as stated above – explain.” God didn’t elect me because he saw that I would believe. God elected me to be brought to faith in his Son (Ephesians 1). The saving faith in my heart is therefore not the reason for my election. Rather, my faith is the result of God’s electing love. In eternity he elected me in Christ to be brought to faith through the message of the gospel that his Spirit would bring to me in Word and Sacraments.

“We are taught for those who reject Jesus, it is entirely that person’s ‘fault’ and they will receive eternal damnation. Is this correct? We are taught for those who believe in Jesus, they will inherit eternal salvation. Is this correct?” Both statements are correct biblical truth. No one will be able to blame God for their unbelief on the last day (Mt 23:37). Everyone who believes in Jesus will receive eternal life (Jn 3:16).

“We are taught we cannot accept Jesus by any work of our own, it is through the power of the Holy Spirit who works in us through the Word and Sacrament. But where does that initial process begin? Assuming I have not been baptized into the faith as an infant baby, did I not have to initially read the Word, or initially go to church to hear the Word and by doing so the Holy Spirit started working in my heart? Doesn’t the individual have to start the process or are we to believe the Holy Spirit just one day arrived in ones life and started working? Once the Holy Spirit is in one’s heart, great things begin to happen, but my question is how did the Holy Spirit ‘get there’ in the first place?”

God has nowhere promised us that the Holy Spirit will work faith in anyone’s heart apart from the means of grace. An unbeliever can choose to open a Bible or to attend a worship service. However, that does not mean that he has somehow cooperated in the real work of conversion. He will still reject the law’s condemnation of his sin by his own powers. He will still consider the gospel to be utter foolishness by his own reason. Only the Holy Spirit can bring a heart to sorrow over sin (contrition) and to have confidence in forgiveness through Jesus (saving faith)
I tried to follow this the best I could, but it seems you are saying Eternal Security is true.
 
That describes perseverence of the saints, which is often confused with eternal security. They are not the same doctrine. Perseverence of the saints teaches that if a person rejects Christ at some point, they were never truly saved. All who are truly saved will persevere to the end.
No, that is a common misconception. Perseverance of the Saints is a Catholic teaching where it is possible to fall, but those given the gift of perseverance will repent in time should they fall.

Under the Protestant model, Perseverance of the Saints is an improper term and in fact IS the same as Eternal Security because the possibility of falling doesnt exist. In classical protestantism (especially Reformed) the person is justified once and for all and that can never be undone.
 
I tried to follow this the best I could, but it seems you are saying Eternal Security is true.
I do not believe once saved always saved. You can lose your faith in the gift, but the gift cannot be taken away. You can turn your back on God and reject the Holy Spirit, but God will never take away his gift of Christ Salvation.
 
I do not believe once saved always saved. You can lose your faith in the gift, but the gift cannot be taken away. You can turn your back on God and reject the Holy Spirit, but God will never take away his gift of Christ Salvation.
So “turning your back on God” will cause you to lose salvation?
 
No, that is a common misconception. Perseverance of the Saints is a Catholic teaching where it is possible to fall, but those given the gift of perseverance will repent in time should they fall.
I never heard the term “perseverance of the saints” in a Catholic document. I thought is was the “P” in TULIP, the 5th point of Calvinism.:confused:
 
I never heard the term “perseverance of the saints” in a Catholic document. I thought is was the “P” in TULIP, the 5th point of Calvinism.:confused:
It is explicitly stated in the Council of Trent, but it is clear nobody can presume that they will for sure make it to Heaven, we have to wait and see.

Calvinists stole this teaching from historical Catholic theology and the Calvinists changed the meaning to deflect away from the fact what they are teaching is actually Eternal Security (aka Once Saved Always Saved). They dont believe a “true” Christian can fall, thus the concept of “persevering” doesnt really exist.
 
It is explicitly stated in the Council of Trent, but it is clear nobody can presume that they will for sure make it to Heaven, we have to wait and see.

Calvinists stole this teaching from historical Catholic theology and the Calvinists changed the meaning to deflect away from the fact what they are teaching is actually Eternal Security (aka Once Saved Always Saved). They dont believe a “true” Christian can fall, thus the concept of “persevering” doesnt really exist.
Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. I was always under the impression that Calvin came up with the term to address Arminius.
 
So “turning your back on God” will cause you to lose salvation?
I do not want to give you the wrong impression. It is not that God takes it away. It is that you do not benefit from the gift because you do not believe in the gift.
 
No, that is a common misconception. Perseverance of the Saints is a Catholic teaching where it is possible to fall, but those given the gift of perseverance will repent in time should they fall.

Under the Protestant model, Perseverance of the Saints is an improper term and in fact IS the same as Eternal Security because the possibility of falling doesnt exist. In classical protestantism (especially Reformed) the person is justified once and for all and that can never be undone.
Obviously I was not referring to the Catholic teaching. The modern concept of eternal security, taught by Charles Stanley and others within the SBC, would be foreign to Calvin’s thought process. In the Reformed tradition if one leaves the faith, they were never genuinely justified, if one is truly justified, they will remain in the faith. With the SBC/Stanley’s doctrine, if one leaves the faith they remain justified and lose rewards in heaven (rewards in heaven are based on our works). Salvation is not lost.
 
Obviously I was not referring to the Catholic teaching. The modern concept of eternal security, taught by Charles Stanley and others within the SBC, would be foreign to Calvin’s thought process. In the Reformed tradition if one leaves the faith, they were never genuinely justified, if one is truly justified, they will remain in the faith. With the SBC/Stanley’s doctrine, if one leaves the faith they remain justified and lose rewards in heaven (rewards in heaven are based on our works). Salvation is not lost.
Wow, I’ve never heard of that version. :eek:
 
Obviously I was not referring to the Catholic teaching. The modern concept of eternal security, taught by Charles Stanley and others within the SBC, would be foreign to Calvin’s thought process. In the Reformed tradition if one leaves the faith, they were never genuinely justified, if one is truly justified, they will remain in the faith. With the SBC/Stanley’s doctrine, if one leaves the faith they remain justified and lose rewards in heaven (rewards in heaven are based on our works). Salvation is not lost.
I disagree, the ‘modern’ conclusions of those who preach OSAS (once saved always saved, also known as Eternal Security) were doing nothing more than taking Calvin’s thoughts to the logical conclusion. Nowhere in the above description do you disagree with the essence of OSAS…once you put your faith in Christ you also believe you cannot lose your salvation.

Like I said, “Perseverance of the Saints” was invented by Protestants to deflect away from the fact what is being taught is actually OSAS.
 
I disagree, the ‘modern’ conclusions of those who preach OSAS (once saved always saved, also known as Eternal Security) were doing nothing more than taking Calvin’s thoughts to the logical conclusion. Nowhere in the above description do you disagree with the essence of OSAS…once you put your faith in Christ you also believe you cannot lose your salvation.

Like I said, “Perseverance of the Saints” was invented by Protestants to deflect away from the fact what is being taught is actually OSAS.
I don’t believe in OSAS, and won’t defend the doctrine. Essentially they are the same, so I agree with you there. I have to ask, how are they taking Calvin’s thoughts to their logical conclusion? The two interpretations of OSAS disagree on one point, and that is what it means if a person leaves the Christian faith. Either they were never regenerate and are still not saved or they are still saved.
 
I have asked Lutherans this question elsewhere but they wont respond in a way that addresses the question. Further I got the impression Lutherans dont believe salvation can be lost so at this point Im wondering if this is another one of those issues where Protestants are trying to have it both ways.
Hi
Are Lutherrans and Protestants the same thing?
Thanks

GodAllahYHWH is All-Knowing and All-Wise; one should invariably give Claim and Reason on all important issues from one’s Revealed Book; one shouldn’t try putting one’s own words into God’s mouth. Kindly let God speak for Claim and Reason and you would know the truth for sure. In truth we Unite.
 
I don’t believe in OSAS, and won’t defend the doctrine. Essentially they are the same, so I agree with you there. I have to ask, how are they taking Calvin’s thoughts to their logical conclusion? The two interpretations of OSAS disagree on one point, and that is what it means if a person leaves the Christian faith. Either they were never regenerate and are still not saved or they are still saved.
From early in the Reformation the Catholics rightly pointed out what the “reformers” were teaching was OSAS and that the concept of OSAS opens the door to people having no problem sinning because they cant get punished. Whether the reformers ever taught people were free to sin is beside the point because that is what the teaching actually means if a Protestant who believes in OSAS finds them self living in sin. The “reformers” went out of their way to make a case why they were NOT preaching OSAS and that Catholics were misrepresenting them, but never could produce an objective case. The fact is, there never has been an explanation for how it cannot be OSAS and that sin really doesnt matter. In the last few decades some Protestants werent afraid to say that it was in fact OSAS, and this is now a very popular teaching among some denominations.
Hi
Are Lutherrans and Protestants the same thing?
Thanks
The term Protestant was given to those who 'protested" the authority of the Catholic Church in the 1500s. Martin Luther was one of the first to “protest” (but not the only one) and to break away from the Church and start his own (his followers became known as Lutherans). Other men felt they knew what was best for the Church and, like Luther, broke away and started their own “church”. Over time these groups divided further among themselves over various issues, and this continues today.
All these groups fell under the umbrella of “Protestant” and this is generally an accepted “official” term even among protestants.
 
I do not believe once saved always saved. You can lose your faith in the gift, but the gift cannot be taken away. You can turn your back on God and reject the Holy Spirit, but God will never take away his gift of Christ Salvation.
In your opinion how does one restore his or her relationship with Jesus Christ if they have rejected His love through their own selfish acts of sin?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top