Martin Luther, OSAS

[Contarini]

Can someone please point me to a text where John Calvin uses the phrase “once saved always saved”?

Can we please dissociate this clumsy phrase from the Reformed doctrine of eternal security? “Once saved always saved” is a doctrine commonly associated with hyper-Arminian and Pelagian concepts of faith-salvation, where saying the “sinner’s prayer” once gets you “saved”, regardless of how you live.

My only disagreement with that statement is the ludicrous phrase “hyper-Arminian.” You aren’t a full-blown Arminian, much less a “hyper” one, if you believe in any form of eternal security. The kind of theology you’re describing is indeed deeply flawed, and real Calvinists and real Arminians can join in condemning it. But it’s not “hyper-Arminian” any more than it’s “hyper-Calvinist.”

In Reformed theology (and this is a point upon which Lutherans diverge from the Reformed) a key doctrine is that of definite (or limited) atonement - that Jesus Christ died for his elect only. In a sense, these were once “saved” by his redeeming work and will be infallibly guaranteed a place in heaven. Those for whom Christ did not die are not and can never be saved.

That isn’t really the basis for perseverance of the saints/eternal security, though. Four-point Calvinists (and as you note, people who aren’t Calvinists at all, really) can still hold to it. The key claim is not limited atonement but the claim that only the elect ever experience regeneration. Certainly limited atonement makes that claim sharper and gives it a stronger basis.

However, the application of this salvation, or justification, which is wrought by the Holy Spirit and received by faith alone (according to the Reformed view) is something that the elect receive and cannot lose. R. C. Sproul prefers “once in grace, always in grace.”

Right. (Not right as in I agree, but right as in this is the Reformed view and you’ve put it well).

Edwin

 

[rcwitness]

And to us, the problem with reading “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” as “God forgives and justifies sinners based on what they do and not by faith alone” completely ignores the previous context that James is discussing. Not once does James address how a sinner is forgiven and righteous before God in the entire chapter. So that isn’t what he is talking about. Rather, what James means is “You can see that a person is right with God by how they behave and not only going by what they say.” This is why Abraham and Rahab are mentioned as well; their faith in God manifested itself in their works and as such, their righteousness was demonstrated.

The huge problem, imo, with bringing James into the discussion is that it is used to systematically undo what Paul teaches; when Paul’s epistles that address justification are far more relevant and systematic in their treatment of the doctrine of justification. We don’t judge a major writing by a minor writing, especially one that isn’t even addressing the same subject.

I think James is very relaent to this subject because he brought up the fact that there are those who receive the Word which is able to save the soul, yet do not produce the righteousness that God requires and thus denies the faith. It is not undoing what Paul Teaches. And it is not denying that God was first faithfull to us, while we were still in sin and chose to forgive us our sins outside of works. Otherwise, these works would be the works of the law fullfilled in us, yet they were not. God´s Law then became the Law of love.

So Paul is not contradicting that the faith is apart from good works. And James is not saying that we did good works apart from God´s grace.

Both are saying that faith and good works are together what justifies the new man. And both show us that neglegence to a good work is a denial of the faith.

So whether we now rely on His grace to be lead into good works, or we rely on His grace to repent of disobeying the work He gives us, we are in debt to His grace always.

Also to consider is the man who received forgiveness of his debt. He then went out and put someone who had a debt to him in jail. When the master of that man heard it, he put the man back under punishment.

Or consider the Lord´s prayer… “…forgive us our tresspasses, as we forgive those who tresspass against us.”

There is a justification given by the merits of Christ´s divine righteousness. Yet there is then a duty and obligation to take that love that He gave and walk in it.

 

[Per_Crucem]

There is a justification given by the merits of Christ´s divine righteousness. Yet there is then a duty and obligation to take that love that He gave and walk in it.

Yes, absolutely. But it isn’t justification. One must already be justified in God’s sight to produce the love of God and walk in it. You can’t confuse the root with the fruit.

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, absolutely. But it isn’t justification. One must already be justified in God’s sight to produce the love of God and walk in it. You can’t confuse the root with the fruit.

But this justification hinges on our response. The first work of the Holy Spirit in us is conversion. Until conversion occurs, we are continually rejecting His grace.

We either accept and grow in His grace, or we reject and fall further away.

 

[Indifferently]

But this justification hinges on our response. The first work of the Holy Spirit in us is conversion. Until conversion occurs, we are continually rejecting His grace.

We either accept and grow in His grace, or we reject and fall further away.

You need to carefully read up on the difference between the Roman Catholic “analytical” view of justification and the Reformed and Lutheran “forensic” doctrine of justification. I strongly recommend you obtain a firm grasp of both these doctrines and then familiarize yourself with Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Follow Paul’s logical argument (it’s quite perspicuous, if you’re willing to actually engage the text) and see which of the two views comports with the Scripture.

 

[Contarini]

You need to carefully read up on the difference between the Roman Catholic “analytical” view of justification and the Reformed and Lutheran “forensic” doctrine of justification. I strongly recommend you obtain a firm grasp of both these doctrines and then familiarize yourself with Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Follow Paul’s logical argument (it’s quite perspicuous, if you’re willing to actually engage the text) and see which of the two views comports with the Scripture.

This snooty and patronizing tone may have had some excuse in the sixteenth century, when Protestants used cutting-edge Renaissance literary scholarship to argue that they had recovered Paul’s “scopus” in writing Romans.

But it’s pretty indefensible after 500 years of both sides reading the text very carefully, and in light of many Protestant scholars (such as N. T. Wright) admitting that maybe the Protestants actually got Paul wrong on some points

Don’t assume that people differ with you because they haven’t done something “carefully,” unless it’s really obvious. Instead, point them specifically to the thing you think they are missing. Don’t make generic accusations that they aren’t paying attention or aren’t reading one of the most basic texts in the Christian tradition.

Edwin

 

[zamyrabyrd]

But this justification hinges on our response. The first work of the Holy Spirit in us is conversion. Until conversion occurs, we are continually rejecting His grace.

We either accept and grow in His grace, or we reject and fall further away.

But the falling away is different with the saved because the Shepherd seeks his sheep when they go astray.

 

[rcwitness]

But the falling away is different with the saved because the Shepherd seeks his sheep when they go astray.

Yes He does. His mark is on us, even when we turn back to sin. But He may turn us over to our sins. If we do not repent, he delivers us to Satan, such as Paul did. This isn´t necessarily so we are damned, but with a hope that we return all the more convicted in heart and also so we do not lead others in the Church to be tempted by them. Our salvation then being in great danger.

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, absolutely. But it isn’t justification. One must already be justified in God’s sight to produce the love of God and walk in it. You can’t confuse the root with the fruit.

Per Crucem,

I see what you are saying about James (particularly 2:24).

I see why it should not be understood as ‘we are justified because of our works’, but that ‘we SEE that a person is already justified because their work’s showed their faith’.

The question, then, is does this conflict with Catholic Teaching?

 

[Indifferently]

Per Crucem,

I see what you are saying about James (particularly 2:24).

I see why it should not be understood as ‘we are justified because of our works’, but that ‘we SEE that a person is already justified because their work’s showed their faith’.

The question, then, is does this conflict with Catholic Teaching?

I think - and I know that I’m intervening here, but Per Crucem and I will have similar views on the matter - that it does.

Catholic justification is analytical: that is, that justification is a process begun in baptism and completed when the Christian is inherently just (or righteous). Thus, in the teaching of the RC Church, one is made just by faith working through love (that is, in broad terms, living the Christian life of faith and obedience. God only declares the sinner just in his sight when justice (righteousness) is said to truly inhere in that person. Thus, works are said (though not independent of faith) to contribute in a real way to justification.

In the contrasting view drawn from Luther’s teachings, justification is not analytical but is instead forensic: God pronounces the sinner just not at the last day, on the basis of the righteousness now inhering in him through co-operating with a process, but rather God declares a sinful person to be just (righteous) by the imputation (this is accounting terminology, roughly meaning crediting) of Christ’s perfect righteousness to that sinner’s account.

This justification, Protestants argue, is received by faith (that is, a confident trust in the sufficiency of Christ’s death and merits for salvation) alone. Only once such a true justification has occurred (what Per Crucem referred to as “the root”) can good works (“the fruit”) proceed. Faith without works, we believe, is dead faith, because it’s not justifying faith at all. Good works necessarily proceed from true faith.

 

[rcwitness]

I think - and I know that I’m intervening here, but Per Crucem and I will have similar views on the matter - that it does.

Catholic justification is analytical: that is, that justification is a process begun in baptism and completed when the Christian is inherently just (or righteous). Thus, in the teaching of the RC Church, one is made just by faith working through love (that is, in broad terms, living the Christian life of faith and obedience. God only declares the sinner just in his sight when justice (righteousness) is said to truly inhere in that person. Thus, works are said (though not independent of faith) to contribute in a real way to justification.

In the contrasting view drawn from Luther’s teachings, justification is not analytical but is instead forensic: God pronounces the sinner just not at the last day, on the basis of the righteousness now inhering in him through co-operating with a process, but rather God declares a sinful person to be just (righteous) by the imputation (this is accounting terminology, roughly meaning crediting) of Christ’s perfect righteousness to that sinner’s account.

This justification, Protestants argue, is received by faith (that is, a confident trust in the sufficiency of Christ’s death and merits for salvation) alone. Only once such a true justification has occurred (what Per Crucem referred to as “the root”) can good works (“the fruit”) proceed. Faith without works, we believe, is dead faith, because it’s not justifying faith at all. Good works necessarily proceed from true faith.

The distinction is very slight in reality. Yet both sides seem to believe it is an important distinction.

Im not sure if you are doing the Catholic position complete justice.

I think the answer lies in how each side defines faith. If faith is merely, as James implies, the belief that Jesus did come from God (or is the Son of God) and He did die for the salvation of all men and alone has merited the forgiveness of sins, therefore this alone accomplishes completely and without anything else the final justification of the sinner, then according to the Catholic faith, this faith is lacking the necessary consent of free will on man’s part which occurs in the conversion of heart to obedience in Christ. Therefore, obedience is the good work which cooperates in the justification of men and is only possible by the assisted power of God merited by Jesus through His obedience to the Law of Love, which surpassed the Law of Works, by which men were justly condemned before God.

In this way, there is no other work than this: That man relies on the love of Christ to move and guide him in a living faith which allows him to keep the commandments of God.

Or, that Jesus accomplished the merit of justification and redemption to all of mankind, and those whom give obedient faith to His Word, contain the confirmed work of the savior within their lives.

 

[rcwitness]

… The other terms one must understand in the Catholic position is ‘work’ and ‘believe in’ in the Scriptural sense.

John 6

29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Unless someone can correct me, this is to be understood as conversion of heart and obedience.