Salvation - Is Sanctification Optional?

[JonNC]

Jon and Iggy,

Something struck me just then as I was replying to grandfather.

Nominalism greatly influenced Luther’s theology which is why he taught that we remain sinners only covered with Christ’s righteousness. This means that Christ’s righteousness does not change the soul. The soul is the same miserable entity as it always was but when the Father looks at us, He sees Christ’s righeousness so He feels favourably disposed towards us.

At the same time, Luther also taught sanctification. What then is the nature of this sanctification since Justification has no effect the soul?

If the grace given at justification is incapable of affecting the soul ontologically, what then is sanctification? Does the soul becomes changed?

If so, why is the grace given at justification unable to cause a change in the soul and yet the grace at sanctification able to do so? Unless even at sanctification there is still no ontological change. In which case, what is all this sanctification business about then?

Who said that justification has no effect on the soul? Lutherans regularly speak of a growth in grace, some to the point of where the Finnish Lutherans even speak of Theosis.
Luther himself said there is “no forgiveness without renewal of life”.

He also said there is no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow. Why is there a need for good works? Because Christ commanded it. Why the need to receive the sacraments, confess and receive Holy Absolution? Because Christ commanded them. When we allow the Holy Spirit to work through us tohelp our fellowman, we are responding in faith to the commands of Christ.

The sanctification business is about responded in faith to the commands of Christ. As much as justification by grace through faith is central to Lutheranism, so too is our response to His grace, how we receive it. Clearly, justification must have an effect on our soul.

Jon

 

[fhansen]

Clearly, justification must have an effect on our soul.

Jon

I think what makes it sound otherwise is the use of forensic concepts and the doctrine of imputation. “Infused” means a positive change is wrought whereas imputation appears to be merely a negative declaration of ones injustice-a forgiving and forgetting of sin.

 

[grandfather]

I know what you are trying to get at but the split between justification and sanctification has nothing to do with that.

Replace the word declared with the word made, and you have the Catholic teaching.

Justification entails the removal of guilt and punishment for sin and also the restoration to God’s favor. Justification is not a process. The “babe in Christ” is just as justified as the believer of 50 years.

Catohlics agree.

Justification “reckons” to the sinner the righteousness of Christ, so that God sees the sinner through the perfect righteousness of His Son.

Here we have a problem, but Itwin later corrects it, or contradicts it. The Catholic position is that God does not call what is reprehensible good. Rather, He transforms us, makes us new. He does not let us sit in filthy diapers. He gives us a bath, but the bath is given to the soul and the solvent that washes away the sin is the blood of Christ.

The initial act of sanctification is positional; the moment a person is regenerated he is sanctified.

We agree. It happens in baptism.

The holiness of Jesus is imputed to the believer much like the righteousness of Jesus is imputed to the believer in justification.

Here there is a problem as you point out. God does not simply call evil good. He does not impute righteousness to the unrightous. He transforms the unrightous. It is impossible for someone who is untransformed, who has not experienced holiness to get this. That person has faith, truly believes, but is impenitent. So using Luther’s sola fide faces his own sinfulness and says, I am still a sinner, but I am saved, justified. It is ok that I am still sinful, because I have faith and that makes me acceptable to God, even though I still am in my sin. Believing this is believing it is impossible to get victory over sin by grace. It is believing a deadly lie.

Then there is the continuing process of sanctification, where the imputed holiness progressively becomes a practical part of the daily Christian life. We grow in grace.

We indeed grow in grace. The transormation continues and souls grow in holiness, become ever holier, but the holiness is not imputed, or as you say, God is a liar. God does not call straw gold, or dung snow. The righteousness of Christ becomes ours, because we genuinely become like Him, through the process of sanctification by growing or increasing in grace. The justification takes place initially as Itwin says.

Then there is complete and final sanctification at the coming of Jesus. Therefore, we have been saved from the penalty of sin; we are being saved from the power of sin; and we shall yet be saved from the presence of sin.

Itwin is right. There is a great permanent gulf between Lazarus in the Bosom of Abraham and the palce where the rich man called out for a drop of water. Catholics would say the rich man appears to be in purgatory. He called out to God for relief. He had hope that his suffering would be relieved. In hell there is no hope. The rich man also willed the good of his brothers still alive on earth. Souls in hell do not will the good of others. They hate everyone. There is no desire of anyone else’s good, communion of saints.

All of this comes through faith and repentance and continues only in a life of faith and repentance.

But the Protesstant position articulated by Luther says it comes by faith alone, faith and nothing more.

[/QUOTE]

 

[ltwin]

So a saved person could stand to lose this justified position before God?

Yes, through loss of faith or the failure to repent of sins committed after regeneration. That is why the believer must live continuously in faith and repentance. There can be no salvation without faith, and there can be no salvation without repentance. This is also important for sanctification which progresses as we lay hold to the sanctifying blood of Jesus through faith, obey the Word of God, yield to the Holy Spirit, and personally commit ourselves to live lives of holiness (fully recognizing that this is impossible without the power of God in our lives).

JonNC;8676353:

Clearly, justification must have an effect on our soul.

I think what makes it sound otherwise is the use of forensic concepts and the doctrine of imputation. “Infused” means a positive change is wrought whereas imputation appears to be merely a negative declaration of ones injustice-a forgiving and forgetting of sin.

It’s not simply negative. It’s also positive. The righteousness of Christ is imputed to us. God places the justified sinner in the position of a righteous man. God does not see believers as forgiven sinners; He sees them as those who have never sinned.

 

[fhansen]

It’s not simply negative. It’s also positive. The righteousness of Christ is imputed to us. God places the justified sinner in the position of a righteous man. God does not see believers as forgiven sinners; He sees them as those who have never sinned.

But this is where our objection is. Theres’ merely a change in how God sees us rather than a change in how we are. Rather than replacing our stony hearts with hearts of flesh, he just ignores our stony hearts. In our perspective, God wouldn’t command man to do anything he couldn’t do-so sin is not inevitable or mandatory. In mans fallen state, he can’t rescue himself from the pit, he needs a savior, but the Savior saves us by making us truly righteous, as God intended us to be all along and as Adam & Eve began. We must then, having been truly washed clean, “go, and sin no more”. And continue in repentance as you say when we fall.

 

[ltwin]

ltwin the Pentecostal’s response was very good. He get’s very close.
ltwin;8675921:

You are regenerated (spiritually alive) and justified (declared righteous in the eyes of God) the moment you have faith and repent. You are also sanctified in a sense at this moment.

Replace the word declared with the word made, and you have the Catholic teaching.

Justification entails the removal of guilt and punishment for sin and also the restoration to God’s favor. Justification is not a process. The “babe in Christ” is just as justified as the believer of 50 years.

Catohlics agree.

Justification “reckons” to the sinner the righteousness of Christ, so that God sees the sinner through the perfect righteousness of His Son.

Here we have a problem, but Itwin later corrects it, or contradicts it. The Catholic position is that God does not call what is reprehensible good. Rather, He transforms us, makes us new. He does not let us sit in filthy diapers. He gives us a bath, but the bath is given to the soul and the solvent that washes away the sin is the blood of Christ.

Yes, God does transform us, but this happens in Sanctification. Where Christ’s holiness becomes a part of our inner nature.

**The initial act of sanctification **

is positional; the moment a person is regenerated he is sanctified.

We agree. It happens in baptism.

The holiness of Jesus is imputed to the believer much like the righteousness of Jesus is imputed to the believer in justification.

Here there is a problem as you point out. God does not simply call evil good. He does not impute righteousness to the unrightous. He transforms the unrightous. It is impossible for someone who is untransformed, who has not experienced holiness to get this. That person has faith, truly believes, but is impenitent. So using Luther’s sola fide faces his own sinfulness and says, I am still a sinner, but I am saved, justified. It is ok that I am still sinful, because I have faith and that makes me acceptable to God, even though I still am in my sin. Believing this is believing it is impossible to get victory over sin by grace. It is believing a deadly lie.

I don’t know about what Luther believed . I only know what my own faith tradition teaches. Faith and repentance go hand in had. They are two sides of the same coin.

Then there is the continuing process of sanctification

, where the imputed holiness progressively becomes a practical part of the daily Christian life. We grow in grace.

We indeed grow in grace. The transormation continues and souls grow in holiness, become ever holier, but the holiness is not imputed, or as you say, God is a liar. God does not call straw gold, or dung snow. The righteousness of Christ becomes ours, because we genuinely become like Him, through the process of sanctification by growing or increasing in grace. The justification takes place initially as Itwin says.

Initial sanctification can be said to be imputed. However, process sanctification is very much an infusion of Christ’s holiness in our lives. We are dead to sin; our old self was crucified with Him. Now remains Paul’s admonition in Romans:

12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Then there is complete and final sanctification at the coming of Jesus

. Therefore, we have been saved from the penalty of sin; we are being saved from the power of sin; and we shall yet be saved from the presence of sin.

Itwin is right. There is a great permanent gulf between Lazarus in the Bosom of Abraham and the palce where the rich man called out for a drop of water. Catholics would say the rich man appears to be in purgatory. He called out to God for relief. He had hope that his suffering would be relieved. In hell there is no hope. The rich man also willed the good of his brothers still alive on earth. Souls in hell do not will the good of others. They hate everyone. There is no desire of anyone else’s good, communion of saints.

All of this comes through faith and repentance and continues only in a life of faith and repentance.

But the Protesstant position articulated by Luther says it comes by faith alone, faith and nothing more.

I would think the Lutheran position of sola fide does not imply that repentance is not necessary. Nevertheless, if Luther did indeed think that then that is something Pentecostals disagree with him own.

 

[JonNC]

I think what makes it sound otherwise is the use of forensic concepts and the doctrine of imputation. “Infused” means a positive change is wrought whereas imputation appears to be merely a negative declaration of ones injustice-a forgiving and forgetting of sin.

Imputation is positive as well. It isn’t a negative declaration, because it is for Christ’s sake.
That makes it positive, and places upon the justified the necessity to do His will.

Jon

 

[fhansen]

Imputation is positive as well. It isn’t a negative declaration, because it is for Christ’s sake.
That makes it positive, and places upon the justified the necessity to do His will.

Jon

OK, but it must also include the grace to do His will, which makes it sound like more than imputation. For Catholics the grace to do His will is what it’s all about because we believe justification is an ongoing process, of His writing His laws in our minds and on our hearts, and one during which we can always resist this grace.

 

[ltwin]

But this is where our objection is. Theres’ merely a change in how God sees us rather than a change in how we are. Rather than replacing our stony hearts with hearts of flesh, he just ignores our stony hearts. In our perspective, God wouldn’t command man to do anything he couldn’t do-so sin is not inevitable or mandatory. In mans fallen state, he can’t rescue himself from the pit, he needs a savior, but the Savior saves us by making us truly righteous, as God intended us to be all along and as Adam & Eve began. We must then, having been truly washed clean, “go, and sin no more”. And continue in repentance as you say when we fall.

Righteousness applies to conduct, what someone does. Christ justifies us and sees us as righteous despite our actions. This has to do with our standing before God. Holiness relates to character, what someone is. We are sanctified because we have been called out of the world and set apart for a holy purpose. We are positionally sanctified even though we don’t manifest the holiness of God. As we grow in grace, however, we become like Christ.

I don’t think it is possible to say that justification and positional sanctification are just window dressing. No, it is us being given the righteousness and holiness of Christ. We don’t just seem justified. We don’t just seem sanctified. We are because the righteousness and holiness of Christ has been reckoned to us. Of course our souls and hearts are transformed, but we are being changed into His image from glory to glory.

 

[fhansen]

Righteousness applies to conduct, what someone does. Christ justifies us and sees us as righteous despite our actions. This has to do with our standing before God. Holiness relates to character, what someone is. We are sanctified because we have been called out of the world and set apart for a holy purpose. We are positionally sanctified even though we don’t manifest the holiness of God. As we grow in grace, however, we become like Christ.

I don’t think it is possible to say that justification and positional sanctification are just window dressing. No, it is us being given the righteousness and holiness of Christ. We don’t just seem justified. We don’t just seem sanctified. We are because the righteousness and holiness of Christ has been reckoned to us. Of course our souls and hearts are transformed, but we are being changed into His image from glory to glory.

The problem for a Catholic is that, in any case, a lack of holiness implies the presence of sin. We believe that God is most interested in who we are, and always has been, which is why it’s said that no sinners will enter heaven. To separate justification and sanctification, to say that justification is merely imputed, means that we’re not authentically, ontologically just.

What’s the point of the whole drama?-of man being exiled from the garden, condemned to death because of sin, if God was going to, rather capriciously it would seem, cause us to be just without our actually being just? Why not just forgive Adam & Eve to begin with-or prevent them from sinning in the first place, if sin no longer can separate us from God? To be reconciled, to be forgiven, is one thing, to ‘go, and sin no more’, is another. Faith must lead to true justice- it’s the basis of it, according to Phil 3:9, but it cannot constitute justice or remove its necessity. Some of these differences may just come from a different usage of terms, some come from a different concept of justification/God’s will for man.

 

[fhansen]

I am not sure you are right. Sanctity is holiness. Sanctification makes us holy, but there are degrees of holiness. In other languages it is the term applied to a person who is holy, “Saint Joseph”. A spanish speaking priest learning english used to say, “Holy Joseph”, or Mary, rather than “Saint…” When we use the title saint we are saying “Joseph who is sanctified”, made holy.

Holiness comes in degrees, as does evil. Justification does not.

I think this may be a bit off. Sanctification and justification are the same.
This is from Trent:

Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified, as it is written; He that is just, let him be justified still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification holy Church begs, when she prays, "Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity.”

This aligns with the Catechism, including the following paragraph:

**2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

 

[grandfather]

Here we have a problem, but Itwin later corrects it, or contradicts it. The Catholic position is that God does not call what is reprehensible good. Rather, He transforms us, makes us new. He does not let us sit in filthy diapers. He gives us a bath, but the bath is given to the soul and the solvent that washes away the sin is the blood of Christ.

Yes, God does transform us, but this happens in Sanctification. Where Christ’s holiness becomes a part of our inner nature.

You have stated the Catholic position here. There is a further thought, not related to the topic, but worth thinking about. We are made holy with God’s holiness through sanctification and it is grace. But then that is what we are. We fulfill Christ’s command to be holy as God is holy. Once a gift is given it no longer belongs to the giver. It is the property of the receiver. So this holiness we speak of is ours. What do we do with it? We offer ourselves and everything we are to God. It mirrors the life of the Blessed Trinity. The Father gives Himself to the Son and the Son gives Himself back to the Father. The Father glorifies the Son and the Son glorifies the Father. We do the same thing. Holiness makes us like God who is holy, which is given to us and the original condition of man before the fall, made in the image and likeness of God.

Quote:
The initial act of sanctification is positional; the moment a person is regenerated he is sanctified.

We agree. It happens in baptism according to the early Christian fathers and scripture.

I don’t know about what Luther believed . I only know what my own faith tradition teaches. Faith and repentance go hand in had. They are two sides of the same coin.

Your faith tradition sprouted from, has roots in Luther’s reformation and holds his doctrine of salvation by faith alone. If you say we are saved by faith and repentance, or anyone says that, you agree with Catholics. We must turn from our sins and the power to do this is God’s grace. Our consciences tell us whether or not we have repented. In this thread there is discussion that says sin and righteousness simultatneously exist in the same saved soul. Darkness and light can not dwell together.

Initial sanctification can be said to be imputed.

Why not just say it is freely given? Imputed connotes an action that is done to a person, forced on a person. The gift of salvation is offered and accepted, as are all gifts. The giver and receiver each has a part.

However, process sanctification is very much an infusion of Christ’s holiness in our lives.

Infused and imputed are different.

I would think the Lutheran position of sola fide does not imply that repentance is not necessary. Nevertheless, if Luther did indeed think that then that is something Pentecostals disagree with him own.

There are two famous analogic quotes of Luther on the matter. One is that we are like lumps of dun covered in snow. God sees the snow (Christ’s blood) and does not see
the rotteness. (very looseley paraphrased but accurate in his meaning) The other is; "A man is like a horse with a saddle and a bridal. He goes where the rider takes him. If the rider is Christ the man’s life will be full of good works. If the rider is Satan his life will be full of evil. But it does not matter as long as he believes Jesus is the Son of god who died for his sins.

Luther came up with this to illustrate what he meant by his doctrine of sola fide, salvation by faith alone. Do you see anywhere in the analogy the need for repentance? If you disagree with him that means you take the Catholic position on this particulat matter.

From sola fide comes the modern confusion about getting saved once and for all. All you need to do is say the sinner’s prayer, ask Jesus into your heart which establishes a personal relationship with Him, and you are done, saved, once and for all.

Where can you find this formula in scripture? When the crowd comes to faith and asks Saint Peter what should they do, do you see him telling them to recite this prayer and ask Jesus into their hearts, and have a personal relationship? Peter tells them to be baptized.

 

[JonNC]

Luther came up with this to illustrate what he meant by his doctrine of sola fide, salvation by faith alone. Do you see anywhere in the analogy the need for repentance? If you disagree with him that means you take the Catholic position on this particulat matter.

Apparently he saw a need for repentence, since he strongly promoted confession, even private confession, as did the other Lutheran reformers. From Augsburg;
“Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted 2] and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance.”

From sola fide comes the modern confusion about getting saved once and for all. All you need to do is say the sinner’s prayer, ask Jesus into your heart which establishes a personal relationship with Him, and you are done, saved, once and for all.

I would contend that it is from others, not Luther. Even in the confessions, this approach is rejected. Again, Augsburg:
*“They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such 8] perfection in this life that they cannot sin.” *

Where can you find this formula in scripture? When the crowd comes to faith and asks Saint Peter what should they do, do you see him telling them to recite this prayer and ask Jesus into their hearts, and have a personal relationship? Peter tells them to be baptized.

And that’s what luther said, too.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

OK, but it must also include the grace to do His will, which makes it sound like more than imputation. For Catholics the grace to do His will is what it’s all about because we believe justification is an ongoing process, of His writing His laws in our minds and on our hearts, and one during which we can always resist this grace.

and we too say it is by grace that we do his will. We would say that sanctification continues what the Spirit starts in us by grace. And we too believe one can resist and even reject grace.

Jon

 

[ltwin]

Here we have a problem, but Itwin later corrects it, or contradicts it. The Catholic position is that God does not call what is reprehensible good. Rather, He transforms us, makes us new. He does not let us sit in filthy diapers. He gives us a bath, but the bath is given to the soul and the solvent that washes away the sin is the blood of Christ.

You have stated the Catholic position here. There is a further thought, not related to the topic, but worth thinking about. We are made holy with God’s holiness through sanctification and it is grace. But then that is what we are. We fulfill Christ’s command to be holy as God is holy. Once a gift is given it no longer belongs to the giver. It is the property of the receiver. So this holiness we speak of is ours. What do we do with it? We offer ourselves and everything we are to God. It mirrors the life of the Blessed Trinity. The Father gives Himself to the Son and the Son gives Himself back to the Father. The Father glorifies the Son and the Son glorifies the Father. We do the same thing. Holiness makes us like God who is holy, which is given to us and the original condition of man before the fall, made in the image and likeness of God.

We agree. It happens in baptism according to the early Christian fathers and scripture.

Your faith tradition sprouted from, has roots in Luther’s reformation and holds his doctrine of salvation by faith alone. If you say we are saved by faith and repentance, or anyone says that, you agree with Catholics. We must turn from our sins and the power to do this is God’s grace. Our consciences tell us whether or not we have repented. In this thread there is discussion that says sin and righteousness simultatneously exist in the same saved soul. Darkness and light can not dwell together.

Why not just say it is freely given? Imputed connotes an action that is done to a person, forced on a person. The gift of salvation is offered and accepted, as are all gifts. The giver and receiver each has a part.

Infused and imputed are different. Yes, I know that. I meant what I said.

There are two famous analogic quotes of Luther on the matter. One is that we are like lumps of dun covered in snow. God sees the snow (Christ’s blood) and does not see
the rotteness. (very looseley paraphrased but accurate in his meaning) The other is; "A man is like a horse with a saddle and a bridal. He goes where the rider takes him. If the rider is Christ the man’s life will be full of good works. If the rider is Satan his life will be full of evil. But it does not matter as long as he believes Jesus is the Son of god who died for his sins.

Luther came up with this to illustrate what he meant by his doctrine of sola fide, salvation by faith alone. Do you see anywhere in the analogy the need for repentance? If you disagree with him that means you take the Catholic position on this particulat matter.

From sola fide comes the modern confusion about getting saved once and for all. All you need to do is say the sinner’s prayer, ask Jesus into your heart which establishes a personal relationship with Him, and you are done, saved, once and for all.

Where can you find this formula in scripture? When the crowd comes to faith and asks Saint Peter what should they do, do you see him telling them to recite this prayer and ask Jesus into their hearts, and have a personal relationship? Peter tells them to be baptized.

Peter tells them to repent and be baptized. The turning away from sin and turning toward God is the beginning of a personal relationship with Christ. The prayer in and of itself is not important, and it definitely does nothing for the person if they treat it like some magical forumula: “If I say this then I’m saved.” If they have that attitude then they are deceived. The prayer is a vocal response to a realization within the sinner that he is a sinner and in need of Christ’s saving work on the Cross. It is the vocalization of the cry of the heart that is being convicted and changed by the power of God. It is the starting point of the life of repentance and faith.

If the person sincerely prays a “sinner’s prayer” and comes to faith in Christ and repents of sin at that moment then the person is justified and initially sanctified. However, saying a formulaic prayer is not necessary. I know Pentecostals who have grown up in the church all of their lives. They do not know of any moment that they said a “sinners prayer.” They cannot point to a moment, but both faith and repentance are at work in their lives and they are being changed into the likeness of Christ. It is the drawing toward God and the yielding to Him, allowing Him to sanctify us and set us apart that is important.

I will not argue that baptism is important and should be done as soon as possible. And I also don’t wont to get the thread off topic.

 

[grandfather]

Apparently he saw a need for repentence, since he strongly promoted confession, even private confession, as did the other Lutheran reformers. From Augsburg;
“Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted 2] and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance.”

 

[grandfather]

QUOTE=fhansen;8677211]I think this may be a bit off. Sanctification and justification are the same.

This is from Trent:

It could well be off. It is how I see justification. A soul is either in the state of grace or the state of sin. We can not be both. One of the ideas that creates the confusion is when people are taught to believe they are saved past tense rather than salvation being a process. They tell themselves they are righteous, because of their idea of imputed righteousness, not ontological or transformational rightousness, and at the same time their consciences convict them of some ongoing sinful behavior. They might say repentance is necessary, but they are impenitent.

I have a friend who started several evangelical nondenom churches. He saw himself as a “church planter”. He believed this get saved business with unwavering conviction. I asked him if someone went through the process, said the prayer, asked Jesus into the heart, etc., and went out and had abortions, robbed banks, on and on, and died in that state what would be the fate of this person’s soul. He was sure it was heaven.

People believe when they see their personal sinfulness that somehow it is ok. They are saved and made righteous even though they might be steeped in sin.

Catholicism holds that we must persevere in grace. If we do grace increases in the soul. We grow holier. With grace we are always justified and we have to remain that way, but we can not simply be stagnant, stay in one spot. We can not bury what God has given us in the ground and give it back when He asks for it. It has to be used and increased. That is a cooperation with grace and leads to greater sanctitiy or holiness.

By grace different souls attain different levels of holiness. In heaven they have different crowns. But all are justified. This is a personal opinion.

 

[JonNC]

=grandfather;8677882]

The quote is taken out of context. Who is “they” who teach? He taught that there are two sacraments, baptism and eucharist. If the statement above is his teaching, and the they he refers to is not the Catholics he disputes with, and he teaches that confession is necessary, then he contradicts himself. Sola Fide makes no room for anything else necessary for salvation. Faith alone means faith and nothing more.

How can what the confessions say be out of context? The “they” were the churches of the Augsburg Confession.

Luther speaks of confession and repentence in both the Small and Large Testament, and in Smallkald.

Is it possible, with all respect, that your understanding of what sola fide teaches is not exactly correct? I readily admit to not understanding significant teachings in Catholicism.
Luther himself said that justification is operative by faith alone, but that it doesn’t lead to saying faith is alone. It cannot be alone. It must be a faith that works through love to be a active, saving faith. Luther on Galatians 5:6

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.

Where dose the idea come from? It did not come from Luther, but you can see that sola fide aligns with the say the prayer, invite Jesus into your heart and get saved mentality.

I see no such thing. It doesn’t in any way resemble the sola fide I was taught.

One error leads to another. Even then, going through this little formulaic process is something more than having faith. It is something you do, say it, invite Him in, have the relationship with the savior. Surely there is nothing wrong with these things. The error is in telling people this is what they need to do for salvation.

Lutherans haven’t told them to do these things. I don’t know if they could be classified as “right or wrong”, but certainly it isn’t consistent with what we believe about Baptism, confession/Absolution, etc.

 

[grandfather]

Peter tells them to repent and be baptized. The turning away from sin and turning toward God is the beginning of a personal relationship with Christ.

What happens when the person who does this, has this experience, later turns away from God and back to sin?

 

[grandfather]

How can what the confessions say be out of context? The “they” were the churches of the Augsburg Confession.

Luther speaks of confession and repentence in both the Small and Large Testament, and in Smallkald.

Is it possible, with all respect, that your understanding of what sola fide teaches is not exactly correct? I readily admit to not understanding significant teachings in Catholicism.

Good point. Here is what Catholics believe is necessary for justification/salvation.

Sola Fide says we are saved by faith alone. Catholicsim holds that three things are necessary, the theological virtues of faith, hope and love.

These are not the same things. Faith is not love. Faith may lead to hope and love, but it is not love. Faith is knowledge we obtain by believing what God has revealed. We can not discover this knowledge on our own. The only way to get it is by accepting in faith the truths of divine revelation.

Faith, hope and love are called theological virtues, because they are infused (there is that word again) into the sould directly by God. They are gifts, grace. We do nothing to earn them. So Catholics who are accused of believing in works salvation plainly state that it is all a gift. Works can not save us, but we can not be saved without them. Is that a contradiction?

Jesus said we can do nothing without Him. The power to do good works is also given to us as grace. When we do good works we are only cooperating with grace. If you can do nothing withour Jesus, then with Jesus YOU can do something.

If love is necessary for salvation then what is love? Jesus says if a man loves me he will keep my commandments. John writes, the love of God consists in this, that we obey His commandments. Obedience is found in what we do and do not do, works.

There are two activities that are proper to all spiritual creatures, God, angels and men. They are knowing and loving. The purpose for which we are made is to know, love and serve God in this life and be happy with Him forever in the next.

Faith is about knowing. Love is about doing. They are different. You can not be saved without the love of God in you. You can believe, have faith, and if faith is not accompanied by love (obedience) you are lost.

When this is raised the conversation turns to the difference between faith and a saving faith. Where is this terminology that clarifies some difference between faith and saving faith, or differentiates between the two, found in the Bible? If a saving faith is faith with hope and love then everyone agrees. In that case faith is not alone.

Really where it is found is in James who says faith without works (alone) is dead.

  Luther himself said that justification is operative by faith alone, but that it doesn't lead to saying faith is alone.  It cannot be alone.  It must be a faith that works through love to be a active, saving faith.  Luther on Galatians 5:6

I see no such thing. It doesn’t in any way resemble the sola fide I was taught.

Lutherans haven’t told them to do these things. I don’t know if they could be classified as “right or wrong”, but certainly it isn’t consistent with what we believe about Baptism, confession/Absolution, etc.