Salvation - Is Sanctification Optional?

[JonNC]

Light dispels darkness. They can not dwell together. You can not be repentant and impenitent at the same time. A thing can be neither good or evil, but be used for one or the other. Technology is an example. A person can do good or evil, but not at the same time. You are either in the state of grace or the state of sin at any one time.

I’ve been pondering this post of your, and would like to hear your response to St. Paul when he says in Romans 7

For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I work, I understand not. For I do not that good which I will; but the evil which I hate, that I do. 16 If then I do that which I will not, I consent to the law, that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that there dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, that which is good. For to will, is present with me; but to accomplish that which is good, I find not. 19 For the good which I will, I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that which I will not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

21** I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good, evil is present with me**. 22 For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. 24 Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 The grace of God, by Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with the mind serve the law of God; but with the flesh, the law of sin.

I’m not saying this contradicts your point, I’m just trying to understand what you mean by it. It seems to me St. Paul recognizes that he, too, is both at once saint and sinner.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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.

May I offer you an article by Catholic apologist James Akin.
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1784967/posts

Here is one comment he makes:

One will note, in the definitions of the virtues offered above, the similarity between hope and the way Protestants normally define faith; that is, as an unconditional placing our trust in Christs promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. The definition Protestants normally give to faith is the definition Catholics use for hope.

However, the Protestant idea of faith by no means excludes what Catholics refer to as faith, since every Evangelical would (or should) say that a person with saving faith will believe whatever God says because God is absolutely truthful and incapable of making an error. Thus the Protestant concept of faith normally includes both the Catholic concept of faith and the Catholic concept of hope.

Thus if a Protestant further specifies that saving faith is a faith which works by charity then the two soteriological slogans become equivalents. The reason is that a faith which works by charity is a faith which produces acts of love. But a faith which produces acts of love is a faith which includes the virtue of charity, the virtue of charity is the thing that enables us to perform acts of supernatural love in the first place. So a Protestant who says saving faith is a faith which works by charity, as per Galatians 5:6, is saying the same thing as a Catholic when a Catholic says that we are saved by faith, hope, and charity.
We may put the relationship between the two concepts as follows:

Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity

The three theological virtues of Catholic theology are thus summed up in the (good) Protestants idea of the virtue of faith. And the Protestant slogan salvation by faith alone becomes the Catholic slogan salvation by faith, hope, and charity (alone).

Luther’s concept of faith is a Galatians 5:6 faith!

Now, I’m not saying (and neither is Akin) that there are no differences between our understandings of justification and sanctification. There certainly are. But at least in the Lutheran teaching, if we listen to each other, there are certain similaities that cannot be overlooked. And sometimes we (Catholics and Lutherans) spend a good deal of time talking past each other.

Jon

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Lutherans may have said so but there again arises this problem.

Luther is a nominalist and believed that grace as such has no ontological effect in the soul. That is why the most he could say is that God covers our sins with Christ’s righteousness.

I will post later Mascalls analysis of Luther’s theology and the effect this terribly philosphy had his theology.

If grace at justification has an effect on the soul, then please explain why Christ’s righteousness does not get rid of the sin but only covers it.
Luther himself said there is “no forgiveness without renewal of life”.
This may be what he has written but how then do you reconcile that with the belief that grace has no ontological effect on the soul at point of justification.

What I am trying to say here is that the Lutheran theology of salvation is deficient and flawed because of this. He holds two views that cannot be reconciled. He is at once saying grace has no effect on the soul and grace has effect in the soul.

This is pretty much the same quandary he has put himself in with his theology on the Eucharist - affirming two contradictory things.

 

[ltwin]

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

Then he obviously has not repented. It’s not a one time event. Repentance is a choice and a lifestyle. Christians will make mistakes, but there is no such thing as an unrepentant Christian.

I think its a mistake see all of Protestantism through the lens of once saved always saved. This only causes confusion.

 

[JonNC]

Lutherans may have said so but there again arises this problem.

Luther is a nominalist and believed that grace as such has no ontological effect in the soul. That is why the most he could say is that God covers our sins with Christ’s righteousness.

I will post later Mascalls analysis of Luther’s theology and the effect this terribly philosphy had his theology.

If grace at justification has an effect on the soul, then please explain why Christ’s righteousness does not get rid of the sin but only covers it.

This may be what he has written but how then do you reconcile that with the belief that grace has no ontological effect on the soul at point of justification.

What I am trying to say here is that the Lutheran theology of salvation is deficient and flawed because of this. He holds two views that cannot be reconciled. He is at once saying grace has no effect on the soul and grace has effect in the soul.

This is pretty much the same quandary he has put himself in with his theology on the Eucharist - affirming two contradictory things.

The problem, Cory, on both counts is that your perception of Lutheran theology is imprecise. Read what we say, not what some Catholic apologist says we say.

Jon

 

[benedictus2]

The problem, Cory, on both counts is that your perception of Lutheran theology is imprecise. Read what we say, not what some Catholic apologist says we say.

Jon

But that is exactly my point Jon.

I have read what you say Lutheranism teaches and based on what you have said, your two claims - forencsic justification and sanctification cannot be reconciled.

Either justification is forensic in which case sanctification is unnecessary or else it is not forensic and hence sanctification is necessary. You can’t have both. When you try to affirm both you affirm two irreconcilable things.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi All,

Apologies for this rather long excerpt from Beckwith’s “Return to Rome” but this goes to the heart of the discussion.

**On Nominalism **

"The natures we ascribe to living beings are merely names or (“nominal essences”) that are shorthand ways to label beings that have roughly similar characteristics. For this reason, nominalists were also voluntarists when it comes to God’s moral law. Because God himself does not have a nature (for, they reasoned, to have a nature would limit God), then his moral law must be based exclusively on his will and not constrained by any intrinsically good nature.
So, God could be capricious and arbitrary. Unfortunately, as many historical theologians have argued, nominalism shaped the thought of Luther and Calvin. This is why Reformed thinking fully embraces the forensic view of justification. As the English theologian E.L. Mascall explains:

“Now by the end of the Midddle Ages, nominalism was in the ascendant in philosophy and theology alike…. The consequence was that the reality of an object tended to be identified entirely with its observable characteristics. Each object was a separate bundle of sensible particulars; there were no real relations between beings, and in each individual being there was nothing but its observable behaviour…… How, then, is somebody whose whole mentality has been cast in the mould of nominalism to conceive the activity of justifying grace? He cannot think of it as consisting in a supernatural transformation of a man’s being in its ontological depths beneath the observable level; for on nominalist principles there is nothing beneath the observable level to transform.

On the other hand, if justifying grace were to consist of a transformation on the observable level, the man would be simply justified by his works; for on nominalistic principles a man’s observable behaviour is neither more nor less than his total activity. What, then was there left for Luther to say, being convinced, as he rightly was by St Paul, that a man cannot be justified by his works? Only this: that there is no real change in the man at all, but God treats him as if there was. By a sheer gratuitous act of his love God imputes to the man the merits of Christ; God treats him as if he were as sinless as Christ himself, while leaving him the sinner that he was.”
Reference: E.L. Mascall – The Recovery of Unity, A Theological Approach

But the question that should have stuck him as it has struck many of us, is this: why does one not find a full blown doctrine of forensic justification prior to the Reformation era? One does not find it in the ante-Nicene, Nicene, or post-Nicene Fathers. One does not find it in the Latin or Eastern rites of the church. What does one find? One finds a view of grace and faith that is deeply biblical but conspicuously non-Reformed.

Because the early Church was committed to the deep mystery of Chalcedonian Christology – Jesus of Nazareth was both fully God and fully Man – it saw no need to divide faith and works, as if they were hostile foes. Thus, it saw a Christian’s obedience, one’s “works”, as the exercise of faith by which the believer undergoes instrinsic transformation while in communion with God.
(Cory’s notes: our “obedience / works” have a transformative effect on our soul.)

For the Early Church , God became a human being so that human beings may become godly. After all, if works diminish faith’s significance because our cooperation apparently limits God’s sovereignty, then why believe that Jesus really took on a human nature, for does not that imply that god was not sufficiently almighty enough to save us without acquiring a human nature?

Note: Mascall is not a Catholic Apologist

 

[benedictus2]

Based on my preceeding post, the idea of sanctification for the Lutheran / Protestant becomes really murky.

If the observable level (works) is something that man accomplishes himself, (which is the reason Luther believed in forensic justification, then it seems that sanctification is man’s work not God’s.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Yes, but all that has nothing to do with my point about the nominalist underpinnings of the reformed understanding of justification and sanctification.

The point of my post/s was that the problem with the protestant understanding of salvation is this split between santification and justification.

I have posted a long explanation of this point from Beckwith’s conversion story. I think that would explain what I am trying to convey in my previous posts.

 

[fhansen]

"The natures we ascribe to living beings are merely names or (“nominal essences”) that are shorthand ways to label beings that have roughly similar characteristics. For this reason, nominalists were also voluntarists when it comes to God’s moral law. Because God himself does not have a nature (for, they reasoned, to have a nature would limit God), then his moral law must be based exclusively on his will and not constrained by any intrinsically good nature.

Wow, if that’s true-that they thought “God could be capricious and arbitrary”, so that “his moral law must be based exclusively on his will and not constrained by any intrinsically good nature”, that would go far in explaining why they were at least borderline antinomian. From the Catholic perspective the Law is holy and good, and God would never give man laws he was incapable of obeying. It also might explain how they-at least Calvin- could think that God could justifiably predestine some to heaven and some to hell, based on nothing much more than whim. It’s a skewed understanding of the nature of God.

 

[benedictus2]

Wow, if that’s true-that they thought “God could be capricious and arbitrary”, so that “his moral law must be based exclusively on his will and not constrained by any intrinsically good nature”, that would go far in explaining why they were at least borderline antinomian. From the Catholic perspective the Law is holy and good, and God would never give man laws he was incapable of obeying. It also might explain how they-at least Calvin- could think that God could justifiably predestine some to heaven and some to hell, based on nothing much more than whim. It’s a skewed understanding of the nature of God.

When I read Beckwith’s book the disjoint in Protestant theology became clear.

The interesting thing is that this awful philospy that grounded protestant theology is the same parent of relativism and deconstructionism.

It is possible to reason therefore, that once Protestant theology took hold of western society, the rise of relativism and decontructionism was a natural conclusion.

 

[grandfather]

I’ve been pondering this post of your, and would like to hear your response to St. Paul when he says in Romans 7

Quote:
For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I work, I understand not.

If anything can be said about all the discussion in this thread and others it is that we all wrestle to understand. We struggle to understand what God has revealed and ourselves. Paul admits the same. He is a great apostle and teacher and says he doesn’t get it. He also makes a distinction between the carnal and spiritual. Man is both a spiritual creature and material, but if the law is spiritual and we are carnal only then it does not apply to us.

For I do not that good which I will; but the evil which I hate, that I do.

All Christians are in an internal spiritual struggle, a war. It is with our fallen nature. We aspire to rise above it as Paul says of himself.

16 If then I do that which I will not, I consent to the law, that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that there dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, that which is good. For to will, is present with me; but to accomplish that which is good, I find not.
19 For the good which I will, I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that which I will not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. 24 Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Jesus says whoever sins is a slave to sin. That is all of us, including Paul. We do not have the power to free ourselves.

25 The grace of God, by Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with the mind serve the law of God; but with the flesh, the law of sin.

Paul wonders who shall deliver him from death and then answers his question.

I’m not saying this contradicts your point, I’m just trying to understand what you mean by it. It seems to me St. Paul recognizes that he, too, is both at once saint and sinner.

In scripture God condemns those who call evil good. If I am evil and He calls me good without changing me, delivering me from the power of sin, then God is doing what He condemns.

Paul writes that he struggles with sin. The spirit and flesh are at war with one another. He says he is in a race and at the end of the race he expects a reward, a crown. The race is not over until it is over. Salvation is a process.

The Church on earth is called the Church Militant, because we are at war. The war is within us. The Church in heaven is the Church Triumphant. They were once on the same battlefield and triumphed by grace. Their war is over. Ours rages and there is no rest from it. We face it every day.

We are also all in it together. I am at war, you are, the pope is, Protestants of every denomination are, Paul was. If it were possible for you to find a safe place where you were out of danger you would go there. At the same time knowing your brothers and sisters are out in the battle being wounded and bleeding you would rush out to help them and face death. “He who tries to save his life will lose it. He who loses his life for my sake will save it”.

Paul talks about putting on the armor of God. If what he says above is true the armor must not work. But again, armor is what we wear to war.

In a way the armor does not work, because we are all wounded. We are wounded and bleeding and in pain and trying to help our fellow wounded.

We have to see salvation as a process. Paul calls it the ongoing race he runs. We want it to be over. We want to get it over with. We want to get victory over sin and be at peace, take it easy, stop fighting. But here in this life it is always trying to ensnare us. Declaring that the battle is over, “I am saved”, does not make it over. It does not make temptation and sin go away.

At the same time sanctity is possible. Jesus commands us to be holy and if it were impossible the command would be unjust. You would not give your eight year old a calculus book and tell him he needed to know everything in it by next week or face punishment. Jesus would not command the impossible.

This is where faith leads to hope. The task is impossible for me, but if God helps me I can do it. Our faith is in God and so is our hope. Peter is sinking and calls out to God. That is us. It is easier to walk on water than for me to not sink into sin. When I feel myself sinking I turn to my hope. When I have sunk once again and am drowning my hope is still in God. This still is not sanctity though. It is the process that leads to it.

The third theological virtue is where holiness lies. Charity is the crowning virtue and you can have it here. The race is still not over, but it is a foretaste of heaven. Read Saint John’s epistle and see what he says about love.

This is what faith and hope lead to. Faith and hope end with death. Charity is eternal, but it begins here. It is what you take with you from this life. It is the pearl of great price. It is the only thing worth living for. It is the only cause of joy.

There is a paradox. Charity is infused into the soul by God, but the only means to obtain this grace is the cross. Jesus tells you to take up an instrument of torture, suffering and death if you want any part in Him. If you want victory over sin you have to lose, willingly give, your life for others. That is what love is. That is what sanctity is. Look at Him crucified and it becomes visible.

 

[JonNC]

=grandfather;8679569]
If anything can be said about all the discussion in this thread and others it is that we all wrestle to understand. We struggle to understand what God has revealed and ourselves. Paul admits the same. He is a great apostle and teacher and says he doesn’t get it. He also makes a distinction between the carnal and spiritual. Man is both a spiritual creature and material, but if the law is spiritual and we are carnal only then it does not apply to us.

All Christians are in an internal spiritual struggle, a war. It is with our fallen nature. We aspire to rise above it as Paul says of himself.

Jesus says whoever sins is a slave to sin. That is all of us, including Paul. We do not have the power to free ourselves.

Paul wonders who shall deliver him from death and then answers his question.

In scripture God condemns those who call evil good. If I am evil and He calls me good without changing me, delivering me from the power of sin, then God is doing what He condemns.

Paul writes that he struggles with sin. The spirit and flesh are at war with one another. He says he is in a race and at the end of the race he expects a reward, a crown. The race is not over until it is over. Salvation is a process.

The Church on earth is called the Church Militant, because we are at war. The war is within us. The Church in heaven is the Church Triumphant. They were once on the same battlefield and triumphed by grace. Their war is over. Ours rages and there is no rest from it. We face it every day.

We are also all in it together. I am at war, you are, the pope is, Protestants of every denomination are, Paul was. If it were possible for you to find a safe place where you were out of danger you would go there. At the same time knowing your brothers and sisters are out in the battle being wounded and bleeding you would rush out to help them and face death. “He who tries to save his life will lose it. He who loses his life for my sake will save it”.

Paul talks about putting on the armor of God. If what he says above is true the armor must not work. But again, armor is what we wear to war.

In a way the armor does not work, because we are all wounded. We are wounded and bleeding and in pain and trying to help our fellow wounded.

Agreed so far.

We have to see salvation as a process. Paul calls it the ongoing race he runs. We want it to be over. We want to get it over with. We want to get victory over sin and be at peace, take it easy, stop fighting. But here in this life it is always trying to ensnare us. Declaring that the battle is over, “I am saved”, does not make it over. It does not make temptation and sin go away.

At the same time sanctity is possible. Jesus commands us to be holy and if it were impossible the command would be unjust. You would not give your eight year old a calculus book and tell him he needed to know everything in it by next week or face punishment. Jesus would not command the impossible.

Nothing here to dsagree with, except to say that complete sanctity is not possible in this life, at least in Lutheran thinking.

This is where faith leads to hope. The task is impossible for me, but if God helps me I can do it. Our faith is in God and so is our hope. Peter is sinking and calls out to God. That is us. It is easier to walk on water than for me to not sink into sin. When I feel myself sinking I turn to my hope. When I have sunk once again and am drowning my hope is still in God. This still is not sanctity though. It is the process that leads to it.

Agreed.

The third theological virtue is where holiness lies. Charity is the crowning virtue and you can have it here. The race is still not over, but it is a foretaste of heaven. Read Saint John’s epistle and see what he says about love.

This is what faith and hope lead to. Faith and hope end with death. Charity is eternal, but it begins here. It is what you take with you from this life. It is the pearl of great price. It is the only thing worth living for. It is the only cause of joy.

We would express it differently. Charity is for our fellowman. Faith in god, love of our fellowman.

There is a paradox. Charity is infused into the soul by God, but the only means to obtain this grace is the cross. Jesus tells you to take up an instrument of torture, suffering and death if you want any part in Him. If you want victory over sin you have to lose, willingly give, your life for others. That is what love is. That is what sanctity is. Look at Him crucified and it becomes visible.

Thanks for sharing this,
Jon

 

[JonNC]

But that is exactly my point Jon.

I have read what you say Lutheranism teaches and based on what you have said, your two claims - forencsic justification and sanctification cannot be reconciled.

Either justification is forensic in which case sanctification is unnecessary or else it is not forensic and hence sanctification is necessary. You can’t have both. When you try to affirm both you affirm two irreconcilable things.

Again, You are trying to put the terminology into a Catholic mindset, which can’t be done.
This talk-past that you and I have has me so curious, I’ve been looking for sources to help me explain, to help you to understand that using Mascall (Anglo-Catholic) or even Beckwith (american evangelical turned Catholic) doesn’t help, because neither of them speak from a Lutheran perspective.

For those out there who may have read it, is Daphne Hampson’s book, Christian Contradictions: the Structures of Lutheran and Catholic Thought worth reading? It seems to speak to the issue.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Based on my preceeding post, the idea of sanctification for the Lutheran / Protestant becomes really murky.

If the observable level (works) is something that man accomplishes himself, (which is the reason Luther believed in forensic justification, then it seems that sanctification is man’s work not God’s.

See, here is the problem, at least in part. You seem to see no discernable difference between Lutheran theology, and that of protestantism, in general.

The observable level is not of man’s own doing, it is by grace, and the power of Spirit working within us.

You see, I don’t even know how to respond to some of the things you are saying, because, through my upbringing and study, they don’t appear at all Lutheran.

Jon

 

[Sufjon]

(Grandfather): Jesus says whoever sins is a slave to sin. That is all of us, including Paul. We do not have the power to free ourselves.

We have the power to free ourselves from ourselves. We are slaves to sin when we regard ourselves in relation to ourselves rather than in relation to the whole. In other words, seeing yourself as a separate self, and identification with that separate self is the cause of all suffering and sin. Usually, we misidentify ourselves as being a physical body and in particular a nervous system that likes to be accommodated in regard to what it likes and dislikes. Through the realization of what we truly are, we can, over time, free ourselves from this. Like most people who are lost on body identification, Paul struggled all his life in fighting this thing and that which he thought was in “him.” This is Paul struggling with the wants of the body and the nervous system. If, like Paul, we go around through life seeing things as “my struggle” “my life” “my salvation” “my sins” then we are carrying a lot of baggage around that that doesn’t really belong to us. Nothing belongs to us. Until we come to that realization, we will misunderstand and we will suffer, like Paul.

This is what Jesus said “Any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.” **He doesn’t mean sell your house, sell your car, quit your job and leave your wife or husband and your kids and go off to live in an abandoned bus somewhere. Think about it. **What could He have meant? Probably that we won’t be able to properly perceive Him and follow Him so long as we carry around all this stuff that we think is ours. He probably means to get rid of the “I” “Me” “Mine” ideas that we have. That includes our ideas on “my sins” “my problems” “my struggle.” So long as we see them as ours, then they will torment us. Jesus probably wasn’t just flapping His jaws so that later someone would have more stuff to fill up pages in the Gospel of Luke. He was telling us something. But like Paul, we are for the most part too busy worrying about “me.” “Who sill save me?” “How will I be saved?” “Will I get to heaven?” “How will I overcome my wants?”

I, me and mine. Lose the I, me and mine and find God. All the help you need is within.

Your friend
Sufjon

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[benedictus2]

Again, You are trying to put the terminology into a Catholic mindset, which can’t be done.
This talk-past that you and I have has me so curious, I’ve been looking for sources to help me explain, to help you to understand that using Mascall (Anglo-Catholic) or even Beckwith (american evangelical turned Catholic) doesn’t help, because neither of them speak from a Lutheran perspective.

But Jon, it is precisely whethere the mindset is correct or not.

We cannot simply say: Oh that is a Lutheran mindset, or this is a Catholic mindset and this is evangelical.

It is precisely this kind of thinking (which is at the heart of Luther’s philosophy) that we are trying to address. Mindsets do not determine the truth. Truth is supposed to form the mindset.

When the mindset is based on error, then such mindset is erroenous.

You kind of argument is precisely what Luther was operating from - a nominalist view point.

Whether Mascall or Beckwith, truth is independent of their mindset.

One cannot say that a man is wrong in saying water is H2O simply because his mndset was medieval. That would be an ad hominem argument.

or those out there who may have read it, is Daphne Hampson’s book, Christian Contradictions: the Structures of Lutheran and Catholic Thought worth reading? It seems to speak to the issue.

Jon

Would you be able to give a few excerpts from this book that you think is relevant to our discussion?

Even a lengthy quote would help.

 

[benedictus2]

See, here is the problem, at least in part. You seem to see no discernable difference between Lutheran theology, and that of protestantism, in general.

The observable level is not of man’s own doing, it is by grace, and the power of Spirit working within us.

You see, I don’t even know how to respond to some of the things you are saying, because, through my upbringing and study, they don’t appear at all Lutheran.

Jon

I do discern a difference between Lutheran and other Protestant theology.

In this case, the reason I sort of did an and/or is because both Lutherans and other protestants (those that have their origin in Calvin and Zwingli) all believe in imputed justification.

Both Calvin and Luther were nominalist so their take on justification are both influenced by this philosophy.

Also, Mascall’s analysis addresses Luther’s theology.

 

[benedictus2]

Again, You are trying to put the terminology into a Catholic mindset, which can’t be done.

Jon

I thought I’d do a follow up post regarding “mindset”.

It must be remembered that prior to the revolt, Luther’s mindset was Catholic. It was only his dalliance with nominalism that changed this mindset.

So here we have a mindset changing because of an erroneous perception - an erroneous philosophy.

What I have outlined in my previous post is precisely to question this mindset - this point of reference for Luther.

Now one may argue that this is Beckwith’s or Mascall’s take. But instead of disregarding the argument because of Beckwith’s and Mascall’s religious bent, one must just look at what they are proposing and ask if it is true.

It must be noted that not only Mascall believes that Luther was a nominalist.

 

[stewstew03]

The ego is an epiphenomenon of the nervous system, which of course includes the sense organs and the brain. Together, they are instruments of experience or for collecting, registering and processing experience. Early on, these systems get the idea that they in themselves are you. They are not.

Okay thanks Sufjon.

Please explain what you mean by “early on, these systems get the idea that they in themselves are you.”

Also, how do you know that you are not being deceived into thinking you are holy? In other words, perhaps this holy enlightenment you believe you have experienced is in fact an illusion you have developed over time? It seems this is just as likely to be true as anything else you’ve put forward.

Thanks again.