The Circular Reasoning of Faith Alone

[JonNC]

So then how are babies saved if they can’t hear the Word? Deaf people? The mentally disabled?

It isn’t either/or, but both/and. The Holy Spirit uses all these things - word and sacrament - to bring His grace to people. Notice what I am saying here, He uses word and sacrament, IOW, the Church!
So, to answer your question about babies, and the mentally disabled, “Baptism now saves you.”
As for the deaf, I think you understand that “hearing” is not limited to the auditory system in this sense.

Jon

 

[Cat_Herder]

It isn’t either/or, but both/and.

Then why did Jesus say one must (1) believe and (2) be baptized in order to be saved in Mark 16:16? If just “hearing” the Word is good enough, why does Jesus require baptism? Since we’re talking about salvation here, why take this risk of telling people that just hearing the Word is good enough?

 

[JonNC]

Then why did Jesus say one must (1) believe and (2) be baptized in order to be saved in Mark 16:16? If just “hearing” the Word is good enough, why does Jesus require baptism? Since we’re talking about salvation here, why take this risk of telling people that just hearing the Word is good enough?

You’ll have to ask someone who believes that. I never said “just hearing the word”. I said both/and, word and sacrament. Lutherans believe that Baptism is necessary to salvation, as Christ tells us.

From the Augsburg Confession:
*Article IX: Of Baptism.

1] Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary 2] to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace.

3] They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism. *

And the Roman Confutation on Article IX
*To Article IX.
The ninth article, concerning Baptism - viz. that it is necessary to salvation, and that children ought to be baptized - is approved and accepted, and they are right in condemning the Anabaptists, a most seditious class of men that ought to be banished far from the boundaries of the Roman Empire in order that illustrious Germany may not suffer again such a destructive and sanguinary commotion as she experienced five years ago in the slaughter of so many thousands. *

Cat, you’re trying to argue with me on something we agree on.

Jon

 

[Cat_Herder]

You’ll have to ask someone who believes that. I never said “just hearing the word”. I said both/and, word and sacrament. Lutherans believe that Baptism is necessary to salvation, as Christ tells us.

From the Augsburg Confession:
Article IX: Of Baptism.

1] Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary 2] to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace.

3] They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.

And the Roman Confutation on Article IX
To Article IX.
The ninth article, concerning Baptism - viz. that it is necessary to salvation, and that children ought to be baptized - is approved and accepted, and they are right in condemning the Anabaptists, a most seditious class of men that ought to be banished far from the boundaries of the Roman Empire in order that illustrious Germany may not suffer again such a destructive and sanguinary commotion as she experienced five years ago in the slaughter of so many thousands.

Cat, you’re trying to argue with me on something we agree on.

Jon

Well then, what is the point of “hearing the Word?” Can’t that just come from the Holy Spirit through baptism? If baptism alone is good enough for infants and the mentally disabled, what is the point of “hearing the Word?”

The confusion here is because you’re equating faith with grace, and so you’re taking the verse “faith comes through hearing” and turning it into “grace comes by hearing.” There is no biblical warrant for that. I would venture that this is Luther’s core error–the reason why he had to change Romans 3:28 to make faith the same as grace.

 

[JonNC]

Well then, what is the point of “hearing the Word?” Can’t that just come from the Holy Spirit through baptism? If baptism alone is good enough for infants and the mentally disabled, what is the point of “hearing the Word?”

The confusion here is because you’re equating faith with grace, and so you’re taking the verse “faith comes through hearing” and turning it into “grace comes by hearing.” There is no biblical warrant for that. I would venture that this is Luther’s core error–the reason why he had to change Romans 3:28 to make faith the same as grace.

Where does faith come from, Cat? Faith is a gift of grace. That’s why we say we are justified** by grace through faith**. There is no confusion here.

As for Luther 'changing" Romans 3:28, it could be contended that he changed the entire Bible - by translating it. Luther explains the reason for “allein” in Romans 3:28. It is the same explanation as to why it isn’t in any English translation. The sense of the text, and how a particular language, the words, reflect that sense. I know what Paul is saying regarding justification - that we are justified by grace through faith, and not by works of the law. In English, I don’t need “alone” because in English Paul’s words clearly set up the exclusion of works without the word “alone”. Luther claims that the German, translated from the Greek, needed “allein”. Now you may disagree with Luther’s understanding of the sense of the text, but he clearly states his reason - he wanted the text to be German, not Greek, for German speaking people.

As for the difference between grace and faith, grace is there because of the life, passion, death and resurrection of Christ. It doesn’t matter whether or not I believe. Its there so that I can believe. It remains there even if I choose not to believe, and therefore reject it. If I have faith, however, and am Baptized, I will be saved.

Jon

 

[thenobes]

I’ve already proven I am theologically inarticulate but here it goes anyway.

I’m not sure about some of the terminology you used, but I will use terms I am familiar with.
Salvation is a gift from first to last. Once you turn it from something that is a gift to something that is earned, you have radically changed the nature of the transaction. You can demand wages for work. Since we are told that we are to tell Him that we are only unworthy servants, we dare not go on a wage-based relationship with God for several reasons. One, we don’t do ANYTHING that is worth getting paid for. Secondly, Jesus paid it ALL and to set our feeble efforts besides His amounts to insulting His finished work on the cross. This would be an incredible act of ingratitude, a blasphemous slap in the face of His grace that He has extended to us. Thirdly, we will get a lot more as a gift freely given to us by our Loving Father than we ever would if we felt we were in a position to demand wages.
Fourthly, what we merit, by our actions, is eternal punishment until we are completely sanctified.

I think of the parable of the prodigal son, who demanded his wages. That did not turn out so well. God adopts us into His family. We are no longer paid servants but heirs of the kingdom. I think getting an attitude of we merit such and such may have the tendency to mercantilize the Gospel. God wants a father-son relationship with each of us, not a boss-employee one.

I see what you are saying, but you make three unwarranted (in my opinion) assumptions.

First, I am saying the ***ability ***of us to receive grace is itself a gift. Thus, all the grace we receive is due to gifts. You assume I believe that any ability to receive is due to our efforts alone.

Secondly, I am saying that any works that are done by faith have two parts, the assent of the will to do them, and the actual work itself. It is the consent of the will that enables one to receive grace. And that willingness is a gift of God, not of man.

Lastly, I am saying that “having merit” is not equivalent to “earning”. Merit is the state of being worthy. One can earn worthiness, or can be given worthiness. It is the latter that I believe: we are given worthiness as a gift. Our merit is a gift.

peace
steve

 

[Cat_Herder]

Where does faith come from, Cat? Faith is a gift of grace. That’s why we say we are justified** by** grace through faith.

Luther added “alone/allein” to that, as you are aware. The chaos that resulted from his ‘readability experiment’ is self-evident and needs no explanation.

As for the difference between grace and faith, grace is there because of the life, passion, death and resurrection of Christ. It doesn’t matter whether or not I believe. Its there so that I can believe. It remains there even if I choose not to believe, and therefore reject it. If I have faith, however, and am Baptized, I will be saved.

How can you say that grace remains there if you choose to reject it by not having faith?
Hebrews 10:26-29 (NRSV)

For if we wilfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgement, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy ‘on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

As you have indicated, “grace is there because of the life, passion, death and resurrection of Christ” – so if the “life, passion, death and resurrection of Christ” is no longer there, neither is grace. Therefore, loss of salvation. This is called a mortal sin.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC;10010350:

Where does faith come from, Cat? Faith is a gift of grace. That’s why we say we are justified** by**

grace through faith.

Luther added “alone/allein” to that, as you are aware. The chaos that resulted from his ‘readability experiment’ is self-evident and needs no explanation.

**How can you say that grace remains there if you choose to reject it by not having faith?**Hebrews 10:26-29 (NRSV)

For if we wilfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgement, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy ‘on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

As you have indicated, “grace is there because of the life, passion, death and resurrection of Christ” – so if the “life, passion, death and resurrection of Christ” is no longer there, neither is grace. Therefore, loss of salvation. This is called a mortal sin.

How can you say God’s grace disappears because one might reject it? Are you saying that, at a later time, I cannot repent? The Lutheran confessions reject that out of hand. Grace remains. God’s grace is always there. We can always come back to His grace through repentence, confession and absolution. Now to be sure, part of grace is that God allows us to choose to reject him (free will). And if we do, we have chosen condemnation.

Jon

 

[Cat_Herder]

How can you say God’s grace disappears because one might reject it? Are you saying that, at a later time, I cannot repent?

No, just that God’s grace needs to be made present to you again. That is why there is the Sacrament of Reconciliation, as you acknowledge.

Care to explain Hebrews 10:26-29?

 

[JonNC]

=Cat Herder;10010593]No, just that God’s grace needs to be made present to you again. That is why there is the Sacrament of Reconciliation, as you acknowledge.

Exactly. God makes His grace available to us.

Care to explain Hebrews 10:26-29?

I agree with it 100%. What’s there to explain? Obviously, it seems a complete repudiation of irresistable grace, as our Calvinist friends teach.

Jon

 

[Truthstalker]

Exactly. God makes His grace available to us.

I agree with it 100%. What’s there to explain? Obviously, it seems a complete repudiation of irresistable grace, as our Calvinist friends teach.

Jon

Jon,

I thought Lutherans were all into IG ?

Here is Calvin on the passage

If grace is not irresistable, it isn’t grace. Most Calvinists believe both in free will AND predestination, in my experience.

 

[thenobes]

Cat Herder;10010509:

How can you say God’s grace disappears because one might reject it? Are you saying that, at a later time, I cannot repent? The Lutheran confessions reject that out of hand. Grace remains. God’s grace is always there. We can always come back to His grace through repentence, confession and absolution. Now to be sure, part of grace is that God allows us to choose to reject him (free will). And if we do, we have chosen condemnation.

Jon

I’m not sure that God’s grace to pull us back to repentance is necessarily there after Mortal Sin (ie death of faith).

Although Jesus says all who are drawn by the Father will come to Him, I see no corresponding verse where Jesus says the Father will always pull one to Jesus, after the person has come to Jesus already.

Perhaps this is the warning in Hebrews of apostacy.

peace
steve

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

I thought Lutherans were all into IG ?

Here is Calvin on the passage

If grace is not irresistable, it isn’t grace. Most Calvinists believe both in free will AND predestination, in my experience.

If grace were irresistable, there would indeed be perseverance of the saints. Lutherans and Catholics, so far as I know, agree that a person can fall back into sin once regenerated. So, no, we reject irresistable grace. From the LCMS website, concerning the Calvinist TULIP

I (Irresistible grace) We agree that God makes us alive by His mighty power, without our aid (Eph. 2:5; John 1:13). **But Scripture warns that we can resist God’s gracious call (Matt. 23:37; Acts 7:51; 2 Cor. 6:1). **And some people do resist God’s grace, or all would be saved (1 Tim 2:4). Furthermore, God warns us not to resist His grace (2 Cor. 6:1; Heb. 4:7).

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I’m not sure that God’s grace to pull us back to repentance is necessarily there after Mortal Sin (ie death of faith).

Although Jesus says all who are drawn by the Father will come to Him, I see no corresponding verse where Jesus says the Father will always pull one to Jesus, after the person has come to Jesus already.

Perhaps this is the warning in Hebrews of apostacy.

peace
steve

Hi Steve,
Just a note for those following, the post you quoted was mine, and not Truthstalker.

A quote from the Augsburg Confession, followed by the Roman Confutation.

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. Now, repentance consists properly of these 3] two parts: One is contrition, that is, 4] terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of 5] the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ’s sake, sins are forgiven, comforts 6] the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance.

7] 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.

9] The Novatians also are condemned, who would not absolve such as had fallen after Baptism, though they returned to repentance.

In the twelfth article their confession that such as have fallen may find remission of sins at the time when they are converted, and that the Church should give absolution unto such as return to repentance, is commended, since they most justly condemn the Novatians who deny that repentance can be repeated, in opposition both to the prophet who promises grace to the sinner at whatever hour he shall mourn, Ezek. 18:21, and the merciful declaration of Christ our Saviour, replying to St. Peter, that not until seven times, but until seventy times seven in one day, he should forgive his brother sinning against him, Matt. 18:22. But the second part of this article is utterly rejected. For when they ascribe only two parts to repentance, they antagonize the entire Church, which from the time of the apostles has held and believed that there are three parts of repentance - contrition, confession and satisfaction. Thus the ancient doctors, Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Gregory, Augustine, taught in attestation of the Holy Scriptures, especially from 2 Kings 12, concerning David, 2 Chron 3:1, concerning Manasseh, Ps. 31, 37, 50, 101, etc. Therefore Pope Leo X of happy memory justly condemned this article of Luther, who taught: “That there are three parts of repentance - viz. confession, contrition, and satisfaction – has no foundation in Scripture or in Holy Christian doctors.”

Jon

 

[Truthstalker]

If grace were irresistable, there would indeed be perseverance of the saints. Lutherans and Catholics, so far as I know, agree that a person can fall back into sin once regenerated. So, no, we reject irresistable grace. From the LCMS website, concerning the Calvinist TULIP

Jon

This is getting beyond my limits, but I Reformed people maintain that for the elect, grace is finally irresistable. That is, someone can fall into sin but God will drag them back out again, if they are elect. No Reformed person would maintain that justification equals instant sanctification.

 

[Truthstalker]

I see what you are saying, but you make three unwarranted (in my opinion) assumptions.

First, I am saying the ***ability ***of us to receive grace is itself a gift. Thus, all the grace we receive is due to gifts. You assume I believe that any ability to receive is due to our efforts alone.

Secondly, I am saying that any works that are done by faith have two parts, the assent of the will to do them, and the actual work itself. It is the consent of the will that enables one to receive grace. And that willingness is a gift of God, not of man.

Lastly, I am saying that “having merit” is not equivalent to “earning”. Merit is the state of being worthy. One can earn worthiness, or can be given worthiness. It is the latter that I believe: we are given worthiness as a gift. Our merit is a gift.

peace
steve

This surprises me. I have no quarrel with anything of what you wrote, except that perhaps “merit” is used in a technical sense that is different from its ordinary use.

 

[Cat_Herder]

This is getting beyond my limits, but I Reformed people maintain that for the elect, grace is finally irresistable. That is, someone can fall into sin but God will drag them back out again, if they are elect.

1 Tim 2:3-4

This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour,** who desires everyone to be saved** and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

According to the Will of God, everyone is elect. However, the population of hell is greater than zero. Therefore grace is resistible. See also Heb. 10:26-29.

 

[JonNC]

1 Tim 2:3-4

This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour,** who desires everyone to be saved** and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

According to the Will of God, everyone is elect. However, the population of hell is greater than zero. Therefore grace is resistible. See also Heb. 10:26-29.

Exactly.

Jon

 

[thenobes]

This surprises me. I have no quarrel with anything of what you wrote, except that perhaps “merit” is used in a technical sense that is different from its ordinary use.

That’s how the Catholic Church uses the word merit.

From an online dictionary:

mer·it   /ˈmɛrɪt/ Show Spelled[mer-it] Show IPA
noun

1. claim to respect and praise; excellence; worth.
2. something that deserves or justifies a reward or commendation; a commendable quality, act, etc.: The book’s only merit is its sincerity.
3. merits, the inherent rights and wrongs of a matter, as a lawsuit, unobscured by procedural details, technicalities, personal feelings, etc.: The case will be decided on its merits alone.
4. Often, merits. the state or fact of deserving; desert: to treat people according to their merits.
   ***5. Roman Catholic Church . worthiness of spiritual reward, acquired by righteous acts made under the influence of grace. ***

I would say “through” righteous acts, in that the mere assent to the acts changes us, and so is the source of the merit.

peace
steve

 

[Goodcreature]

1 Tim 2:3-4

This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour,** who desires everyone to be saved** and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

According to the Will of God, everyone is elect. However, the population of hell is greater than zero. Therefore grace is resistible. See also Heb. 10:26-29.

I disagree with this statement. The verse here says that God “desires” that everyone be saved, not that God actually saves everyone. So, naturally, not everyone is one of the elect, because only those that are will be saved. Also, while grace is “generally” resistible, for the elect, it is “finally” irresistible.