Dear XXX,

Your post raised quite a few interesting questions so I wanted to give them due consideration. I had to go back and read some books on my shelf that have become dusty in the last few years.;-)

I wrote:

If I may ask, why do you believe this? (That Luther believed in a form of Perseverance of the Saints)

You Responded:
-------------------------------
Based on "The Bondage of the Will". In it, Luther says that salvation is purely given to us by God, and does not depend upon any response of ours. Because our free will isn't involved at all, we can't reject it. In WA 783, he bases his comfort specifically on knowing that his free will is not required. He could have no confidence in his ability to stand his own ground.

"But now that God has taken my salvation out of my own will, and put it under the control of His, and promised to save me, not according to my working or running, but according to His own grace and mercy, I have the comfortable certainty that He is faithful and will not lie to me, and that He is also great and powerful, so that no devils or opposition can break Him or pluck me from Him"

There follows a passage that seems to teach a position that is logically equivalent to double predestination, though expressed in an asymmetrical form.
------------------------------

The passage in question (WA 783) seems to be addressing whether we work to please God, i.e. if our works merit salvation. It does not seem to be addressing perseverance per se. Luther's comfort arises from his trust that his salvation is in God's hands not in Luther's. Earlier in the passage in question Luther writes "Whatever work I had done, there would still be a nagging doubt as to whether it pleased God, or whether He required something more. The experience of all who seek righteousness by works proves that; and I learned it well enough myself over a period of many years, to my own great hurt." The remarks are in the context of earning one's salvation by the deeds one does. But since salvation is God's gift and does not depend on our works Luther has confidence that what he does is pleasing to God, that Luther is still a child of God.

This touches on our topic because you seem to be mixing justification (God declaring us just for Christ's sake) with sanctification (being made in the image of Christ). When Luther speaks of salvation he is speaking of justification. We are justified freely because of the act of God, but we do participate in sanctification. The difference is that we are not *saved* by sanctification but by justification. Having said that, if we claim that we are justified and yet do not show the fruits of the Holy Spirit (sanctification) we really don't believe and we are not justified. Now is it logically possible to be justified and later make one's faith "dead" by resisting the work of the Holy Spirit? I would say so, and I think the writer of Hebrews says as much when he writes: "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame" (Heb 6:4-6). The idea of choice is again eliminated because of the word "impossible" yet the possibility of falling away is also affirmed. I see both doctrines here, that we cannot do anything by ourselves, and that we can indeed fall away.

I wrote:

Without God working in us through the means of word and sacrament we would soon fall back into our former state of damnation. Thus it is God who saves us and God who works in us through the means He has instituted.

This does not preclude the possibility that we can still use our wills to estrange ourselves from God at a later date, or by neglecting His means.

You responded:
---------------------------------
But this is the Arminian position. Arminius agrees with the Reformers that we are helpless without God. God saves us through sheer grace. But at that point we are free to reject him.

If we are free to reject him, then those who are saved are saved because they do not reject him. Thus in the end salvation is due to our choice.

There seem to be two related but conceptually distinct positions. One is that after regeneration by God, we are able to assent to his action. The other is that we are able to reject it. Saying only that we assent to his action seems the milder of the two, since it still leaves salvation in God's hands. However when it is said that we can reject his action, it leaves it up to us whether we end up as saved or not.
---------------------------------

In my post I stated that God works through the means of word and sacrament to cause our salvation and sanctification. Arminius believed God's grace was a necessary cause but not a sufficient cause of salvation (as you mention above). What I would add is that Arminius also believed we could accept God. Basically, Arminius believed that without God's grace we would indeed be damned, but when God bestowed His grace on us it is only the *ability* to assent that is given, not salvation itself. For this reason I do not believe we can say that Arminius believes that God saves us through sheer grace, because we are not saved at the point grace is present; we are only given the opportunity to assent to God's grace. This is an admittedly fine hair to split. ;-)

Lutherans believe that we are saved by grace, or the free gift of God, and that God's grace is necessary *and* sufficient for our place in heaven. In other words the person is actually saved by the will of God, and through the process of sanctification he becomes more Christ like, but not more saved. I should also note that we *do* cooperate in the process of sanctification. I actually will to do good, to worship, etc. (Though it is God working in me to will and to do!)

You also brought up the point that if this is so, we are saved by not rejecting God and thus the reason we are saved is that we choose not to reject God after grace. I find this an odd thing to say honestly. It puts the cart before the horse. I don't think anyone would say "He is well nourished because he doesn't starve himself." Rather most would say "He is well nourished because he eats well." In the same way I am a child of God because God has had mercy on me, not because I have refrained from rejecting Him. God is still the active agent.

You also said that if we believe that we can accept that this still leaves salvation in the hands of God. I would strenuously disagree with this because in this case *nothing* happens without our assenting will, while in the other case (we cannot accept but we can reject) everything happens but there is only the *possibility* of losing ones place in heaven.

You wrote:
----------------------------
This is complex. I still consider the Roman Catholic position wrong in a serious enough way to be significant. But the primary reason I think so is that for them justification is not permanent. When someone commits "mortal sin," they cease being justified, and need a sacrament to restore them. My understanding of the Reformed position is that God does not reject those he has chosen. When we sin, God will discipline us. But he will do so within the context of having
chosen us irrevocably. The Catholic view is tied to the whole concept of the church as the administrator of grace. Since our direct relationship with God is broken by sin, the church administers grace to renew it.
---------------------------

Lutherans do not have a doctrine of "Mortal Sin" per se. We do believe that one can sin so that one estranges the Holy Spirit, and therefore faith and repentance become impossible. In Lutheranism, the Sacraments do not restore our relationship, except perhaps Baptism (we have only two.) The Sacraments were instituted as means of receiving forgiveness of sins, though they are not the only means. Also, when you say "the church administers grace to renew the relationship" I can halfway agree since the Sacraments were instituted for the forgiveness of sins. What I have problems with is the assumption that sin after grace automatically means separation from God. This I do not agree with.

You wrote:
----------------------------
Now the problem is that it looks to me like both the Arminians and modern Lutherans are on the Catholic side here. Any position that says we can fall from salvation makes salvation into a state that comes and goes, as with the Catholics (unless perhaps you say that once you've rejected salvation you can never come back).
----------------------------

Precisely! If we leave the faith we cannot come back, as per Hebrews 6. So for Lutherans salvation does not "come and go", it is either here or it is not. When that happens is an admittedly vague question however. Basically if we still seek Christ even after a grievous sin we are not without hope, because we cannot do such things without the Holy Spirit and so are not truly lost.

You wrote:
---------------------------
I'm not exactly accusing you of heresy. In this area I think orthodoxy consists in doing justice to both of the major Biblical emphases: that humans make responsible decisions, and that our
salvation depends completely upon God. Both Calvinists and Arminians try to take into account both of these, though from rather different points of view. However any view that does not include perseverance of the saints has implications for the Christian life that I find unsettling.
--------------------------

You can call me a heretic, I've been called worse. ;-)

I would agree if what you mean is that we can enter and leave salvation. For me the issue is whether we can lose our salvation and I believe the Bible is clear that we can. But if the issue is that whenever I commit a sin I am in danger of losing my salvation I think we are in agreement, I remain a child of God unless I willfully separate myself from Christ, and the observed data would be an unrepentant sinner, though even here we are not free to say "so and so is too far gone...." because we do not know the state of any particular individual. If someone comes and says "I think what I did was so terrible that I fear for my place in heaven" that is when the Gospel is to be preached, that we are saved by grace through faith, that God has chosen us and that we do not need to fear that God will not take care of us, we are not God's children because we behave but because He loves us.

So it sounds to me like Lutherans believe in perseverance in a limited way, while the Reformed believe in it in an absolute way. This seems like a significant difference to me.

Home    Doctrine and Practice    E-Mail Author