You might be correct if we were promoting once saved always saved theology where justification is the end of the story, but we aren't.

You can't have it both ways.

You've said justification is a temporal event that begins salvation, and that it is interchangeable salvation.

Those two things together means that once you are justified, you are saved.

If I were OSAS, I would say



but that's not an accurate depiction of the soteriology here!





I have said COUNTLESS times that theosis should be the springboard of ecumenism for all denominations because pretty much everyone believes in it in some way or another. In Lutheran and Orthodox theology, theosis and sanctification are nearly interchangeable terms.

If justification is salvation, and you can point to a time when you're justified, there is no "and then" with regard to salvation. Whatever else is happening is not justification, and if justification and salvation are the same thing, they aren't salvation.

Which leads to the confusing idea that a person can be justified, and therefore saved, then apostatize (because you don't believe in once saved always saved), and therefore lose their justification, become unjustified. But if justification is something that is done solely by God, how can it be undone by man? This is a logic trap, and the only way out is to say, well the person was never justified (by God). Or we could say a person can apostasize by works, so the works of the justified can undo justification?

It's a mess. It doesn't work.

I'm having trouble knowing where to begin.

We believe in free will. people can and do fall away from the faith and reject God all the time. It is tragic, but it happens. People can "undo" justification by rejecting Christ. I'm really not sure why that's a mess or complicated.

So an unregenerate person has to be justified by God, over which he has no control, because of the bondage of the will. Then, once's he's justified, he has free will and can undo the justification. Does he lose the regenerate will then? Does God have to rejustify him completely without his input? So he's justified, and saved, then not justified and not saved?

Could you make salvation sound less palatable? You make it sound like a wash and rinse cycle.

So, sure let's play this game.

Meet Colin. Colin hasn't really ever considered Christianity, but through the grace of God stumbles into a church one day and the Holy Spirit works faith into Colin. Colin does not reject this wonderful gift and is yay! justified, written into the book of Heaven and because of his newfound faith, he starts studying Gods word, taking communion, becomes a part of the church and draws nearer to God every day. But then! duh duh duh duhhhhhhh (dramatic music) Colin falls into a bad crowd and stops praying, stops going to church, stops participating in sanctifying activities and eventually says "nah God aint real yo"

He has now rejected God's free offer of salvation and yes, is no longer justified. This is le sad.

However! His mother, Monica, is praying for him all the time and because of her faith, participating in sanctification and doing good works such as trying to get Colin back to church. One Easter, Colin goes to church, and because he hasn't hardened his heart, the Holy Spirit works faith back into Colin and the free gift of salvation that is offered to all of mankind is there for him. Colin repents and receives absolution and is yes, once again justified! Yay Colin! Colin goes on to get married, have tiny little babies, which are baptized because all babies should be baptized and the Holy Spirit works faith in those tiny little babies! Yay for Colin and his babies who are all a part of the church of believers!


This was storytime with Swimmy.

If you use justification in that way you're eliminating sanctification from salvation, ignoring the scriptures on judgment. And never mind the problems this presents to the whole idea of the bondage of the will. Colin's will was regenerated and un-regenerated. So presumably when he falls away he has an unregenerate will again? It's nonsense.

But anyway that use is how everyone speaks of salvation, except Orthodoxy doesn't say he's saved after the first point, or after the second. Or that anyone is saved in a final sense, until the judgment. How else could St Paul tell us - baptized Christians, people like "good" Colin - to work out our salvation? Not our justification, our salvation. Or that we will be justified on the last day?

I'm fine with the story and I think most are, except for the part where we say he is saved and then unsaved. He said there is no and then. So what he does after justification is just filler in the story.

The truth is he never was saved in the first place, or the second, because only Christ can judge.

And anyway we're back to the notional point. If a person can be saved, unsaved, and re-saved, the whole thing is just an idea, a concept, that has no bearing on our life or actions or pastoral care. It's just not a thing to concern ourselves with. God will judge; in the meantime, it's simply not relevant for us.

I'm going to assume this is my fault in not being clear enough somewhere. However, I'm not sure how we are talking so far past each other and I do not know how to clarify the position better. I'm not understanding your misunderstanding well enough to correct it. I find myself poorly equipped to respond without being frustrated or snarky.

I love Lutheran doctrine is so intricately interwoven and yet simple and consistent. So if it seems like it isn't so to someone else, the fault is mine for not being able to express it well.

I'm finally getting to actually listen to this podcast and I'll share my notes if I can. Eventually I may post something regarding the over use of Simul Justus et Peccator to mischaracterize confessional Lutheranism into antinomianist annoyingness, but that's probably not going to be this week based on current life things.

So, Cooper definitely admits that there isn't a formulaic "This how it works" type of thing on justification by faith alone.. likely there wasn't an argument there. Imputation, however, is covered. However, the tenants are there.

He once again warns against taking the fathers out of context. I remind of this, because it keeps getting brought up and I do believe that Cooper can be accused of some things, but his scholastic integrity isn't something I think can be challenged.

Also, just looked at his Twitter to see if I could mention that we are having debates on this and I like that he has the series.. He has a podcast on mysticism that I am very excited to listen to at some point. I may or may not make a thread when I do. My last thread like that was super stream of consciousness, but y'all didn't seem to mind.

Bah. I had to rewind because I got distracted by posts on this very thread and other stuff.

After a bunch of exposition and re-treading on stuff we finally get to the meat!
Okay! So Ambrose! Cooper loves Ambrose and has read all of his stuff.
Ambrose emphasizes the impact of adam's sin on the human race more than many other father.

And actually, the first quote Cooper uses is interesting re: bondage of the will "Don't you know that the sin of Adam and Eve sold you into servitude. That Christ did not buy you, but bought you back"

We are looking at Ambrose's catechetical works. He mentions different types of catechetical works and Ambrose tends to use the stories of the patriarchs to teach the basis of Christianity.. talks a bunch of virtues and ethical life as a result, but still often goes into justification from romans and whatnot and ties them into the old testament stories.

Ambrose specifically mentions concupiscence and the second use of the law (i.e. to show us our sin)
If you are not familiar, most Lutherans believe the Law has three purposes, a curb, a mirror, and a guide. A curb to keep us from doing wrong, a mirror to show us our need for salvation and grace, and the third use which is the more controversial, a guide to actually do what is right.. i.e. not only are we expected not to slander our neighbor, but that it actually means that we are to do everything in our power to uphold our neighbor's reputation and interpret things charitably.

So 28:30, he used a phrase that I'm not sure of.. Ilanctic use of the law? Does anyone know what he said there?

I can't type fast enough to keep up.

However, this is pretty good on Ambrose saying "you got justified by Christ's death, this allows you to live the Christian life"


aghhh I was listening, but not able to summarize and whatnot because I was responding to this thread. If I turn back and start again so I can type more, I won't have time to get ready for work, so maybe I'll have to go back to 28:30 and start over tonight when I get home.


That quote at 42:00 is so beautiful! The brightness of our faith! faith merits the forgiveness of sins, nothing else.

The stuff after that is very Christus Victor + legal conversation in the death of Christ and atonement and whatnot, which is interesting but a bit off track from the man conversation.

His last comments about EO remind me of when I see people say "Why do protestants not do this!" :| "um what? we do that"

He promises more, so i'm excited to see more. He also mentions that he does not think that the moral and ethical life that Ambrose talks about does not contradict the justification language. Ambrose and Luther sound like they have a fluid similar consistent theology, even if they aren't using precisely the same language.

Quote:

---

And actually, the first quote Cooper uses is interesting re: bondage of the will "Don't you know that the sin of Adam and Eve sold you into servitude. That Christ did not buy you, but bought you back"

---

It stood out to me, because I think Cooper said that St Ambrose said Christ bought us back from Satan. I don't remember for sure, and I can't find the extended quote. But if that is what St Ambrose continued with, this is a great example of inconsistency or ambiguity in the fathers.

St Gregory the Theologian specifically argues against that the purchase was paid to Satan:
Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into. To Whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was It shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High priest and Sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause? If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether. But if to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed; and next, On what principle did the Blood of His Only begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being offered by his Father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things? So much we have said of Christ; the greater part of what we might say shall be reverenced with silence. But that brazen serpent Numbers 21:9 was hung up as a remedy for the biting serpents, not as a type of Him that suffered for us, but as a contrast; and it saved those that looked upon it, not because they believed it to live, but because it was killed, and killed with it the powers that were subject to it, being destroyed as it deserved. And what is the fitting epitaph for it from us? O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory? You are overthrown by the Cross; you are slain by Him who is the Giver of life; you are without breath, dead, without motion, even though you keep the form of a serpent lifted up on high on a pole.

Quote:

---

It stood out to me, because I think Cooper said that St Ambrose said Christ bought us back from Satan. I don't remember for sure, and I can't find the extended quote. But if that is what St Ambrose continued with, this is a great example of inconsistency or ambiguity in the fathers.

---

My podcast this morning "A History of the Early Church" went into this subject in some detail. Apparently the Second Temple understanding of evil was fairly fleshed out. Satan was the serpent of Eden and the adversary of Job, the Watchers were his compatriots, and the Watcher's children were the pagan dieties. Each of the watcher's children had a specific nation to which they were assigned to rule, but Satan wasn't. He had dominion over death and the dead. So when Christ died, it was believed that He was in Satan's domain. However, Satan did not have the power to hold Him captive, and therefore Christ was able to overcome death for Himself and for us as well.

It flows very naturally from the Second Temple beliefs regarding evil and the supernatural. But as you said, the idea that Christ was ransomed to Satan quickly fell out of favor right after it was actually articulated.

Love your last post

Some of that comes right out of the scriptures with national angel description of Michael in Daniel.

But the ransom theory of atonement is not invalid, its just a way to describe salvation. St Gregory doesn't argue against ransom theory, or that we were in bondage to Satan, just that the ransom was not paid to Satan.

Its interesting for sure though.

k2aggie07 said:

---

If you use justification in that way you're eliminating sanctification from salvation, ignoring the scriptures on judgment. And never mind the problems this presents to the whole idea of the bondage of the will. Colin's will was regenerated and un-regenerated. So presumably when he falls away he has an unregenerate will again? It's nonsense.

But anyway that use is how everyone speaks of salvation, except Orthodoxy doesn't say he's saved after the first point, or after the second. Or that anyone is saved in a final sense, until the judgment. How else could St Paul tell us - baptized Christians, people like "good" Colin - to work out our salvation? Not our justification, our salvation. Or that we will be justified on the last day?

I'm fine with the story and I think most are, except for the part where we say he is saved and then unsaved. He said there is no and then. So what he does after justification is just filler in the story.

The truth is he never was saved in the first place, or the second, because only Christ can judge.

And anyway we're back to the notional point. If a person can be saved, unsaved, and re-saved, the whole thing is just an idea, a concept, that has no bearing on our life or actions or pastoral care. It's just not a thing to concern ourselves with. God will judge; in the meantime, it's simply not relevant for us.

---

Lets apply your statements to Colin to see where this lands us.

Colin dies and faces judgement (lets assume this happens instead of Christ returning).

As swimmer said, Colin was less than perfect.

What is God's judgement?

We know Colin fell short with his works and sin, Scriptures say he would.

Colin also loved God and though he constantly fell short, and when he had faith, he did everything he could to meet what God commands.

What should his judgement be?

No one can answer that question.

For one, you say we "know" he fell short with his works. How do you know? How do you know what he did or didn't do, and how God views this? Did he feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, welcome the stringer, clothe the naked, visit the sick, come to those in prison? This is what Christ says allows a person to enter into the joy of His rest.

And did Colin do those things with faith working in love, or for others to see him like the Pharisee and receive his reward then in full? Did he do them without love, and gain nothing? Did he beat his breast and say, "God, be gracious unto me a sinner" and go away justified? Or was he proud and not?

How do you know what works he did, and whether he did them by faith or not? How do you know that "when he had faith" he did everything he could? What if he didn't? What if he never really trusted God, only outwardly went through the motions? What if he never loved God, never even knew Him?

We don't know. We don't know any of that. No one does, because God judges the heart, not the way people judge. He alone judges, and He alone has mercy or not. He is the one who says "I will show mercy to whom I may show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I may have compassion." You don't know the measure given to Colin. You don't know if Colin was the wise army leader or the foolish tower builder in the eyes of God. You don't know if Colin did 1% of what he should have done or 100%. And so we do not judge, because if God wants him to stand, he will stand.

That's what the scriptures say. They say to work out your salvation (not your justification) in fear and trembling. We also know God is merciful, and just; that He does not mark iniquities, and with Him there is forgiveness. So we say, Lord have mercy, and we trust and hope in our salvation, counting everything a loss except Christ.

This is actually really interesting.

With all the talk of Calvinism, I didn't realize that from a salvation perspective, Calvinist and the Orthodox are really quite close.

What's more interesting is claiming synergism, when you are effectively claiming monergism. You must live in a constant state of worry about whether you've done enough.

Quote:

---

For one, you say we "know" he fell short with his works. How do you know?

---

We know we have fallen short of the glory of God:

Romans 3:23:

Quote:

---

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

---

But further, Paul calls any righteousness he attained a loss. Nothing he did comes close compared to the surpassing worth of knowing Jesus

Galatians 3:

Quote:

---

2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God[b] and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh 4 though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee;6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law,[c]blameless. 7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

---

But further, and this is always the question. Who's works? Ours? Not according to Paul

Ephesians 2: 10:

Quote:

---

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

---

So I really turn the question around on you and say, how can you read Paul and not feel that he was confident in his salvation?

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/st-ambrose-on-law-and-gospel/

Quote:

---

For the man who has been redeemed as a slave has his freedom, and as for the man who has been called as a free man, it is good for him to know that he is a slave of Christ, under whom servitude is safe and freedom secureFor in truth we are all freedmen of Christ, but no one is a free man; we have all been procreated in servitudeDon't you know that the guilt of Adam and Eve sold you into servitude? Don't you know that Christ did not buy you, but bought you back?"

---

For full context
https://books.google.com/books?id=A7a3JIUGbcEC&lpg=PA127&ots=YUHwIQJ0FP&dq=%22For%20the%20man%20who%20has%20been%20redeemed%20as%20a%20slave%20has%20his%20freedom%2C%20and%20as%20for%20the%20man%20who%20has%20been%20called%20as%20a%20free%20man%2C%20it%20is%20good%20for%20him%20to%20know%20that%20he%20is%20a%20slave%20of%20Christ%2C%20under%20whom%20servitude%20is%20safe%20and%20freedom%20secure%E2%80%A6For%20in%20truth%20we%20are%20all%20freedmen%20of%20Christ%2C%20but%20no%20one%20is%20a%20free%20man%3B%20we%20have%20all%20been%20procreated%20in%20servitude%E2%80%A6Don%E2%80%99t%20you%20know%20that%20the%20guilt%20of%20Adam%20and%20Eve%20sold%20you%20into%20servitude%3F%20Don%E2%80%99t%20you%20know%20that%20Christ%20did%20not%20buy%20you%2C%20but%20bought%20you%20back%22&pg=PA127#v=onepage&q&f=false

Quote:

---

With all the talk of Calvinism, I didn't realize that from a salvation perspective, Calvinist and the Orthodox are really quite close.

What's more interesting is claiming synergism, when you are effectively claiming monergism. You must live in a constant state of worry about whether you've done enough.

---

so white is black and black is white? It's synergism but it's really monergism? Good luck convincing anyone of that explanation.

Grace comes from God alone, and He alone saves by His own sovereignty. His grace always precedes our actions, but the will remains free. We are free to do what we will or not, to work with Him and for Him, or not. And He alone judges us, our hearts, our intents.

I don't worry about whether I've done enough, because the doing isn't the matter at hand. We don't earn our salvation. I never said we did. But what we do in response to grace is what we are judged by. We do work it out, in fear and trembling. We must hunger and thirst for righteousness. Nearly every word I wrote before is scripture, and that is quite clearly what was said. You know why? Because the way we act comes from who and what we are, and who we are in our hearts is what He will judge. We love others because we know God, and therefore we know Love. If we don't love others, we can't love God, or say we know Him. That is what St John says. It's not about the works, or about the faith, because neither apart from the other does anything. Faith with no love can't exist; works with no faith are useless. Only faith working through love counts.

You're quoting the scripture and then saying something it does not say. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, truly, and there's no denying it. That does not say that all who work for God fall short of their calling in Christ. You don't know that. He may say - well done, good and faithful servant! He says that for the person who has one talent as well as the one with ten. And He forgives the man with ten thousand talents of debt, but then condemns him for his lack of forgiveness. God tells us He forgives us as we forgive others - that's what the Lord's Prayer says!

How can you say Ephesians 2:10 doesn't call us for works? It literally says we were created by God for works! St Paul says only faith working through love counts for anything.

You quote St Paul but you do not read what he says. (that's Philippians 3 btw). Yes, the righteousness he gained under the law, apart from Christ, was a loss. He says his own righteousness from the law he doesn't want, but he wants a righteousness of God that depends on faith - and what? Read the rest, really read it! That he may know Him, and the power of His Resurrection, and fellowship in His sufferings, being confirmed to his death. That's denying yourself, taking up the cross, following Him. Those are works, brotha!

And you left out the punch line!

"Not that already I have obtained it or already have been perfected, but I am pursuing it, so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you..."

Cool, must have misheard Cooper. No contradiction there between St Gregory and St Ambrose, just a different focus. As Gregory says, a dogmatic point worth examining.

He says "bought you back"... but I am fairly certain, from my reading, that Ambrose is saying that he bought us back from slavery of sin.





sorry, that's messy, but I can't copy and paste text from a google book

You know, that one verse is important.

St Paul says "Not that already I have obtained or already have been perfected, but I am pursuing"

Perfect is teleioo, to culminate, fulfill, complete, to reach the end or aim of the thing, its telos. A things telos is the purpose for which it was made, the end for which it exists. Like, Christ is "the end (telos) of the law for those believing."

He's saying, I'm not what I am created to be yet. He's not finished, God's work is not complete. But, also as St Paul says, we work "until we we all may attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a complete man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." Just like Christ prays that we would be perfected in unity (same word for perfected there). The goal of salvation is each person's telos, which is unity of the faith, oneness with God. That is salvation, and no one can claim they have attained it. Salvation is not a binary thing until the end, until each person achieves their perfection and end, which is Christ.

Yes, ransom theory of atonement. Bought with a price, God's freedmen, it's all scripture. St Gregory was just looking into - when a buyer buys, someone gets money, so who is it that was paid?

The word I was trying to figure out in the podcast was Elenchtic
I am twitter friends with the Coopers so I asked.

I still had to google the term

Quote:

---

Elenctics, in Christianity, is a division of practical theology concerned with persuading people of other faiths (or no faith) of the truth of the Gospel message, with an end to producing in them an awareness of, and sense of guilt for, their sins, a recognition of their need for God's forgiveness, repentance (i.e. the disposition to turn away from their sin) and faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

---

Quote:

---

so white is black and black is white? It's synergism but it's really monergism? Good luck convincing anyone of that explanation.

---

I'm not trying to convince anyone of that. Just pointing out that mechanically what you describe should be what a calvinist would also describe. They would call it monergism, you call it synergism. Just weird.

Quote:

---

Grace comes from God alone, and He alone saves by His own sovereignty. His grace always precedes our actions, but the will remains free. We are free to do what we will or not, to work with Him and for Him, or not. And He alone judges us, our hearts, our intents.

---

But it may or may not matter right? This is the same kind of question Calvinist try and avoid. You can lead a faithful life only to find out you weren't part of the elect.

Quote:

---

How can you say Ephesians 2:10 doesn't call us for works? It literally says we were created by God for works! St Paul says only faith working through love counts for anything.

---

Correct! and we do the works that God prepared for us. So how in the world do we claim credit for what God gave us?

Example. You figure something out at work that is groundbreaking. Who deserves the credit? You or God?

Luther in one of his first works, the Heilderburg Disputation, pointed out that taking credit for that is the true mortal sin (he was still a very faithful Catholic). We are trying to take credit for something God prepared for us as if we did it on our own. In other words, we set ourselves up as a false idol.

So you could then conclude that if/when we are judged, we bring no works to be judged on. What we are left is our faithfulness with which we performed God's commands.

This is where I believe Jordan will transition to Theosis/Christification, though I've started but not finished Jordan's book on this very topic.

Quote:

---

mechanically what you describe should be what a calvinist would also describe

---

You mean that God is sovereign in judgment? I mean, yeah, we agree on that. You would have to say the scriptures are false to disagree on that. The distinction between Calvinism and Orthodoxy is what part man plays leading up to the judgment, not whether God is sovereign or not in judgment. God's judgment is true, not arbitrary or capricious, and it doesn't happen without regard for the person's free will and actions arising from their own choices.

Quote:

---

But it may or may not matter right? This is the same kind of question Calvinist try and avoid. You can lead a faithful life only to find out you weren't part of the elect.

---

Of course it matters. How do you read the NT and think that what we do doesn't matter? Or what I've written here? I've said over and over again what we do matters, whether we respond to the grace given us, because doing and being are inextricably linked. I didn't say a person doesn't have hope or doesn't have faith and security in salvation. I said YOU can't look at someone ELSE and say what God will judge. You don't know anything about them, about their heart. The saints say that the first gift of enlightenment is knowing yourself, seeing your own sins. In other words, seeing yourself as you are in the eyes of God. (cf 1 Cor 11:31-32). But at the end of the day, we are all under grace and mercy.

Quote:

---

Correct! and we do the works that God prepared for us. So how in the world do we claim credit for what God gave us?

---

Do you think that God prepared works for only some people or for everyone? Do you think some people were not created for good works? If so, the difference between those who do the works, or hunger and thirst for righteousness and those who don't is the answer. God doesn't force us, or coerce us. He enables us, helps us, precedes us, pulls us back when we stray. We don't get credit for anything except the assent, to be his fellow-workers.

Again, the Bible calls us fellow-workers...literally synergoi. Same root word where we get synergy...or synergism..co-working. Not idle tools. We are His hands and feet, we have to work, this a choice we make.

Quote:

---

We are trying to take credit for something God prepared for us as if we did it on our own. In other words, we set ourselves up as a false idol.

---

No, not alone. That's the whole point St Clement made. We are not saved by our own works. These words matter, you can't just omit words. Just like works of the law and works of piety are different, there is a difference between our own works and our works we do in synergy with God.

Quote:

---

So you could then conclude that if/when we are judged, we bring no works to be judged on. What we are left is our faithfulness with which we performed God's commands.

---

This is such a nonsensical argument.

We were created for works, and we are commanded to do the works, so we do the works, but we don't really do them, we just "perform" them with faithfulness, which comes from faith, except the faith isn't ours anyway, so we don't do anything, or have faith in anything, or believe anything. So there's nothing for us to do, except sit around and hope that we get magic faith, and then that magic faith causes us to do magic works, which we don't do, while doing them.

Did I get that right?

Maybe St Paul meant to say "perform our your salvation with fear and trembling".

edit:
Nevermind. Not how I want to be.

Magic is real. Of course it is real.

I don't believe in magic.

I'm not mocking anything other than the idea that performing a commandment is different than work. In fact, I'm not even sure that there is a Greek analog for perform, since it is a Latin root. Anything a person does is either going to be to complete, telos, or to work, something with ergo etc. in it.

well in that case, I have no problem with you calling it magic faith.

Magic is simply supernatural actions influencing the outcome of things. Soo yeah, faith is pretty darn magical since it results in salvation and everything good you can say about me

Other magical things include baptism, eucharist, the resurrection, etc. Look at me a crazy person who believes in magic. God is supernatural. Miracles are magic.

Is there an official Lutheran doctrinal statement that supports those magical claims?

God "will repay each one according to his deeds." To those who by perseverance in good work (literally ergou agathou, good work) seek glory, honor, and immortality, He will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow wickedness, there will be wrath and anger.

That's in Romans.

For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.

Hebrews.

Gator03 said:

---

Is there an official Lutheran doctrinal statement that supports those magical claims?

---

Is there some sort of confusion about what the word magic means? I'm not sure I understand what you are asking for.

The definition of magic "the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces."

If our faith in God isn't supernatural and God isn't supernatural and his work isn't influencing the course of events,what are we bothering with all this for?

Sorry, listened to the original link last night and that was a reference to minute 48.

I wanted to return to these comments. The more I thought about them, the more terrifying these comments really are.

Quote:

---

How do you know what works he did, and whether he did them by faith or not? How do you know that "when he had faith" he did everything he could? What if he didn't? What if he never really trusted God, only outwardly went through the motions? What if he never loved God, never even knew Him?

---

I'm not judging Colin. That's not my place.

Only God knows Colin's heart. You're putting a bunch of unnecessary "if statements" in there for really no reason. God knows his heart. But again, this is pure Calvinism.

Quote:

---

We don't know. We don't know any of that. No one does, because God judges the heart, not the way people judge. He alone judges, and He alone has mercy or not. He is the one who says "I will show mercy to whom I may show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I may have compassion." You don't know the measure given to Colin. You don't know if Colin was the wise army leader or the foolish tower builder in the eyes of God. You don't know if Colin did 1% of what he should have done or 100%. And so we do not judge, because if God wants him to stand, he will stand.

---

This is the part I really thought a lot about last night. What you are saying here is the following:

God is all-knowing and outside of time. He knows what Colin will do before Colin is born.

You're now suggesting that a God, outside of time and all knowing is going to set a level of works for Colin that He knows Colin won't meet?

That's pure monergism. Ironically, this view makes Lutheran's much more synergist.

And free will is not impacted one way or the other. I'm not saying that God is causing Colin to do things that will cause him to end up falling short. He already knows what Colin will or won't do.

So you mean the 3 uses of the law? If so, yes, I'm sure, let me get to my comp to find quotes.