math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (01/22/91)
In article <Jan.15.04.58.27.1991.13046@athos.rutgers.edu>, farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: > I would like to tell you that I do believe that I am a Christian who holds > that Jesus is the Christ. That there is no salvation except for the > great atoning sacrifice of Christ. Jesus is my savior and my Lord. > If you define a Christian as one who believes in the various doctrines > as you do (i.e. the predestination), then I clearly don't meet your > defination. On the other hand most others of the various Christian > denominations don't either. I wrote: >>Really, the differences between us have to do with more important issues. > I sure would like to find out what is it which troubles you about > my faith, and comes in the way of meaningful communication. Since the > Moderator doesn't believe that any leghty discussion of the LDS believes > are timely, I did offer that we could exchange some private communications. The chief issue is really that of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, versus salvation that depends somewhat on works. In our exchange of articles and e-mail you seem to keep wanting to take credit for something that you have contributed to your own salvation. You justify this by saying that this is the only way God can be a just God, and not capricious and arbitrary. I say that the scriptures teach that we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, that apart from the saving Gospel we would all be dead in our transgressions and sins. This is true of *all* of us, from the smallest infant to the eldest. Without faith in Christ we are only objects of God's wrath; that is all we *deserve*. And this in fact is why people die. Someone without sin can of course be murdered, as Jesus was, but in general death is the wages of sin, and death is also the evidence that we all are guilty of sin. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." --Romans 5:12 Though the "wages of sin is death," "the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord", Rom 3:23. What could make it more clear that the only thing we can earn by our works is death, but that God can and does give us eternal life? Even faith itself is a gift of God, Eph 2:8,9. We cannot take credit for our faith, and turn it into our own work. But you take this, and say that I am teaching a predestination to damnation. By so doing you are putting words into my mouth, because I flatly deny any predestination to damnation. The scriptures clearly teach that God wants all men to be saved, 1 Tim 2:4, but that some men resist the Holy Spirit, Acts 7:51. Perhaps the simplest summary of 'predestination' is this: If we are saved, it is God's work, for he chose us for this before the creation of the world, Eph 1:4. If we reject the Gospel and remain dead in our transgressions and sins, it is our own fault. As I have said many times, I do not deny the importance of works. They are a necessay fruit, or result, of faith. But works do not save us. I believe that the above paragraphs summarize the very heart of the Gospel. There are a number of other issues that divide us, but this is the most important. A christian is one who trusts only in God's grace, in Christ's atonement, for his salvation, and does not trust in any of his works. I believe that christians are present wherever the means of grace, word and sacrament, are in use, for God says : "As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it." --Isaiah 55:10-11. So I believe that christians are present in any number of churches where the word is preached, even if they must sometimes exist in opposition to the doctrine that is preached. However, on the basis of scripture, I cannot practice fellowship with those who openly confess to false doctrine, that is, doctrine that is contrary to scripture. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. Free Lithuania! My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
llo@nuchat.sccsi.com (Larry Overacker) (01/24/91)
I have heard of Collosians 1:24 used rather obliquely to support the idea that
works are necessary. It states "I am happy about my sufferings for you.
For by means of my physical sufferings I help complete what still remains of
Christ's sufferings on behalf of his body, which is the church".
The argument advanced was that Christ's sufferings are neither complete nor
completely adequate. They were nearly enough but needed something "extra"
to put us up over the top, and we were expected to provide that ourselves.
I feel that Col 1:24 can be interpreted differently, but read literally it
does state that Christ's sufferings are not complete. Maybe this verse
can be used as an argument against a literal reading of the Bible.
Larry Overacker
Art is not a mirror held up to reality,
but a hammer with which to shape it. bertolt brecht jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (01/27/91)
David Wagner writes (not to me):
But you take this, and say that I am teaching a predestination to
damnation. By so doing you are putting words into my mouth, because
I flatly deny any predestination to damnation. The scriptures
clearly teach that God wants all men to be saved, 1 Tim 2:4, but
that some men resist the Holy Spirit, Acts 7:51. Perhaps the
simplest summary of 'predestination' is this: If we are saved, it is
God's work, for he chose us for this before the creation of the
world, Eph 1:4. If we reject the Gospel and remain dead in our
transgressions and sins, it is our own fault.
Every time this subject comes up, I am absolutely astonished and utterly
dumbfounded. Protestants believe in the Catholic doctrine on grace, if
this group is representative at all. The concept of irresistible grace
is what the Reformation was ABOUT. And now almost everyone follows the
Council of Trent!
I thought perhaps that the following considerations might help clarify
some of the difficulties on the issues of grace being discussed. I sent
another posting to the moderator on the subject that was somewhat more
involved, and want to repeat what I said as simply as possible here.
There are two kinds of works.
One kind proceeds from my human nature alone. This is the sort of thing
that everyone can do, just by being human. For example, being nice to
your friends.
The other kind of work cannot be done except by grace. An example here
is an act of perfect love of the Trinity. This is utterly impossible
without God's grace, because you can't even KNOW that He is a Trinity
without His grace convincing you, much less LOVE Him as a Trinity.
Works proceeding from human nature don't save. Works proceeding from
grace DO.
Without God's grace, we could not do the works that we need to do to be
saved. Not because we can't do any good without grace, but because we
can't do the kind of good that will result in our salvation. For that
kind of good, we need grace.
God's grace does not force us to do what we are supposed to do. It
gives us the ability to do something that we could not do before.
(This is a little simplified, because grace is a little more than just a
granting of an ability, but I'm trying to keep this simple, and what
I'm saying is close.)
Thus the importance of works. A person with the grace had better darn
well do the good works that the grace gives the power to, because
otherwise they're abusing grace.
Thus also the proper attitude towards Heaven and Hell. People end in
Hell because they don't use God's grace properly. They end in Heaven
because they do.
Joe Buehler
[You are certainly right in general. Few Protestants believe in
election any more. As far as I can determine, what they believe in is
almost exactly the doctrine taught by Trent. However I think that's
not true for David. He is trying to present Luther's view. He really
does believe in election. I don't want to speak for David, so I'm
going to summarize Luther as I understand him. But I suspect David's
comments should be taken the same way.
Luther said that it is impossible to be saved without God's grace,
that God's grace is irresistible, and thus that those who are saved
are saved entirely through God's grace. It's clear that those he does
not choose are thus going to be damned. However they are damned
because they reject God. The elect would have done so as well if they
hadn't been chosen. But Luther chooses (for reasons that I think have
a lot to be said for them) to regard damnation as being entirely the
result of their choice, not of God's failure to elect them. God did
give them all that they needed to be saved, in some nominal sense.
Calvinists think this is double-think. If everyone who God doesn't
choose will end up being damned, then God is responsible for deciding
who will be damned. Calvinists in effect accuse Luther of setting up
a set of assumptions that lead to double predestination, but simply
refusing to draw the conclusion to which those assumptions lead. This
is not an entirely fair criticism, because theology isn't mathematical
logic. We don't understand things well enough to axiomatize them, and
the best we can do from our perspective may indeed look like it is
logically inconsistent.
At any rate, I think when David says he rejects predestination to
damnation, it is in this context. He seems to believe in
predestination to salvation, and also that all who are not predestined
to salvation will be lost. But his view (as well as the straight
Calvinist view) is unusual these days. Most Protestants say they
believe in salvation by grace alone, but what they *mean* by this is
almost exactly the Catholic doctrine.
--clh]