I first read Martin Luther's The Bondage of the Will [wiki article] in [circa] 1998. The J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston translation. Around 2004 I read Catholic theologian Harry McSorley's classic book Luther: Right or Wrong? Which is a review of Luther's book and which, in my opinion, every Protestant should read, along with Luther's Bondage and Erasmus' Freedom. Recently (Jan. 2020) I finally read Erasmus Desiderius' On the Freedom of the Will [wiki article] found in the The Library of Christian Classics edition Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation. Translated by E. Gordon Rupp. Having finished Erasmus' book, I decided to re-read Luther's work in the translation offered in the same edition [translated by Philip S. Watson]. Luther's Bondage was in response to Erasmus' Freedom. Erasmus would latter respond to the Bondage in a two part book Hyperaspistes. However, the Hyperaspistes never gained any popular recognition.
I mention all of the above to preface my recommendation of Luther's Bondage. I've personally read it, and highly recommend all of my fellow Protestants read it as well. I realize that the book is by no means perfect. There are modern theological and philosophical distinctions and categories which show some of the gaps and weaknesses in Luther's reasoning [cf. McSorley's book]. Nevertheless, Luther goes a long way in defending and demonstrating God's sovereign unconditional election on Scriptural grounds. Even McSorley's book praises much in the work. The Bondage truly is, as has been noted by others, the Reformation's 'Manifesto' on Sola Gratia.
While neither the Packer & Johnston or the Watson translations are freely available online (being in copyright), Henry Cole's translation is freely available (being in public domain).
Here are my personal observations and notes on the debate as a Calvinistic and continuationist Baptist. They are my notes, rather than a case for my position. They are also a clarification of my present position for my own continuing understanding of Justification and Sanctification.
In the debate Joshua kept going over time. That was fine because he was lenient with Luis' use of time as well. Though, I wish that he would have told Luis that after he finished his opening he had over 2 minutes more left. Luis could have used that time productively.
I think that Luis could have pressed Joshua to Biblically defend the imputation of Christ's active obedience/righteousness (IAO). Which isn't as biblically supported as many Protestants think. Though, I personally think it's sufficiently supported.
Regarding the Lordship Salvation Controversy in the 1990s, I hold to Lordship Salvation. But Joshua seems to hold to the Non-Lordship Salvation position of either Charles Ryrie or [the more extreme view of] Zane Hodges. If so, then Luis should have asked whether Joshua thought Luis himself is still saved. Given Joshua's view, it would seem that he would have to say, "Yes". In which case, it was safest for Luis to cover all the bases and revert to Catholicism. Since, he can't lose his salvation by reverting given Joshua's apparent view of justification and optional sanctification. And Luis' attitude toward Jesus isn't like the hypothetical atheist that Joshua struggles to categorize. Lordship Salvation sees sanctification as necessary [in some sense], while Non-Lordship Salvation sees it as optional. As a Calvinist I believe God always sanctifies those whom He justifies [unless the person immediately dies after justification]. The Non-Lordship Salvation view of "Eternal Security" or "Once Saved, Always Saved", while similar, should never be confused with the more robust Calvinist view of the "Perseverance of the Saints".
I think Trent Horn clearly won his debate with James White on perseverance. I think that's partly because, as James has repeatedly said, he intentionally no longer debates like he used to in order to win the debate. But to win the audience. I think that attitude and approach has negatively affected the quality of his debates. I also wonder whether if he's no longer preparing or brushing up for his debates with Catholics. Compare his debating style in the 1990s with his recent debates and there's a huge difference. If I recall correctly, I think White did a much better defense of the Perseverance of the Saints in his debate with Atkin and Matatics.
I completely agree (or virtually so, say 99%) with the historical survey of the 1st part of Luis' Opening. He mentions that R.C. Sproul claimed Catholicism denies Sola Gratia. That might be so. But Michael Horton (and presumably others at the White Horse Inn) has said that it's IRONIC that while there is a long list of theologians in the stream and tradition of Roman Catholicism who affirmed Sola Gratia while denying Sola Fide, that there are many contemporary Evangelicals who affirm Sola Fide, but deny Sola Gratia (e.g. Arminians). So, there are Reformed folk like Horton and myself who acknowledge that Roman Catholicism (or at least some of their theologians) affirm Sola Gratia.
I agree that Roman Catholicism officially denies both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism [as I understand them]. At least since the rediscovery of the Canons of the Council of Orange sometime in the 16th century. My limited understanding is that Pelagianism teaches grace, while useful, isn't absolutely necessary because humans can earn salvation by their use of their freewill and strict merit good works. Grace is not strictly necessary. Whereas Semi-Pelagianism does affirm that grace is absolutely necessary, but that man always, or at least sometimes can move toward God and respond to God's grace apart from that grace first influencing him and moving him toward a response. Roman Catholicism rejects that Semi-Pelagian view and affirms enabling/initiating grace, or what they call Operating Grace prior to initial justification. As well as Cooperating Grace after initial justification. Wesleyans and most non-Reformed/non-Lutheran Evangelicals refer to enabling/initiating grace as Prevenient Grace. Prevenient grace doesn't leave men merely indifferent or neutral. It also draws and woos people to respond to God's grace. As Arminian theologian Roger Olson described it, "...it is an operation of the Holy Spirit that frees the sinner’s will from bondage to sin and convicts, calls, illumines and enables the sinner to respond to the gospel call with repentance and faith (conversion)." Calvinists don't merely hold grace is necessary, but that it's also sufficient. Hence the term Efficacious Grace which is redemptive, special and applied only to the elect, as opposed to Common Grace which all humanity receives. In Calvinism all those whom God regenerates, He also justifies; and all those whom He justifies He also sanctifies [on the assumption that they don't die immediately and have time to perform good works]. Compare my blogpost HERE.
Luis rightly points out that there are differences among the Reformed regarding justification and sanctification. Though his emphasis on that could lead some to think there aren't differences among non-Calvinistic Evangelicals among themselves or among Catholics themselves and the patristic fathers themselves. For example, even among Wesleyans there are about 10 different views regarding Prevenient Grace. See chapter 9 of Still Sovereign edited by Schreiner. Not to mention that John Wesley himself continually modified his views on justification throughout his life. Wesleyans also disagree on the definition of Entire Sanctification. While it's slightly out-dated and not as scholarly as it could be, Peter Toon's survey on the different views on justification and sanctification in Christendom is freely online here: http://assets.newscriptorium.com/toon-collection/doctrine/justsanct1.htm
Luis rightly points out that the Reformed disagree on the concept of Final Justification (or what he also referred to as double justification). I myself affirm a double justification. I've defended Piper's views as Biblical and historical for a long time. For example, here's a dialogue I had in 2010 regarding the Piper's view against the Neo-Sandemanian view of the definition of faith by Gordon Clark and his disciples. I posted as Annoyed Pinoy. https://godshammer.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/clark-quick-quote-7/
In the 1990s there was the Lordship Salvation vs. Non-Lordship Salvation debate among Evangelicals [e.g. MacArthur vs. Ryrie/Hodges], and I sided with the former. Though, MacArthur's views could have been stated better. See Christ the Lord by Michael Horton and other contemporary Reformational authors on the topic of Lordship Salvation.
I agree with Calvinist Jonathan Edwards that Christ's righteousness is also infused in us in sanctification [not just imputed in justification]. That God makes sinners objectively righteous.
I agree with the last paragraph of Calvinist A.W. Pink's book, _The Doctrine of Justification_:
Let it be said in conclusion that the justification of the Christian is complete the moment he truly believes in Christ, and hence there are no degrees in justification. The Apostle Paul was as truly a justified man at the hour of his conversion as he was at the close of his life. The feeblest babe in Christ is just as completely justified as is the most mature saint. Let theologians note the following distinctions. Christians were decretively justified from all eternity: efficaciously so when Christ rose again from the dead; actually so when they believed; sensibly so when the Spirit bestows joyous assurance; manifestly so when they tread the path of obedience; finally so at the Day of Judgment, when God shall sententiously, and in the presence of all created things, pronounce them so.- A.W. Pink, The Doctrine of Justification, chapter 10, last paragraph [bold added by me- AP] https://web.archive.org/web/20180205183443/http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Justification/index.htm
And John Gerstner's statement:
Christians will receive rewards in heaven for every one of their imperfect “good” works for a very good reason. Those post-justification good works are not necessary for heaven because Jesus Christ purchased heaven for those in Him by faith. The works are necessary to prove the genuineness of professed faith but they are not necessary for earning heaven. They are real “works of super-erogation,” if you wish. Anyone who goes to heaven does so for the merit of Christ’s work alone, apart from any merit in any and all of his own works of obedience. If faith could exist apart from works, which it cannot, the believer could go to heaven without ever doing one good work. As it is, he goes to heaven without one iota of merit in anything and everything he does. But every post-justification good work he ever does will merit, deserve, and receive its reward in heaven.
You protest, “But post-justification works have sin in them, and therefore cannot merit any reward.” You forget that their guilt of sin has been removed. Moreover, do you dare impugn the justice of God by saying that He would “reward” what did not deserve reward? (P.S. I confess my own and Augustine’s past error in using the oxymoron: “rewards of grace.”)
In conclusion, faith, as union with Christ, possesses Christ’s righteousness which justifies perfectly forever. Being true faith, it is inseparable from works which contribute zero to justification. But being unnecessary for heaven (which Christ’s merit alone purchases), works are meritorious and the Christian is now to leap for joy because every one of his weakest of works will deservedly receive an everlasting reward in heaven. [The Nature of Justifying Faith - by Dr. John H. Gerstner] https://www.apuritansmind.com/justification/the-nature-of-justifying-faith-by-dr-john-h-gerstner/
So I affirm a kind of "condign" merit for rewards, or what Piper calls "conditional unmerited grace", but not for justification or acceptance before God.
With regard to the second part of Luis' Opening, the Biblical arguments:
I agree that faith in the New Testament can sometimes have the meaning of allegiance/loyalty, even faithfulness. I also agree that "works of the Law" in Paul can sometimes refers to the Mosaic Covenant and its laws. But I don't think that these facts necessarily undermine the general Reformed view of Justification.
I affirm the usefulness and legitimacy of the distinctions of the different theological types of works that Roman Catholics [and others] can refer to. For example:
Types of works: 1. keeping of the Mosaic Covenant and its laws; 2. merely the ceremonial laws; 3. any keeping of moral precepts [as opposed to or distinguished from ceremonial or civil laws in the Mosaic Covenant]; 4. any type of works prior to initial justification; 5. strict merit works; 6. Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian works; 7. congruous merit; 8. condign merit et cetera
These are good theological distinctions, but they aren't Biblical distinctions. So, I nevertheless think that Paul excludes all types of works for justification. Such categories were not in his mind when he wrote his epistles.
I'm willing to say that the Apostle James teaches our works vindicates us, or vindicates our faith before God, but I don't think he's addressing what Paul is addressing when it comes to justification. We have to allow Biblical authors to use theological terminology and categories of thought in their own way, and not shoehorn different Biblical authors into meaning what another author meant or was addressing. Though, this in no way denies that we ought to harmonize and systematize Biblical teaching on a topic. Nevertheless, different authors do have different frameworks on the same topics. The distinct Christian communities described theological truths differently. The soteriology and Christology in the Pauline corpus is expressed very differently/distinctly than in the Johannine corpus. For example, Paul never referred to Christ as the "Logos of God" or as "the Son of Man". The Johannine corpus is willing to explicitly say that we have eternal life immediately upon the exercise of faith. While Paul usually likes to reserve the obtaining of eternal life to the future eschaton. John meanwhile never spoke of justification proper.
Nowhere does the Scripture explicitly state that Abraham or David lost their justification. At most one might appeal to Paul's citation of Ps. 32 to infer David lost his justification and needed to be re-justified. However, we have to understand three things. 1. the way New Testament authors quoted the Old Testament; 2. that we have to be careful to not anachronistically have New Testament authors imposing their theology onto the Tanakh; and 3. not anachronistically imposing later post-Biblical theological distinctions onto New Testament authors [as I warned above].
My summary doesn't do justice to Fruchtenbaum's live explication of the Jewish PaRDeS hermeneutical methods. So, I highly recommend listening to the first few minutes of his 3rd lecture to feel the weight of the point I'm making in point #1.
Fruchtenbaum points out that quotations by NT authors of the Tanakh doesn't necessary mean that they thought the passage from the OT they were citing taught the point they were making or that there are direct lessons one can learn from and OT passage cited in the New Testament which matches the New Testament author's point. Their citations could be much looser, and almost eisegetical. Here I would again recommend listening to his 3rd lecture.
In light of that, we can't necessarily infer that because New Testament authors cited different times when Abraham was justified that he was justified multiple times [the OT refers to his being justified in Genesis chapters 12, 15, 22]. Especially since more than one NT author is involved in making that inference of multiple justifications. That would violate the principle I mentioned above about allowing each author to express his theology and concerns his own way. Their letters are called "occasional epistles" for a reason. They were specifically written for occasions that dealt with particular issues. On justification, Paul was often dealing THEOLOGICALLY [orthodoxy] with how we are made acceptable before God, and then applying that to the Christian life. While James was dealing PASTORALLY [orthopraxy] with the problem of complacency and lack of zeal for good works and repentance among Christians. So, while Paul began with theology and ended with application in the Christian life, James did the opposite and began with living the Christian life to come to doctrinal conclusions. Paul was primarily dealing with the justification of the person, while James the justification of one's professed/claimed faith. While James does seem to be addressing the vindication of the person's faith (or maybe even the person himself) before God [pace some Protestants who absolutely deny this]; the vindication of the person and/or his faith isn't necessarily logically or theologically equivalent to the basis on which one is accepted by God and gains legitimate entrance into the Kingdom of God. For the historic Protestant, that's the finished work of Christ. His passive and active obedience.
It seems to me that "Golden Chain of Redemption" of Rom. 8:28-29 implies justification cannot be lost. As has been noted by some, the fact that sanctification isn't included in the chain might be because Paul didn't want anyone to infer that our salvation hinged on our sanctification. Also, in order to emphasize the proleptic certainty of how election leads to certain glorification. There doesn't seem to be any room in Paul's use of the "Chain" for any of the justified to fail to be glorified.
It seems to me that 1 John 2:19 and 3:9 suggests justification or eternal life cannot be lost.
No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.- 1 John 3:9
The author seems to be saying that those who have been born again cannot persist in serious sin because regeneration is irreversible/irrevocable. In which case they cannot lose their "justification" [to use the Catholic sense].
Though, I'm open to the possibility that genuine believers can lose their salvation, and agree with the distinction between 1. the Perseverance of (only) the Elect and 2. the Perseverance of (all) the Saints, I lean against that position and view the two groups as coterminous rather than that the elect being a a smaller subset of the saints. I've also addressed the topic of the loss of salvation in that thread at Triablogue as well. My default position as a Calvinist is to affirm the Perseverance of the Saints.
While Catholics can epistemologically affirm with some certainty that they are currently in a salvific/gracious state, Trent denies that one can have assurance of making it to heaven in this life apart from a revelation from God. So, in one sense Catholics can affirm the Johannine claim that we can know we have eternal life [1 John 5:13; John 5:24]. Catholics can interpret that as referring to a present knowledge of a present state. However, I don't think that interpretation does justice to the Johannine authors' use of the phrase "eternal life" and the possibility of assurance and certainty of having it. The author says, "...He does not/shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life" (John 5:24b). Which seems to correspond to Paul's statement, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus..." (Rom. 8:1ff.).
The following verses (Rom. 8:2ff.) have been used to support the idea that salvation can be lost, but Paul goes on to make a distinction between those who are in the flesh and those who are in the Spirit. Teaching that the response of those in the Spirit will be to live righteously, and that being "in the Spirit" [and having the Spirit] is a work of God, not of one's proper use and improvement of available offered grace. Remember too this is the same chapter that Paul introduces the the topic of predestination. While chapter divisions aren't part of the autographes, it's natural for Paul to transition from justification to predestination if justification is a permanent once for all reality as Reformed theology teaches. Justification and predestination are mentioned in the same verse, verse 30; and condemnation and justification is contrasted in the same verse just three verses later 33. With verse 32 implying God will give all things to believers for whom Christ died. Why shouldn't that include the "gift of perseverance" [to use Augustine's terminology]? Again, I delved into this in my comments at Steve Hays' blogpost HERE.
And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.- Rom. 8:30
32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?
33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.- Rom. 8:32-33
I believe it might be possible to attain apodictic and philosophic certainty that one will persevere in the faith and make it to the Kingdom of God, but that it requires a special inner testimony of the Holy Spirit that most Christians don't have. Though, the average Christian can have a lower level warranted assurance of that given the usual inner testimony of the Holy Spirit coupled with a credible profession of faith. Though, even that normal assurance of salvation is not, as Protestant theologians have said, "of the essence of faith". One can lack such assurance and still be in a salvific state. Just ask one can have a subjective erroneous assurance and be in a lost state. Since, it's possible to be deceived into to thinking one is "saved". Deception and self-deception is a real phenomenon and it's not contrary to Calvinism to affirm the following Biblical injunctions:
Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.- Heb. 12:14
Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?---unless indeed you fail to meet the test!- 2 Cor. 13:5
Security of salvation is an objective theological and/or onotological issue. While Assurance of salvation is a subjective psychological issue. In Calvinism, one HAS BEEN saved [past tense] from the penalty of sin in Justification; IS BEING saved [present tense] from the power of sin in Sanctification, and WILL BE saved [future tense] from the presence of sin in Glorification.
Finally, it seems to me that I can be more gracious regarding the salvation of Catholics than Catholics can be of Protestants like myself given past Ex Cathedra statements and the anathemas of Canons of the Council of Trent regarding my alleged damnable heresies on justification. Though, some Catholic apologists claim that they don't apply to modern Protestants like myself since they were aimed at 16th century heretics and individuals, and/or because I may not be knowingly and intentionally rejecting the truth of Catholicism. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't urge Catholics to leave Catholicism for some Evangelical position. I would, because I think Catholicism waters down or virtually [or actually] denies fundamental core teachings of the Bible.
The following are some of the Catholic ex cathedra statements that would condemn me as a Protestant to hell. Modern Catholics have a way of getting around these anathemas so that they don't apply to "separated brethren" like myself [per the historical revisionism of Vatican II]. But I think the original intention and interpretation of the following statements necessitates that I fall under the category of a "heretic and schismatic" doomed for Gehenna.
Ex Cathedra: "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." Pope Innocent III, Forth Lateran Council, 1215
Ex Cathedra "Consequently we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctuam, 1302
Ex Cathedra: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely neccesary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctuam, 1302
Ex Cathedra: "[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil, and his angels', unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the Ecclesiastical body is such that the Church's Sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739) (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
" The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that NONE of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics [Protestants] and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, UNLESS before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, NO ONE, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441).
Seventeenth Ecumenical Council -- Florence
