I feel pretty lost in a forest of terms, concepts, definitions, and ideas.
Let's begin with the main question. The fact is, people still sin after they become Christians. (And I define becoming a Christian as when a person accepts Christ as their personal savior from sin and death) How then do we reconcile sin with the fact that we have been saved? I admit that we are not saved by anything but faith in Christ's work, that is, there is not a single action I have done or can do in order to gain eternal life, but I don't understand the seeming contradiction which after-salvation sin places before me. (Even excepting faith in Christ which is itself an action which "God effects in us" pg. 23).
Let me try that again. If I find myself still sinning after I have confessed Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, does this mean that I am no longer saved? I know of some who get out of this by saying that once you're saved you're always saved, but that doesn't seem satisfactory because one has no objective way of knowing if one is saved. If good works are the concomitant effects of true faith in Christ, then does this mean that bad works (i.e. sin) are the concomitant effects of damnation?
I guess what I'm trying to say is, why all this continual purgation? Why can't God remove the possibility of sinning after I have willed to no longer sin?
I hope I haven't uttered anything heretical or blasphemous (though I'm afraid I probably have).
Help?
Under the Mercy,
Gabriel
7 comments:
Luther wants you to be baptized, because somehow baptism gives you faith necessary for salvation, and then you can say "i'm saved! woohoo!"
Yeah, acording to what he says about the sacrament of Baptism in The Pagan Servitude of the Church, so long as you have benn baptized and then believe that you will be saved, you will be saved, no matter what you do! That's Faith!
Martin Luther is a toady. . .
Jon - heh! Toady indeed.
Luther's... hm, muy interesante. I wonder if his fault, and probably the fault of his Roman contemporaries, is that they're all too concerned with the afterlife...? There doesn't seem enough balance between concern for the future and trying to live in the moment.
I was a bit confused by this, too. Do you think it relates to his definition of the twofold nature of man: the spiritual/inner man (soul) and the fleshly/outer man (flesh)? I thought he might be arguing that it is the soul that is united to Christ by faith, and thus the soul is sanctified/justified, but then the flesh or outer man is still in conflict with the soul? (Agh! He is very difficult.) So perhaps the continual purgation is needed to sanctify the whole person? (Why does he separate soul and flesh?)
I'm as confused as you are...
I am confused too! :\
Pauline,
Mmmm, I was thinking about exploring that avenue as well. But that seems to make us fall into Gnosticism and deny that the body is as much a part of us as the soul...? The thing is, if the soul and body are so easily separable, why doesn't God just go ahead and give us a new, perfect body after we've willed to accept salvation?
Jonathan and Sir Claviger,
Haha, I'm not sure what you mean by toady, Luther certainly doesn't sound like he's kissing up...please say more about the dichotomy between the present moment and the future...
Thank you so much for all your thoughts!
what's kind of sad is that Luther really wants to make things as simple as possible, but can't do it.
Post a Comment