It also appears that the modern day Lutheran may have no assurance of salvation since it is conditional on making the choice to repent on an ongoing basis. Yet, Luther himself had full assurance.
Forest Keeper wrote:
“It also appears that the modern day Lutheran may have no assurance of salvation since it is conditional on making the choice to repent on an ongoing basis. Yet, Luther himself had full assurance.”
You are a perceptive reader. Good for you. Luther was, as you said in another part of your post, “no free-will Arminian.” What you have to understand is that Rome has chosen (it will irritate our Roman friends that I say it this way) to put their soteriological eggs in the basket of “free will.” For them free will is a theological hill to die on. Geneva, i.e. Calvin, has chosen (this will irritate them as well ... tongue in cheek) to put their soteriological eggs in the basket of Unconditional Election, the “U” of TULIP. These two things appear, at least to human reason, to be the only two logical possibilities. The problem is that both run afoul of Scripture.
Lutherans have chosen to say, ‘Who cares about human reason?’, we’ll go with Scripture, logical or not. This is where the teaching of Sola Scriptura really kicks in. God is always right, whether we think so or not, whether we find it pleasing to our understanding or not. By this standard, Scripture trumps both Roman tradition (past human experience and thinking) and Calvinistic reason (contemporary experience and thinking).
The Arminians, when they found themselves confronted with the horribleness of the logical outcome of Calvinistic pre-destination, that is, that God pre-destines some to damnation, went back to the free-will path and, thus, into conflict with a different set of contradictions in the Holy Scriptures.
Lutherans simply go with Scripture: If we are saved, it is God’s doing. For the teaching of salvation by grace ultimately leads to the truth that it is God’s election, not ours. Otherwise, grace is not grace. On the other hand, if we are damned it is our doing. If you think about it just a little bit, you will realize that this is what Scripture teaches, even though it is not logical to our way of thinking. It is 2 plus 2 equals 7. Lutherans simply say, with God, “My ways are not your ways ...” In other words, they are content to let God be God. What He has withheld from us, we assume is done in accordance with His good and gracious will, i.e., it is for our good or because it is beyond our understanding. This tends to be insulting to many. It is like being told you are a child and therefore don’t need to know. Lutherans simply respond, ‘OK, so I am a child. Isn’t that what Jesus said I should be before God?’
When it comes to “assurance of salvation,” you are missing the point. Although it may be true that some modern day Lutherans are confused on this point, it is only because they were poorly instructed or spent too much time listening to bad teaching either from unfaithful so-called Lutheran preachers or from non-Lutheran sources that only succeeded in confusing them.
What is lacking in the various Reformed denominations, to a greater or lesser extent, is the proper understanding of the means of grace, that is, the Gospel in Word and Sacrament. Luther was very strong here, and all who truly could be called Lutherans, are so as well. The Word (the preached and taught Gospel) and Sacraments (properly speaking, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) were all instituted by Christ for the very purpose of giving assurance of forgiveness, life, and salvation. It is to these that faith clings, because in these Christ, who was crucified and risen then and there (it is finished!) is given to us here and now. In these there is full assurance, as you say.
The devil most likes to undermine either the certainty of the vicarious atonement’s “It is finished,” (the problem of Rome) or the certainty of Christ’s sure and certain presence among and in us through the means of grace (the problem of the Reformed in general).
Well, Forest Keeper, that will have to be enough for now. I hope you find this at least informative, if not even helpful.
But rest assured that the teaching that underlies the terms “Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, and Solus Christus” is Martin Luther’s, and is Scriptural. Others have simply borrowed or appropriated them, some well and some not so well.
Forest Keeper, one more thing before I go. You said:
“One thing that confuses me is given that Luther was no free-will Arminian, yet, there appears to be here the strong aspect of free-will choice on whether to come to faith and continuously repent, etc., for salvation.”
Maybe this is what confuses you: Look carefully at how the word “repent” is used in the Scriptures. It is never used when speaking to unbelievers or to those who could be expected to have no knowledge of God’s Word. Repent is a word of those who are of the faith or have knowledge of the faith. It is a calling back to faith to the God of grace and mercy. So, “coming to faith” and ongoing repentance are two quite different things. Faith is often very weak and seemingly fragile, yet it is according to God’s Word, “the gift of God, not of works.” That is, it is heaven sent. Often faith is the slender reed or the smoking flax, as Isaiah famously said. But God in His grace has promised He will not break the one or quench the other. Faith apart from Christ’s strengthening Gospel in Word and Sacrament tends to grow weak and doubting, just as we tend to grow weak and faltering with food and drink. Speaking of which, I must say goodbye.