Paladin ✞ :
Hey Jakob, thanks for the response. So, I reckon that your reply here implies that my issue is that I think salvation is merely an event, and so this causes me to misread the Confession. But that isn’t my view, nor do I think I commit that error in my reply. The confessionally Reformed do actually understand salvation as a process; we would understand “I have been saved” to map onto “justification”; “I am being saved” to map onto “sanctification”; and “I will be saved” to map onto glorification. So we don’t take issue with that. Yet its consituent parts can still be considered, and of course we do consider errors on justification to be grave. All that to say, this in substance isn’t actually a disagreement, and it is something of which I am cognizant. In the reply, I do think I was careful not to conflate salvation en toto with justification simpliciter.
You said, “Paladin misses that in the Synod, these works are God’s works in us.” Ahem, “noooooo,” I don’t miss it, I never argued that you believe these works are the autonomous product of your own person. But whether we attribute the works to God as what we might call the principle efficient cause doesn’t change their causative role in justification under the paradigm of the Confession — which is, as that which makes faith efficacious for justification, and as that which merits our final justification. This is still problematic, and I notice that section of the video toward the end somewhat passed by without response.
You say I should consider whether deacons and priests understand Dositheus more clearly than I do. Entirely possible; I would need to hear an argument for that, though. Either way, hopefully you find my engagement with your views more thoughtful than most. God bless.
2026-09-15 01:44:47