No. I am deeply, viscerally opposed to the Word of Faith movement. That applies much more to Wommack than Prince. The latter doesn't strike me as quite as heavy on it . . . more just influenced. With that said, I've only heard a few sermons by either, and in what I have heard, Prince is the more tolerable of the two.

Then who would be some preachers that you're fond of, what is "your camp?"

Tony Evans, Charles Stanley, Andy Stanley, Dennis Rokser, RT Kendall, Charles Ryrie, Zane Hodges, Miles Stanford, Major Ian Thomas, Tom Constable, Roy Zuck, Earl Radmacher, Lewis Sperry Chafer, and so on.

Ravi Zacharias?

Ditto?!

Good apologist and engaging speaker. He has a good grasp on Eastern thought in particular and how to respond to it--better than some of the other big names out there in apologetics (e.g., Craig). I don't know enough about his theology though to say I like or don't like him. Any time you are arguing for fundamental truths--i.e., the existence of God, truth, the veracity of Scripture, Jesus' resurrection, etc.--if you put forward a good case in an engaging way then it really doesn't matter at that point your theological quirks. If Hagan and co. were putting for Ravis' arguments for God's existence, I would appluad them on those points even as I condemned their "ministry" more generally. Or to use a better example, I think Ed Feser is absolutely brilliant in dealing with those types of issues, but I certainly wouldn't endorse his Catholicism. And that is sort of where I am with Ravi. I like what I've heard a lot, but I've only heard him talk about apologetic issues, so it's hard to say any more.

I love the guy, plus he quite frequently quotes great Catholic thinkers of the past...

All I'm clear on for the Protestant view of justification, is in the United Methodist Church.

It goes by the Wesleyan graces

1."Prevenient Grace: Baptized babies, and those who haven't been taught the Gospel, not doomed to hell

2. Justifying grace: acceptance of Christ via personal faith

3. Sanctifying grace: after justification, one spends rest of their life seeking total sanctification of the soul, but is unable to acquire it in this life

I think I'm leaving one out maybe, but it's been a long while since I studied that stuff.

:), when I read candlemass's post on page one of this thread, I was thinking, "There's NO way." For some reason I felt satisfied on reading your reply to this question.

Pardon, my long post.

Yes, I agree with Jack here. Originally, ‘Protestant’ was used exclusively of those Christians who protested, not directly against the Roman Catholic Church itself, but against the government, more specifically against Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, and his enforcement of the Edict of Worms, restricting the religious freedom of Lutheran Christians. The Anabaptist (and their descendants; baptist, pentacostals, etc.) are NOT ‘Protestants’ in this regard. They had nothing to do with the Lutheran Reformation, and were severely condemned in the Lutheran confessions.

The question of what view one has of justification, then, ought to be asked of each individual Church, or communion of churches. (We ought to assume that a communion of churches has the same teaching, if formulated differently.)

I can present what I perceive as the Lutheran view of justification. This view flows forth from the point that the Gospel, according to Confessio Augustana (CA), is the center of theology, and the thing that grounds the unity of the Church (CA VII, cf. I-III). Now, in CA, the Gospel is identified, in I-III, as the confession of the triune God and of Christ as true God and true man. The first two authorities cited in the confession is not Scripture (and a particular view of Scripture isn’t even discussed) but the Nicene Creed (CA I) and, indirectly, the Chalcedonian Creed (CA III). Between these, in CA II, is the identification of sin as the real problem for humans.

This is in line with St. Paul’s point, in Rom. 1:1-5 (and elsewhere), that the Gospel is in essence Jesus Christ, true God and true man. Now, from this, an especially from the Chalcedonian formula, we derive the teaching of the communicatio idiomatum, the communication of idioms or properties (Lt. idíōma). A good article on this, from a Lutheran perspective, is Johann Anselm Steiger, “The communicatio idiomatum as the Axle and Motor of Luther’s Theology” (Lutheran Quarterly 14, 2000): 125-158. (This was originally published in German, “Die communicatio idiomatum als Achse und Motor der Theologie Luthers” (Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 38, 1996): 1-28.). Also see Vidar Haanes, “Christological Themes in Luther’s Theology” (Studia Theologica 61, 2007): 21-46 (esp. pp.30-33); Joar Haga, Was there a Lutheran Metaphyic? The interpretation of communicatio idiomatum in Early Modern Lutheranism (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2012). I have only read the introduction to the last one, but I have spoken to the author several times, as he works at my alma mater.

Now, justification, flows forth from this, according to Lutheran teaching, as its soteriological application (cf. Rom. 1:16-17, where justification is not presented as the Gospel, but as something flowing from the Gospel). Because we partake of Christ through the communicatio idiomatum, we are justified. In Scripture, justification, or at least its initiation, is presented as given to us through faith. Steiger points out (p.131), partly in reference to Rom. 10:17 (cf. vv.14-17), that preaching is central, that it is “the real place in which the communicatio idiomatum between God and the human is set in motion in the form of a verbal communication,” that the word preached “communicates salvation to humans, that is, attributes the work of Christ to them” and that it “is the homiletical condition sine qua non for the participation of the human in the communicatio idiomatum between God and the human through the grip of faith.” He identifies faith as the way in which we begin to communicate (pp.130-133).

This is the traditional Lutheran view of justification, but it differs significantly from many ‘Protestant’ views (in the modern use of the word ‘Protestant’), including Jack’s own view, as obedience also flows forth from our relationship with God in Christ in Lutheran tought. Jack will claim that this contradicts, Scripture, especially the Gospel of John, while I would claim that the word ‘faith’ (Gk. pistis), includes within itself the concept of obedience or faithfullness (as all of this flows forth from the relationship with God, communicated through Christ). Again we are back with the communicatio idiomatum, where both justification and obedience flows forth from our communion with God in Christ. I think this is especially clear in Rom. 1:1-6 (RSV-CE):

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, 6 including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ .

In v.5, we read that St. Paul, and the other Apostles, has “received grace and apostleship” through Christ, “to bring about the obedience of faith.” When he writes about ‘the obedience of faith’ (Gk. ὑπακοὴν πίστεως), he tells us that obedience is a property or characteristic of faith itself. Obedience, then, is not just a fruit of faith, it is part of faith itself. The relationship between faith and obedience, then, is like the relationship between a thing and one of its properties or characteristics, e.g. the relationship between a rubber ball and its ‘bounciness’ or its ‘circularity.’ Faith is not just intellectual belief, or trust, but also obedience, as St. Paul tells us.

Lutheran theology does hold that we are (initially) justified by ‘faith alone’ (Lt. iustificationem sola fide), but there is a discussion on how to interpret this. Is sola, ‘alone,’ an adjective modifying the noun (fide, ‘faith’), or an adverb modifying the verb/participle (iustificationem, ‘justify’)? If it is the former, the phrase (iustificationem sola fide) means that justification comes by a faith that is alone (though this doesn’t necessarily mean much, as ‘faith’ in Romans, at least, includes within itself the concept of obedience or faithfullness), while if it is the latter, the phrase means that justification comes by a faith alone, but not necessarily a faith that is alone.

So yes, we are justified through faith, but the faith that justifies is a faith that is obedient, or a “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6, RSV-CE). And this approach is also one made by none other than pope Benedict XVI. In one of his Wednesday audiences, he pointed out that justification doesn’t come though faith + works, but though a faith which will manifest itself through works:

Luther’s expression "sola fide" is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love. That is why, in the Letter to the Galatians, St. Paul develops above all his doctrine on justification; he speaks of faith that operates through charity (cf. Galatians 5:14).

The faith which is counted for righteousness, then, is not any old faith, but an active faith, as we see in Gal 5:6, where Paul unambigiously states that the faith which “is of any avail” is “faith working through love.” This is also found in Luther’s own writings, as he connects obedience and sanctification to the communicatio idiomatum. As we are justified because we communicate with God in Christ, we also are give new life, a life in obedience, and what we do, then, flows forth from this, as its practical application. In his preface to Romans, Luther writes: “O it is a living, busy, active, mighty thing, this faith. It is impossible for it not to be doing good works incessantly. It does not ask whether good works are to be done, but before the question is asked, it has already done them, and is constantly doing them” (Luther’s Works (LW), 55 vols., ed., J. Pelikan & H.T. Lehmann (St. Louis, MO: Concordia/Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1955-1986), 35:370.)

This doesn’t necessarily mean that one must act — that would rule out people who cannot act — but it states that you also need love to be saved, the love of God “poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit” (Rom 5:5, cf. vv.1-11). This love must be lived out according to each person’s ability.