:shock: Uh oh, I'll add a point here on this for food for thought.
Our good and faithful friend Dr. Martin Luther, a reformed theologian of course, held to radical depravity,unconditional election, efficacious grace, and yet he affirmed the possibility of someone falling away from the faith.
The distinction has not been very well defined over the years and the Synod of Dortian Calvinists and the more Wesleyan/Arminian advocates have fought over this issue for years.
Luther has over 50 volumes of works and I have not read everything by him to date though I'm trying.
It appears to me though after wrestling with this over the course of the last 12 years that even while I am usually classified by others as from the Reformed tradition, or least closer to them then not, I find that Luther's position and the exposition of the parable of the seed and sower is not so easily answered by the standard cookie cutter Calvinist answer that is often given.
Will one of the elect ever fall away? God forbid! Numerous texts make that clear and especially the full discourse of Romans 8. The entire chapter points to a different direction.
But, there is more to the story and one that I think Luther likely saw and yet so many others glossed over in subsequent church history. It appears that God's grace can actually move someone to a type of faith and yet they still, because they are non-elect, later fall away from that degree of faith. A literal and grammatical method of interpretation of the seed parable (Matt. 13) implies that someone can be non-elect and experience some type of temporal grace and yet later die out and lose some type of grace.
Theologians in various academic circles are now divided over what to call that type of grace one can receive and yet lose. Is it a regenerative type of grace and thus meaning someone can be born again and not elect and then fall away? Or is it a strong and powerful common grace that for awhile produces the fruit of the Spirit in a person and then it fades as they die out and fall away?
We certainly have one statement of Scripture that implies something of a general and common grace that pervades all in one sense: "
that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe" (1 Tim. 4:10). Most Calvinist scholars rightly recognize this to be some form of common grace salvation. But then they are divided over the nature of that grace and to what extent it goes and from where it comes from. Some root it only in or from the universal common grace of God. Others however see it as rooted in all three members of the Godhead: the Father decrees it, the Son provided it through his cross, and the Holy Spirit applies it to all though in various degrees (some with eternal grace and some with common temporal grace). Others too among these camps define it still even differently. The common thread among most all branches of thought is that there is some type of grace that God can give and yet the person lose it and fall away. The more Calvinistic branches say it is common grace. The less Calvinistic will normally allow for it to be even a new birth or new life given in grace. Sometimes when comparing the practicals of the two the practical element is basically the same though they argue with great vigor over the best terms to use. But even so in practical terms both sides to a degree affirm that someone can receive some type of powerful grace and influence of God in their heart and life and yet in the future turn from it and fall away. Some will say they were never really true full blown believers. Others will say they were believers but lost what they had. The truth might be a bit of both. If we define grace in degree form then we might see that the parable of Christ teaches us many will receive grace but not all will be of the good soil type and of the ones who receive grace only the good soil people (elect?) will remain in the grace given to them.
But, as noted above, the Reformers who admit this, and who seem to be in line with Luther, will only agree to the idea that a non-elect person can have that happen as those who are sealed and who are the elect (the good soil) of the seed parable will never fall away but will indeed produce fruit and go on to maturity. But the seed that sprouts up and dies on the rock is a person with some type of grace but dies out. The seed that sprouts up and is then choked out by thorns and thistles is a person who is likely to have received some time of degree of grace that extends further but yet is still not eternal grace (Matt. 13:1-9; 18-23) .If this perspective holds full harmonization with all other texts it would alleviate a severe tension among the body of Christ that has existed for years and might even harmonize some of the early statements we have from some early church fathers who seemed to speak both ways on this subject.
It could also answer our issue of how to handle the warning texts of Hebrews 6 as well as 10. If this perspective is the right one it would mean that none of the elect who are born again will ever fall away. But there could then also be a group who receives some form of internal grace that for awhile produces a form of godliness but later they reject Christ or fall away from the grace of Christ for their own efforts. In that case the warning passages would make sense not just as a hypothetical warning but a as real warning that we need to make sure that even though we are in grace today that we remain in grace always. It would lend weight more to the need to check up on our calling and election as Peter warned us to do (2 Peter 1:10).
If the above position has merit then the only seed that lasts in that parable is the seed that is sown in the good soil, or what Luther and other Reformers call the elect soil as it has eternal roots in eternal election (Eph. 1:3-5). The other soil with the other types of seed is apparently some type of grace given (though debated as to why degree and what to term it; some say there are believers and then true believers, others say there are sealed believers and non-elect temporal believers, some say some receive common grace whereas others receive regenerative grace, etc. etc.).
But too in this there seems to be an alignment with what you have said about a return to the law. Those who seek to either be saved or sanctified by the law it is a sign that they have fallen from the sphere of eternal grace for a sphere of human effort religion and are thus in serious trouble. As Doc rightly said:
In Galatians 5:4, the context is Paul’s warning against mixing law and the Gospel to attain justification. He says to those who let themselves be circumcised (Galatians 5:2) that they are “trying to be justified by law” and have therefore “been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.” It should be noted that there is no mention of salvation or the security of the believer. He is telling those who receive circumcision—in other words attempt to justify themselves through the rites and rules of the Law—that Christ will be of “no benefit” to them.Paul expounds further in verse 3 when he says that “every man who receives circumcision” is “under obligation to keep the whole Law.” Why is such a statement important in regards to Christ being “no benefit to you”? Note what Paul says in Galatians 3:13 concerning Christ’s sacrifice: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us.” Taken in this light, along with a brief understanding of the Greek terms used, we can get a better understanding of what Paul is saying.
Those who are of the wrong type of soil, or those who do not remain in the grace of God, will often run to any form of works of the law as they seek to justify themselves or sanctify themselves before the holy God. It was also one of the reasons why Luther was so emphatic about keeping law and grace in their proper sphere.
I will leave this one alone with this parting thought, grace, election and security of the believer are not the topics of the original post (excellent job Doc), nor are they the topic of Galatians 5. In my sincere opinion, Doc hit the nail on the head and drove it flush in one sharp blow of the Pauline hammer.