A fairly quick question

[John Robie]

Look it up we are Monergistic , but it's definition does not imply osas .

Anything you do to be saved or stay saved is not monergism.

 

[Taom Ben Robert]

We don't do anything to be saved , but you may lose salvation it is monergism, the reason you view otherwise is because your thinking of Calvinists view of monergism.

 

[John Robie]

We don't do anything to be saved , but you may lose salvation it is monergism, the reason you view otherwise is because your thinking of Calvinists view of monergism.

I'm thinking about what the term actually means.

 

[John Robie]

But, I see we are at an impasse, so I will bow out.

 

[Tangible]

Then that is not monergism. That's synergism.

Monergism by definition is "one work" meaning that God alone saves. Synergism by definition is "working with" meaning that we cooperate with God in our own salvation.

The misunderstanding here is base on the fact that you're using a Reformed definition of monergism. Lutherans are not Reformed. There are significant differences in our two theologies, as is the case here.

To boil it down to its essence, Lutheran soteriology states that if anyone is saved God is totally the cause, and if anyone is lost then their own sinfulness is totally the cause. God does not will that anyone should perish. Those who are never saved and are lost and those who once believed but foolishly rejected the gift of faith given them by God are no different in the long run, they both are unbelievers and they both perish because of their innate sinfulness.

 

[John Robie]

That's fine. I'd point out the logical inconsistency, but that would go beyond my intention here.

 

[Tangible]

That's fine. I'd point out the logical inconsistency, but that would go beyond my intention here.

The Lutheran position is not necessarily meant to be logical. We simply confess what Scripture teaches without leaving inconvenient passages out or reinterpreting them to mean something other than what they plainly say so as to avoid what may be perceived as logical inconsistencies. Human logic is only a subset of God's logic.

Also it is a fool's errand to attempt to categorize Lutherans as Calvinist or Arminian. We are not Reformed in either meaning or tradition.

 

[RC1970]

The Lutheran position is not necessarily meant to be logical. We simply confess what Scripture teaches without leaving inconvenient passages out or reinterpreting them to mean something other than what they plainly say so as to avoid what may be perceived as logical inconsistencies. Human logic is only a subset of God's logic.

Also it is a fool's errand to attempt to categorize Lutherans as Calvinist or Arminian. We are not Reformed in either meaning or tradition.

Thank you so much for this explanation of Lutheran "monergism". I wish I had found this explanation several years ago, it would have saved me so much time and confusion.

Is there a section in the BOC that deals with this doctrine?

Thanks

 

[Tangible]

Here is a commentary based on the BoC that I think would give you more than enough to ponder. Cheers.

Book of Concord

 

[RC1970]

Here is a commentary based on the BoC that I think would give you more than enough to ponder. Cheers.

Book of Concord

Thanks. You are a gentlemen and a scholar.