Luther and Calvinism

[PamC]

As I understand it, Luther believed in total depravity and also resistible grace, which contradict each other. I also read that he, in his early years, believed in limited atonement, then changed his mind to unlimted atonement; which again, disagrees with total depravity.What about election? He seems to have some writings that make him believe conditional election and others that show he believed in unconditional election.But in all cases he believed in preservation of the saints.What do you think?

 

[ricg]

I think the basic problem is that Luther (and Lutheran theology) does not put a premium on being systematic. Instead, it it exegetical. Thus, the categories you employ are largely foreign to Lutheran expression. Second, Luther's opinions, and the writings reflecting them, changed to some extent over time.

My understanding, to try to put it in your terms, is that Lutherans do in fact believe in "total depravity," if you mean that humans, unaided by God, are incapable of embracing the Gospel (coming to faith). That is, we are monergists. That said, we affirm that grace is "resistable," if by that you mean that if the Gospel is preached and an unbeliever does not turn from his unbelief, the fault lies entirely with the unbeliever and his wickedness, not with God. To the extent there is a logical contradiction there, we accept it as a mystery, because Scripture reveals both truths.

Lutherans believe that God wills that all humans be saved and that Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient to save all, which makes Him the Savior of all ("objective justification"). However, not all come to faith in Him (the "saints"), and fewer still preservere in the faith till the end. This last group, who preservere in the faith till the end of their lives (or until Jesus returns) we believe God elected from eternity (the "elect"). Thus, we do not believe in the necessary "preserverance of the saints" (one can lose one's faith), but in the what might be called the "preserverance of the elect."

Here's a link that gives a brief summary of LCMS teaching on the election of grace.

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=576

 

[PamC]

What makes systematic different from exegetical? Thus, why would these terms be foreign to Luther, and if so, how is there difference (a third choice)? Because Luther is changing his mind, why can't that be reflected in his change from say limited to unlimited atonement? We were made in God's image (synergistic) so God enjoys our coming to the cross, right? Would it be right of God to save us first before we could believe? What then of those who never believe? Does that mean God made people just for hell and never gave them the choice? If the Bible explains salvation, then is it really such a mystery? Luther was once-saved-always-saved, so why do Lutherans take the opposite position of Luther who accepted that eternal life was eternal at new birth-no exceptions? These are some of the questions I find contradictory, but I hope you will be able to answer plainly. Looking forward to your response.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

As I understand it, Luther believed in total depravity and also resistible grace, which contradict each other. I also read that he, in his early years, believed in limited atonement, then changed his mind to unlimted atonement; which again, disagrees with total depravity.What about election? He seems to have some writings that make him believe conditional election and others that show he believed in unconditional election.But in all cases he believed in preservation of the saints.What do you think?

Luther's writings were grounded in his continual growth through his lifetime. His monumental task of trying to rectify the abuses of the RC was a huge task for one man and it took many years to clarify his thoughts. The amount of his writings are massive and the one thread you see through it all is his changing opinion based on growth and knowledge of scripture and where the Spirit lead him. It had to be a tremendous task to change the course of Christendom.


.

 

[ricg]

What makes systematic different from exegetical? Thus, why would these terms be foreign to Luther, and if so, how is there difference (a third choice)? Because Luther is changing his mind, why can't that be reflected in his change from say limited to unlimited atonement? We were made in God's image (synergistic) so God enjoys our coming to the cross, right? Would it be right of God to save us first before we could believe? What then of those who never believe? Does that mean God made people just for hell and never gave them the choice? If the Bible explains salvation, then is it really such a mystery? Luther was once-saved-always-saved, so why do Lutherans take the opposite position of Luther who accepted that eternal life was eternal at new birth-no exceptions? These are some of the questions I find contradictory, but I hope you will be able to answer plainly. Looking forward to your response.

I'm afraid that terminology will lead to miscommunication, since I'm not comfortably familiar with Calvinism, but I'll try to answer plainly.

As to atonement, Luther (AFIK) taught, and Lutherans teach, that Jesus' sacrifice atoned for the sins of the whole world, whether or not a particular individual forensically relies on such atonement. In that sense, Jesus is the Savior of all.

That said, however, Scripture clearly teaches that unbelief damns.

Individuals apply atonement through faith, relying on God's promise of salvation. The cause of faith is a regeneration by the Holy Spirit without regard to any merit of an individual, including human will, which, in its depraved state (prior to regeneration), always chooses not to rely on God for salvation (if the individual even believes in salvation).

Thus, I would say that while atonement is not limited, not everyone relies on it. I'm not aware that Luther ever taught otherwise.

Lutherans hold that election is not the cause of unbelief or damnation. As I wrote before, unbelief is fully the responsiblity of those who do not believe. Why God elects many but not all is not revealed to us. His revealed will is that all be saved. That is the mystery.

Although man was created in God's image, his nature has been corrupted by sin, so that the perfect image was lost.

Why do you think Luther held the position of "once saved, always saved"? I'm not aware that he ever taught that, at least as it is commonly articulated. One can lose one's faith.

Hope this helps.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think the basic problem is that Luther (and Lutheran theology) does not put a premium on being systematic. Instead, it it exegetical. Thus, the categories you employ are largely foreign to Lutheran expression. Second, Luther's opinions, and the writings reflecting them, changed to some extent over time.

My understanding, to try to put it in your terms, is that Lutherans do in fact believe in "total depravity," if you mean that humans, unaided by God, are incapable of embracing the Gospel (coming to faith). That is, we are monergists. That said, we affirm that grace is "resistable," if by that you mean that if the Gospel is preached and an unbeliever does not turn from his unbelief, the fault lies entirely with the unbeliever and his wickedness, not with God. To the extent there is a logical contradiction there, we accept it as a mystery, because Scripture reveals both truths.

Lutherans believe that God wills that all humans be saved and that Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient to save all, which makes Him the Savior of all ("objective justification"). However, not all come to faith in Him (the "saints"), and fewer still preservere in the faith till the end. This last group, who preservere in the faith till the end of their lives (or until Jesus returns) we believe God elected from eternity (the "elect"). Thus, we do not believe in the necessary "preserverance of the saints" (one can lose one's faith), but in the what might be called the "preserverance of the elect."

Here's a link that gives a brief summary of LCMS teaching on the election of grace.

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=576

VERY well put, thank you!



Lutherans embrace God's heart and Word, they don't so much embrace their own fallible human logic.

ONE of the things that strongly directed me to Lutherans is how they humbly embrace that they don't know everything, they are willing to embrace what God says and leave it that God knows better than they. If our brain has a hard time wrapping itself about what God says, well, that's our sinful, fallen, limited brain's problem - not God's. The "Theology of the Cross" is found in nearly everything Lutheran.


My perspective...


- Josiah

 

[seajoy]

VERY well put, thank you!



Lutherans embrace God's heart and Word, they don't so much embrace their own fallible human logic.

ONE of the things that strongly directed me to Lutherans is how they humbly embrace that they don't know everything, they are willing to embrace what God says and leave it that God knows better than they. If our brain has a hard time wrapping itself about what God says, well, that's our sinful, fallen, limited brain's problem - not God's. The "Theology of the Cross" is found in nearly everything Lutheran.


My perspective...


- Josiah

Well put by you also, Josiah !

seajoy

 

[MORTANIUS]

Martin Luther didn't promote spontaneous or random ideals that would continue to formulate onto themselves. He had realized in his search for understanding the problems he was facing, that structure without rules would ultimately lead to no structure and consideration to rules.

The social circumstances surrounding Martin Luther's thoughts and written works must be examined alongside all considerations that emerged in his efforts to formulate and understanding to himself and others that would lend themselves to understanding the core of his ideas and not some sort of 'evolutionary' explanations of his thoughts and works.

 

[PamC]

If one changes their view that is diabolically opposite to their former view (e.g. limited to unlimited atonement), is this considered growth or correction from a previous mistake (deliverance)? Can't one be right on the matter of say justification by faith, but still be wrong in other areas that contradict (e.g. total depravity and unlimited atonement/resistible grace)?

In salvation, we know the flesh can't receive God, not the will of man (man's planning) nor the will of the flesh (passions); but nothing prevents, as God designed, man's will made in God's image to choose the cross to receive grace, otherwise God would not implore us to come to the cross (John 3:16)? That's why Luther believed in resistible grace, but could not reconcile total depravity with resistible grace which troubled him as it should. This would leave either total derpravity (different from the fallen nature) or resistible grace as being false. If man is always made in God's image, how can man be anything less than perfectly made in God's image, irrespective of being fallen? Several Lutherans have told me Luther believed in perserverance of the saints because they say this is the only possibility with total depravity teaching. So this makes one believe there are some Lutherans that believe in OSAS and othes that believe in non-OSAS.

Looking forward to your input.

 

[LilLamb219]

It's always interesting to study what Luther believed (and try to determine what year he believed it and the circumstances), but Lutherans don't worship Luther. So, whether or not Luther might have believed in something, doesn't mean that Lutherans do if you know what I'm getting at here.

I've had beliefs over time that have changed, haven't you?

 

[PamC]

Vague statements aside, since Lutherans believed he believed in resistible grace and total depravity, though unable to reconcile this contradiction, would not Lutherans suffer the same problems as did Luther in this regard?

Have you ever had beliefs that were true, but were later on more deeply understood, rather than contradictory?

 

[LilLamb219]

Lutherans don't just believe things BECAUSE Luther believed them. We back things up with scripture.

 

[MORTANIUS]

Vague statements aside, since Lutherans believed he believed in resistible grace and total depravity, though unable to reconcile this contradiction, would not Lutherans suffer the same problems as did Luther in this regard?

Have you ever had beliefs that were true, but were later on more deeply understood, rather than contradictory?

On a personal note, yes, I have experienced a deeper and more profound understanding of my beliefs as I grew older and will probably do so hereafter if the good Lord allows me to live a long life.

Perhaps our 'vague' answers may become much more precise if you give more detail to your concerns. I don't want to be bold and assume you are saying one thing while meaning another. Could you do this for us and provide more detail from your perspective?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

My perspective...

Vague statements aside, since Lutherans believed he believed in resistible grace and total depravity, though unable to reconcile this contradiction, would not Lutherans suffer the same problems as did Luther in this regard?

Have you ever had beliefs that were true, but were later on more deeply understood, rather than contradictory?

I don't really see it as a countradiction as much as a mystery. Lutherans are much more comfortable with mystery, Calvinists with logic.


I'm not sure this is going to help you much, but I seem to remember in my studies in Christian Dogmatics (a Lutheran doctrine series), that the resistable grace idea comes in with the means of grace - that God works through the Word and that that Word is resistable. Lutherans don't view this as a Soverign God imposing His will on a people unable to resist it. That's just not how Lutherans view this.


Also, it seems to ME, Lutherans and Calvinist both embrace that "T" (the only part of TULIP they totally agree on) but they don't come at in the same way. For Calvinists, I think this has a lot to do with the Soverignty of God. Lutherans, however, view this from the standpoint of GRACE, the love of God. It's much the same in how Lutherans and Calvinists both agree on Election (as least of the Elect) but in a totally different way. Lutherans see a LOVING God, who does whatever it takes to save and embrace us - totally because of His awesome love. Yes, even before we were born! God uses the Means the Grace, and working by His Holy Spirit, causing faith to spring in our hearts (the dynamics of that - as in so many things in Lutheranism - are left to mystery) which causes us to embrace Him back. It's love working out, in ways mysterious to us ("hidden" is the word Lutherans would tend to use). Lutherans don't see this in terms of power or ability or rights or soverignty (not that we really disagree with Calvinists on those things) but Lutherans see it in terms of Grace. God who LOVES us - even us!


"Total depravity" to Lutherans simply means we don't earn or desire that Grace. We are not bringing anything to the "table." It's not a case of "let make a deal." It is an inheritance (someone else earned it, and in LOVE left it to us). It is a "free gift." There is no reason to boast. This does not conflict with the fact that God loves us - all of us, because God is love. "For God so loved the world that He gave..." The "contradiction" that you see is perhaps just the wonderful, glorious Gospel that God loves us - because He is loving, not because we are loveable?


My $0.01...


Pax.


- Josiah

 

[PamC]

Assuming Calvinists believe in God's love and grace, since they say so, how then do you reconcile the problem of being able to resist God's grace and being totally deprave? Since none to speak of have been able to reconcile this problem, would it not necessitate that both camps believing in total depravity is wrong? In both cases there is no condition to fulfill for God's grace to enter as though arbitrary. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems these are two shades of the same problem. Interested in what you have to say.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Assuming Calvinists believe in God's love and grace, since they say so, how then do you reconcile the problem of being able to resist God's grace and being totally deprave? Since none to speak of have been able to reconcile this problem, would it not necessitate that both camps believing in total depravity is wrong? In both cases there is no condition to fulfill for God's grace to enter as though arbitrary. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems these are two shades of the same problem. Interested in what you have to say.

That's what the totally depraved do - they resist God's grace.

 

[PamC]

I thought Calvin taught irresistible grace, which would be resisting God's grace with the assumption they were totally deprave right, needing to be roboticized?

 

[LilLamb219]

Have you come here to bash Calvinists?

 

[BigNorsk]

I thought Calvin taught irresistible grace, which would be resisting God's grace with the assumption they were totally deprave right, needing to be roboticized?

Actually, Calvin taught that God's grace was resistable, but that there was an irresistable election.

The someone came up with TULIP and people have been confused ever since.

Marv

 

[PamC]

As I understand two of the 5 teachings of calvinism is irresistible grace and unconditional election, but if that was the case wouldn't that make robots? And if Calvin believed grace was resistible, but the grace of election is irrestible, then why the contradiction? This is confusion isn't it? lil, please don't bash for asking genuine questions.