Lutherans, could you please help me with this?

[BBAS 64]

Hey BBAS, does that mean that all Lutherans are really really rediculously Good Looking? I think so, I mean look at our leader

-James

Good Day, James

Well stated by a Lutheran, and it truly represents a Lutherans view of his fellow Lutherans.

Bill

 

[Breetai]

Dude, did you just kiss me?!?

Heck ya I did! I bet you liked it too!!! I did it all Bugs Bunny style too, like when Bugs is going for that ever so sarcastic "what's up doc" kiss. You know, when Elmer Fudd gets all mad. rotflmao

 

[Reformationist]

Is it possible that God may know who is going to hell and heaven because He knows who will believe in Jesus Christ, without DECIDING it for them?

I mean - I can know that my guinea pig is hungry, without deciding that she's gonna be hungry. You know what I mean?

I know that I'm not Lutheran but I am reformed and Lutherans, for the most part, share beliefs with other reformed faiths so, if no one objects, I'll give the reformed view on this question.

God does know who is going to believe in Jesus Christ and He doesn't decide for them. It is said of God that He knows every contingency but nothing contingently. God never says, "This may come to pass if that happens." God is not a fortune teller that looks through time and sees that something will happen nor is He just an exceedingly good guesser. God knows what will happen because He is omnipotent in bringing His will to pass.

The only way to ever understand the reformed view of God is to understand the biblical view of fallen man. When we agree with the Bible that man was radically corrupted in the Fall and that every faculty of his will was affected and placed in bondage to sin then an understanding of all of the reformed faith logically follows.

Apart from the regenerative grace of God man will never believe in Christ unto salvation. It is contrary to his very fallen nature. The things of the Lord are foolishness to the man of the flesh. If you want to see an example of this, go take a trip to the GA forum and see how little reverence is shown to the glory of God. To the non-believer God is a joke, a myth. This is not some isolated case. It's the standard. It's universal.

The state of our soul after the Fall is no small matter of debate amongst Christians today. Be that as it may, Paul, a very prolific writer of Scripture, was quite clear. He called it death. Now, that may be misleading because we cannot comprehend a physically alive person with a dead soul. We often equate death with annihilation. This is not what Paul is saying when he says we are "dead in our trespasses and sins." He is saying that we are completely enslaved to our sinful nature and dead to the things of God. We are completely of the flesh. Nothing we do is motivated by love for God. Everything we do is motivated by love for self. Every thought of our heart is only wickedness to the righteousness of God.

As clear as Paul is about man's fallen outlook on God Christians all over the place claim that it is in this state that they seek out and find God. Nothing could be further from the Truth. Scripture Itself refutes this idea:

Romans 3:11
There is none who seeks after God.

So, as I said, when one grasps that carnal man is incapable of submitting to the Law of God then, and only then, can we fully appreciate the gravity and magnitude of God's grace in our rebirth. Then, and only then, can we acknowledge that apart from God's regenerative grace, which He is not obligated to give anyone, much less everyone, we would never come to salvation. Then, and only then, can we, in humility, acknowledge the great mercy a holy God has had on us, sinners who revel in their sin. When we acknowledge His mercy in regenerating us and giving us faith and giving us His Spirit we can see that He keeps His promise to be with us always and never depart. We believe unto salvation because He gives us saving faith. He was never obligated to do this. It's by His mercy that we are saved. If He saved us because of something He saw in us then the condition for salvation is found in fallen man and Christ's death was unnecessary and we are more than equipped to boast about our worthy, intrinsic faith.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

rotflmao

What does that mean? I know what it means on secular MB but I'm curious as to what that means for you.

God bless

 

[countrymousenc]

May a simple-minded Methodist take a stab at this? *countrymouse dodges pie, pie hits Lotar*

Since I'm accustomed to thinking in "Calvin vs Arminius," I'll use the tulip with explanations of what I think I've gleaned from the Scriptures about it. (Incidentally, just for a fun fact, J.I. Packer says that Wesley was not an Arminian, just a confused Calvinist. So, LOL, I probably am, too.)

Total depravity - All human beings are sinful by nature, because Adam became sinful.

Unconditional election - God has chosen whom He will, and none have merited election.

Limited atonement - (This is Amyraldian) Although Christ's atonement is sufficient for all, it is efficient only for the elect. Think about it; since Paul did tell us that God chose those whom He foreknew, Christ knew for whom He was dying. It would make no sense to say that in purpose Christ died for all.

Irresistable grace - The elect could resist it, but they 100% won't. Remember, the kingdom of heaven is like a pearl of such beauty and value that a man who finds it will sell everything he has to get it. Irresistable. The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field - irresistable.

Perseverance of the saints - Technically we could fall away, but we won't, because Christ comes to the rescue whenever we are in danger. (Have you ever really tried to stop believing? I have - it just doesn't ever work!) We are capable of falling, but He won't let us.

Ok, pick it apart! (for fun). Is that close or far or some here or some there in relationship to what Luther taught?

I think that there is definitely a mystery involved in the paradox of God's sovereignty and human responsibility. God is never to be blamed for anyone's unbelief, but He is due all the glory for each sinner who attains faith.

 

[Breetai]

What does that mean? I know what it means on secular MB but I'm curious as to what that means for you.

God bless

It means just what you probably think it does. Rolling on the floor, laughing my @** off. I left the 'f' out Most things that I've learned from online chatting are from Everquest. Am I ever glad I got out of that! Now I have time for CF


*...back to your regularly schedueled thread...*

 

[Breetai]

May a simple-minded Methodist take a stab at this? *countrymouse dodges pie, pie hits Lotar*

Haha! The Lotar bashing continues! I love it.

I think that Luther would want to wash Calvin's mouth out with the most bitter, disgusting beer that he could find if he read the TULIP thing. Then he would pour the rest of the beer all over Calvin so that he would stink and so that nobody would want to go near him to hear Calvin preach. Luther would disagree with each and every letter of TULIP except for the 'T'.

 

[countrymousenc]

Haha! The Lotar bashing continues! I love it.

I think that Luther would want to wash Calvin's mouth out with the most bitter, disgusting beer that he could find if he read the TULIP thing. Then he would pour the rest of the beer all over Calvin so that he would stink and so that nobody would want to go near him to hear Calvin preach. Luther would disagree with each and every letter of TULIP except for the 'T'.

Well, now I'm kind of confused. (Where are you, Lotar; I apologize for dodging that pie!). I thought Luther believed in and taught election, and that he didn't believe that anyone could merit election. ??? How is that different from unconditional election? Does the basic "TULIP" actually teach double predestination? I had the impression that what Calvin actually taught has been greatly exaggerated subsequently by Calvinists, but I could be wrong. (Seem to be in the habit of it lately).

Limited atonement - probably rejected. And perhaps (actually probably) I don't really understand it.

Irresistible grace? If all the elect believe and persevere, then...

Perseverance of the saints - I actually prefer "perseverance of the Savior."

Ok, keep helping me think!

 

[Reformationist]

It means just what you probably think it does. Rolling on the floor, laughing my @** off.

Do you think that's appropriate for a Christian?

I left the 'f' out

Thank God for small mercies.

I'm not trying to be holier than thou Breetai. I spent eight years in the Navy and the term "sailor's mouth" is rightly earned. That does not negate the fact that such coarse language is inappropriate by Christians, especially on a Christian MB.

It's just advice. Take it if you will. Ignore it if you must.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Luther would disagree with each and every letter of TULIP except for the 'T'.

You don't know very much about what Luther taught, do you?

 

[JVAC]

You don't know very much about what Luther taught, do you?

I am not trying to pick a fight but I don't really think you understand Luther's teaching much more.

Predestination was not a big thing for Luther, it was freedom for people to have liberty to believe those things that aren't necessary for salvation. It is not important for the Church to rule your life and that is the main reason for Luthers arguments here. Not to mention he had something against Erasmus and how he was being 'manipulated'.

 

[Bulldog]

Haha! The Lotar bashing continues! I love it.

I think that Luther would want to wash Calvin's mouth out with the most bitter, disgusting beer that he could find if he read the TULIP thing. Then he would pour the rest of the beer all over Calvin so that he would stink and so that nobody would want to go near him to hear Calvin preach. Luther would disagree with each and every letter of TULIP except for the 'T'.

"All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned. " - Martin Luther

 

[Reformationist]

Well, now I'm kind of confused. I thought Luther believed in and taught election, and that he didn't believe that anyone could merit election.

He taught the same thing about election that Calvin taught.

How is that different from unconditional election?

It's not.

Does the basic "TULIP" actually teach double predestination?

There is no such biblical teaching as single predestination. If God predestined some to salvation then those He did not predestine are destined not to be saved. God, of course, knows the fate of those to whom He does not give His saving grace. The important point to note about "double predestination" is that it is not what is commonly called hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism, which is more aptly anti-Calvinism, teaches the idea of equal ultimacy. That is the idea that in the same manner and power that God works saving faith into the hearts of the elect He eqaully works disbelief into the hearts of the reprobate. Nothing could be further from the Truth. Additionally, it denies the biblical teaching of man's fallen state. It is unnecessary for God to work unbelief into the lives of the reprobate. It's already there. The truth that Calvin, and Luther, taught was that God actively works faith into the hearts of the elect and is passive with regard to the reprobate. That is, He passes over them and leaves them to their unbelief.

I had the impression that what Calvin actually taught has been greatly exaggerated subsequently by Calvinists, but I could be wrong. (Seem to be in the habit of it lately).

That may be true. Of course, there is always the possibility that they were just plain wrong about what he taught.

Limited atonement - probably rejected. And perhaps (actually probably) I don't really understand it.

Would you like me to explain it? It is easier to understand if you use the term particular atonement or definite atonement. Both terms more accurately relay the reformed doctrine on Christ's atonement.

Irresistible grace? If all the elect believe and persevere, then...

God's irresistible grace is not, despite the common misconception, grounded in His omnipotence. He does not steamroll people into believe. His irresistible salvitic grace is grounded in His love shown in regeneration.

Perseverance of the saints - I actually prefer "perseverance of the Savior."

Very nice. I use the term preservation of the saints.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

I am not trying to pick a fight but I don't really think you understand Luther's teaching much more.

There's no fight but what do you mean? Much more than who, Breetai? There is probably quite a bit about Luther that I don't know. I do know, however, that Luther strongly believed in predestination as well as taught it.

"All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned."
- Martin Luther

Predestination was not a big thing for Luther

Not only did Luther teach predestination, he taught double predestination, as Augustine did. I can't believe a Lutheran would claim that "predestination was not a big thing for Luther."

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

"All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned. " - Martin Luther

Hey!! You beat me to it.

 

[countrymousenc]

There is no such biblical teaching as single predestination. If God predestined some to salvation then those He did not predestine are destined not to be saved. God, of course, knows the fate of those to whom He does not give His saving grace. The important point to note about "double predestination" is that it is not what is commonly called hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism, which is more aptly anti-Calvinism, teaches the idea of equal ultimacy. That is the idea that in the same manner and power that God works saving faith into the hearts of the elect He eqaully works disbelief into the hearts of the reprobate. Nothing could be further from the Truth. Additionally, it denies the biblical teaching of man's fallen state. It is unnecessary for God to work unbelief into the lives of the reprobate. It's already there. The truth that Calvin, and Luther, taught was that God actively works faith into the hearts of the elect and is passive with regard to the reprobate. That is, He passes over them and leaves them to their unbelief.

Thanks, that makes better sense.

Would you like me to explain it? It is easier to understand if you use the term particular atonement or definite atonement. Both terms more accurately relay the reformed doctrine on Christ's atonement.

Please do explain.

God's irresistible grace is not, despite the common misconception, grounded in His omnipotence. He does not steamroll people into believe. His irresistible salvitic grace is grounded in His love shown in regeneration.

I agree.

Thanks!

 

[Reformationist]

Please do explain.

The short and sweet of the reformed view on limited/particular/definite atonement is that Christ died to save particular persons who were given Him by the Father in eternity past. His death was, therefore, a 100 percent success, in that all for whom He died will be saved, and all for whom He did not die will receive justice from God when they are cast into hell.

If you need me to elaborate further please don't hesitate to ask. This is probably the most difficult portion of the acrostic T.U.L.I.P. for most people.

God bless

 

[JVAC]

There's no fight but what do you mean? Much more than who, Breetai? There is probably quite a bit about Luther that I don't know. I do know, however, that Luther strongly believed in predestination as well as taught it.

"All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned."
- Martin Luther




Not only did Luther teach predestination, he taught double predestination, as Augustine did. I can't believe a Lutheran would claim that "predestination was not a big thing for Luther."

God bless

The only treatise Luther really focused on this was in the 'Bondage of the Will' which was in direct response to Erasmus's treatise about freewill which the Church of Rome was using against Luther. The reason Luther was so vehement, as Luther always is, is not because of his belief in the particular possition but because his ability to prove this point takes away from the Roman arsenal.

 

[Lotar]

My poor misguided brethren

Predestination was a big deal to Luther. He wrote about it much more than just in Bondage of Will, it is one of the major themes of his commentaries on Romans and Galations, and he wrote amny articles and gave many sermons on the subject. He most definately would have denounced Aminius' ideas of man's will working with God's.

Luther would have agreed with Calvin on the T and the U, he would have disagreed with the L and the P, and partially agreed with the I.

Luther did believe that God would harden people's hearts and close their eyes and ears, but he did not believe that God predestined them to hell.

Why Does God Not Convert All?
Correctly you say: If God does not desire our death, the fact that we perish must be charged to our own will. This is correct, I say, if you speak of the God who is preached; for He does want all men to be saved, because He comes to all by the Word of salvation, and the will which does not recieve Him is at fault, as He says in Matthew 23 (v. 37): How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not. But why that Majesty does not take away or change this fault of our will in all persons, seeing that it is not in the power of man to do so, or why He lays to the charge of man what man cannot avoid, we are not allowed to investigate; and even though you were to investigate much, yet you would never find out, as Paul says in Rom. 9:20: "Who art thou that repliest against God?"
-Martin Luther, against the free will theory of Erasmus.

 

[Bulldog]

My poor misguided brethren Luther would have agreed with Calvin on the T and the U, he would have disagreed with the L and the P, and partially agreed with the I.

Please explain "partially agreed with the I"