Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What do you mean byThat's a huge question and I'd have to unpack it a bit, and use some examples.
To use one timely example, we would tend to different from evangelical Christians in things like the dispute over whether Christians can serve gays who are having marriage ceremonies. We would tend to say yes, we are free to do that, even if we might agree that same-sex marriage is not God's ideal, but other Christian groups see the need to uphold God's "glory". We don't think this is a proper understanding of our duties to our neighbor within our vocations, or God's glory.
Our love for God is best expressed through serving our neighbor without distinction (just as God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust), and not usually through upholding abstract principles. People always come first. God does not need our glory, he has glorified himself far more through the Cross of Jesus than any human is capable. God's glory is his mercy towards sinners.
So our ethics differ significantly here, we are less concerned with our individual purity. Our ethic is focused on compassion for our neighbor and ensuring that their welfare is protected through just laws, fair business dealings, acts of kindness, etc., and less on perceived personal or group purity. The reasons for this are too deep to get into, but needless to say it's down to our theology and practice. We are both declared righteous and yet thoroughly sinful in this life, and at the same time, our lives are complicated, therefore our ethics must be more complicated than simply seeking to absolve ourselves of guilt.
Traditionally, we are far less polemical than many American evangelicals, we do not see a mandate to change culture necessarily, in the way other evangelicals do. We can be clannish ethnic and religious enclaves at times, but when it comes to culture issues, we believe seriously in living in peace with everybody, as much as possible. As a result, we never were part of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy and fundamentalism in Lutheranism is a recent development.
We believe the only certain place that the Holy Spirit has been promised to work, is through the Word and Sacraments. We are not anti-charismatic per se, it's just not what we emphasize. There are a minority of Lutherans that practice a more charismatic type worship experience, however, but many left for other churches a long time ago. I certainly have had spiritual experiences like that in a Lutheran church, though I am hesitant to speak of "baptism" in that manner because it really is alien to our traditional theology.
We believe babies receive the Holy Spirit through baptism and sometimes we use chrism oil as a sacramental sign.
What do you mean by
1) sanctification in context of individual calling
being different from
2) sanctification in moral progress or individual holiness.
I offered my explanation for what I thought it could mean , I just wanted to hear what you meant by it.
Yes everyday life is where progressively we come to be more obedient to the leading of the Holy Spirit as His way works itself into our being as we yield to what has been revealed. That's what I see as 2) sanctification in moral progress or individual holiness. His progression of the good work began.When we live out our lives loving our neighbor within the context of our family life, our jobs and careers, our social institutions we belong to, we are proclaiming the Reign of God in our hearts, and our lives therefore become sacramental, we become "little Christs". We Lutherans have a sacramental faith, much as Catholics and Orthodox do, we just apply some of the same monastic ideals to ordinary secular life, so that ordinary life should be approached with the same sense of devotion.
Ordinary life is spiritual. Washing the dishes is spiritual. Vacuuming the carpet is spiritual. Being kind to a neighbor is spiritual. Yet these are not special religious acts of piety, they are not even specifically Christian, and yet they are made holy through our baptism into Christ. We are not used to thinking this way, but this is only because we do not understand our lives as holy in Christ, we think we must find some special way or technique to be holy, and this is untrue. We do this naturally, it does not required the kind of anxiety necessarily that the typical evangelical associates with piety, where our anxiety fuels our works. This is why some have called Lutherans "lazy", in fact. But it's a misunderstanding of what we judge to be true good works and the universal call to holiness in every life situation, no matter how dirty or lowly or morally ambiguous.
It's like what King said, if you have to be even a street sweeper, be the best street sweeper you can be. It's not quite that dry, but that's more what Lutherans are talking about. It's not about dedicating your business to God and having special rules about who you serve. The Kingdom is not present through religious piety, it's present in the quiet ways that people love each other and take care of each other and fulfill their social obligations to one another.
I think somebody like Mr. Rogers might be a good example. He was an ordained minister, and a bit more Presbyterian in his motivations: he wanted to reform TV initially because he disliked violent slapstick on children's TV. But the way he shared the love of God with people, was not even specifically religious, even though he was an ordained minister, he did not feel the need to make God a member of the show, because he knew that God was already there. That is what we Lutherans are talking about. It is hidden holiness.
Yes, but it's also known as regeneration. See Institutes, 3.3. Also Packer's article, Regeneration by J.I.Packer.
Right, but let's look at concepts rather than words. Arminians believe, with Calvinists, that man is unable even to respond to God as a result of the fall. God must restore our will first. Calvinists call this regeneration, Arminians prevenient grace (though Packer uses prevenient grace himself in the article just quoted). For both it is God restoring our wills. However Calvinists think God leaves our wills in a state where they definitely will respond to his call, and Arminians believe he leaves them in a state where they are able to but won't necessarily respond to his call. That is certainly a difference, but the schemes are closer than sometimes described. Both involve regeneration.
There's hundreds of threads on these forums about predestination. People asking questions, leaning this way or that, talking about "predestination vs free will", etc.
There's nothing really wrong with discussions about predestination, but predestination is not really the important thing to talk about.
Regeneration is.
The reason Calvinists believe in predestination is because they believe in:
monergistic regeneration
If you want to study predestination and settle your mind about it, study regeneration instead.
Study the difference between monergistic and synergistic regeneration. It will give you a more full understanding of predestination. Talking about predestination with no mention of regeneration is a bit like talking about addition/subtraction with no mention of the numbers themselves. Sure, you can understand the concept of addition/subtraction without actual numbers, but the context would be lost on you.
The reason Calvinists believe in predestination is because (aside from seeing it taught in the Bible) it's the only thing that makes sense if regeneration is monergistic.
synergistic regeneration
If people are responsible for changing their own hearts or have some part to play in their own heart-change from saying "No" and rejecting the gospel/Christ, to saying "Yes" to the gospel/Christ, then regeneration is synergistic (the result of effort from both God (who offered salvation) and you (who wised up and accepted the offer)), then predestination was not necessarily settled by God in eternity past and therefore your fate is/was determined by your free will.
Monergistic regeneration
But if the bible teaches that regeneration is monergistic, that means God alone is the cause of our conversion, our heart-change. It means God alone is to be credited for when a person says "no" to Christ, but then suddenly says "yes" to Christ. It means God alone is to be credited for when a person who is unwilling to repent and believe, suddenly becomes willing to repent and believe. If God alone is responsible for this free gift of grace, that means somewhere, in eternity past, God decided who to do this to. Bob but not John. Jason but not Jimmy. It means God somewhere in the past decided to save some people by grace but leave others (justly) in their sins.
So the question is, do you take some of the credit for your willingness to repent and believe? Or do you give God all the credit for the reason you did what your unbelieving neighbor won't do?
If you're a person who is new to entertaining these topics and studying them to try to figure out the truth, stop studying predestination and study regeneration instead.
Calvin seems to have gone beyond that at times:Well, the proper understanding is that before the creation of the world, God chose certain people to be saved
...
Not:
People are condemned because of God
People are saved because of God
No one is fully regenerated until the body is redeemed. That's the living hope of 1 Peter 1:3, 1 Peter 1:23Christ is the only one who has been regenerated, so how does studying regeneration help with the study of Predestination?
OmgoshI decided to dig up this old LCA movie from Youtube. It's actually a pitch for Lutheran colleges to parents, but it does deal with the theme of calling, and discerning ones vocation. It's actually a surprisingly good film as far as Christian movies go from that period (many were just terrible, wooden piety), and isn't too long.
In the modern world, I think the theology of calling and vocation is one area that Lutherans haven't dealt enough with, especially the changes brought by post-industrial society. I think the future of our church will be trying to connect us with more of a sense of community, spirituality, and connection, to make up for the fact many of us no longer work very pleasant, stable, or satisfying jobs that produce an inherent sense of connection- we are alienated from the goods and services we produce more and more, and many of us no longer have full-time employment that will last a lifetime.
The kind of stuff Pr. Nadia Bolz-Weber does, where she tries to reconnect with old Christian traditions, such as having real feast days again in honor of saints (and not just mentioning them in passing in the prayers), or making icons. To build people up so they can endure the sterility of the modern world, and create even a sense of re-enchantment about things, something we have lost. This is what Bonhoeffer said when he meant that Christians must reconnect with the "arcane disciplines" of being a Christian, of prayer and our common life together.
A quite faith doesn't mean one is lacking but it just seemed head knowledge rather than heart knowledge to me.I don't understand how you don't think that student's heart was changed, it obviously was. He went from being exploitative and self-centered, to insisting that his uncle have ethical business practices, or he would not work for him. He had a sense of vocation or calling. Just because he doesn't put on pious affectations doesn't mean that he was not changed.
We don't insist that a person must display pious feelings or affectations for Jesus, though it can be appropriate. In fact for us, hollow piety that costs us little personally, is suspect. We insist a person believes that they are a sinner and that Christ died for them, and for his sake, God forgives all their sins. How they feel about it is really something we cannot judge as human beings. People react to belief in different ways emotionally. It would be a tragedy to presume to judge someone with a sincere but quiet faith as lacking in faith.
A quite faith doesn't mean one is lacking but it just seemed head knowledge rather than heart knowledge to me.
Knowledge of good and evil vs wisdom of the life-giving spirit is the difference between the students that I thought was a difference. Paul in the film had every motive but love of the Lord for his conformity to what was being taught. The student from India's reasoning was gratitude to the Lord. Which one do you think was justified? Note that is just justified. Not even at the point where this thread starts, or that which the thread is about.We don't tend to separate the head and the heart so much, and prize one over the other. Some people are intellectual, some people are sentimental, and some people are action oriented, but those are personality styles and different intellectual capacities that don't have much to do with whether we are justified by God. The student that confronted his uncle was just an extraverted, action-oriented type of person.
No one is fully regenerated until the body is redeemed. That's the living hope of 1 Peter 1:3, 1 Peter 1:23
What does regenerated mean to you?I agree but would say that regeneration is the resurrection. I don't think there is a partial regeneration prior to that, if that is what you're suggesting with the word, fully.
What does regenerated mean to you?
1 Peter 1:3As it pertains to people, resurrection. That's how Jesus used it.
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt. 19:28 KJV)
To my knowledge these are the only uses of the term in the NT. Mat 19:28 and Titus 3:5 is a related word that is commonly translated renewal. In 1 Peter it refers to our rebirth through Jesus' resurrection. It's thus the same as being born from above in John 3:5. I'd say it's close to Reformed usage, though without the specific Reformed ordo salutis.1 Peter 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has regenerated us unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1 Peter 1:23
Having been regenerated not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible, through the living and abiding word of God.
1 Peter 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has regenerated us unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1 Peter 1:23
Having been regenerated not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible, through the living and abiding word of God.
Galations 4 points to Abraham as the father of faith but those of the promise are born of grace also which is thru Sarah and not thru Hagar law. Those who are born of the promise have a spiritual inheritance not associated with Judaism.Yes, Peter uses the word figuratively of their, those Jewish believers, having entered into a second covenant with God. Obviously they weren't literally born again. However, if you look through the Scriptures you'll find that the phrase "born again" is only ever used of Jewish Christians. Jesus coined the term in His talk with Nicodemus. It stems from the promises made to Abraham. The Jews who were the seed of Abraham believed that they inherited the promises through their birth. They believed that being born as the seed of Abraham automatically entitled to the inheritance. Jesus corrected Nicodemus' misunderstanding by indicating that his birth as the seed of Abraham was not sufficient to gain him access to the inheritance. Jesus tells him, metaphorically, you must born gain. In other words, Nicodemus' birth as the seed of Abraham wasn't enough. The apostle Paul confirms this in his letter to the Galatians.
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. (Gal. 3:14-18 KJV)
Paul points out that when God made the promise to Abraham and his Seed, He meant seed Singular, not plural. The promise was not to all of Abraham's seed, but rather to one individual seed, which is Christ. Nicodemus as the other Jews understood the word "seed" to be plural, Paul corrects this thinking just as Jesus did by telling Nicodemus that he had to be born again. We know it's a figurative because Nicodemus expected to inherit the promises based on his physical birth as the seed of Abraham. Nicodemus understood birth as the mechanism for inheriting the promises.
A search of the Scriptures will show that the phrase born again is not used of any Gentiles but only Jewish Christians.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?