What I appreciate about Lutheranism

[All Glory To God]

Of course you meant well. But you will understand that we are not amused by your warning the OP of Lutheranism.

Besides this: we believe you to be in error.

Likewise.

The points you mentioned are questionable - Luther believing in double predestination along the lines of a 17th century calvinist definition is quite doubtful - or plain wrong when it comes to contrasting Luther and the Lutheran confessions.

I gave you the source of my information on the matter. Now do with it as you please.

Whilst again the term “total depravity” is a Calvinist term and thus not part of the theology of the Confessions, the biblical teaching of the inability of natural man to turn to God as laid out by Luther himself in “The bondage of the will“ is of course also the theology of the Confessions.

I think Luther believed it but the Augsburg confession (written by melancthon) in article 9 states a person needs to be baptised for salvation. How does that jive with solus Christus? If I am to be justified by faith in Christ without any deeds to accompany or assist my faith in Christ (Romans 3:27) how can a Baptism be a necessary requirement? This causes an apparent contradiction.

The fact that you think it is not but refuse to detail why you think so is frankly bizarre.

Election is the source of salvation (Romans 9:16). So Gods salvific grace flows from his sovereign choosing of his friends before the world began. Baptism is not or part of the source of salvation. If it were, you would have to believe that man is not dead in sins, he can choose to do good after the fall and does have the ability to choose salvation. How can someone who is dead in sins choose a baptism that he knows will save him? And if man is not dead in sin totally dependent on the grace of God for salvation, it is not what Luther taught.

 

[Till Schilling]

I think Luther believed it but the Augsburg confession (written by melancthon) in article 9 states a person needs to be baptised for salvation. How does that jive with solus Christus? If I am to be justified by faith in Christ without any deeds to accompany or assist my faith in Christ (Romans 3:27) how can a Baptism be a necessary requirement? This causes an apparent contradiction.

In your church - obviously a Calvinist one - when a person comes to faith in Christ Jesus, maybe goes through some form of catechesis, is being instructed on the faith, will this person not be encouraged to receive baptism? Will baptism not be the door to church membership?

And what will you say to this person if he responds that he does not need baptism because he is already a believer?

Faith in Christ Jesus AND baptism is the normal, biblical way into the church and to salvation. The absence of baptism does not condemn. But what good reason would anyone have to reject God’s plan and refuse God’s means of salvation? None. There are no good reasons.

 

[All Glory To God]

In your church - obviously a Calvinist one - when a person comes to faith in Christ Jesus, maybe goes through some form of catechesis, is being instructed on the faith, will this person not be encouraged to receive baptism? Will baptism not be the door to church membership?

And what will you say to this person if he responds that he does not need baptism because he is already a believer?

Baptism is a good and Godly thing any professing follower of Christ can do. So, yeah it would be encouraged. But the purpose of water Baptism is an outward declaration of one's faith and conversion. Not a means by which God bestows his salvific grace from, on to or into his creatures for redemption.

Faith in Christ Jesus AND baptism is the normal, biblical way into the church and to salvation. The absence of baptism does not condemn. But what good reason would anyone have to reject God’s plan and refuse God’s means of salvation? None. There are no good reasons.

You say ''The absence of baptism does not condemn'' but article 9 of the Augsburg confession states Baptism is necessary for salvation:

Article IX: Of Baptism.
Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God's grace.

They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.



Now I think I warranted my case how (if you read Bondage of the will) how Martin luthers view and confessional Lutheran views are somewhat different.

Hope that helps.

 

[Daniel9v9]

But that's not what I'm here for. I just wanted to give some friendly advice to the OP on how Luther's view and his successors have different doctrines. Not to try and proof Lutherans are unbiblical. Believe it or not there was a well meaning intent behind my suggestions.

I didn't realise you were Reformed. That being the case, I can leave you with this — If you're interested in the Lutheran Reformation, I can recommend reading The Concordia published by Concordia Publishing House, which comes with a lot of notes and historical backgrounds. For free resources, I can also recommend The Augsburg Confession by Neve, Conservative Reformation by Krauth, and Doctrine of the Church by Weidner.

Also, just to throw in a quick explanation for your confusion regarding Article IX: Baptism — What is meant here is that Baptism is ordinarily necessary because that is a means God instituted. That does not, however, mean that God is bound by His means. So, it's ordinarily necessary, but not absolutely necessary. In short, it's necessary. In the context where it's being discussed in our Confessions, it's against those who deny the necessity of Baptism. That is, the discussion is really about upholding the doctrine of original sin against those who deny it. What Luther taught on this is no different from what you find in our Confessions (cf. Luther's Small Catechism: The Creed). But even if he did teach contrary to what is taught in the Confessions (which he certainly didn't regarding original sin and Baptism), we still hold to the Confessions. The Lutheran reformation is not the works of Luther. We do not, for example, share his earlier views on some of the books of the Bible. Luther was a leading figure, no doubt, but even so, he was one of many theologians striving for purity of doctrine, who all came together into what became to be known as the Lutheran church.

For good measure, the Lutheran position is simply this: Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Baptism is not something we do for God or for ourselves, but something God does for us. It's a gift. It's God's grace. And as such, we do not withhold it from children.

 

[Till Schilling]

But the purpose of water Baptism is an outward declaration of one's faith and conversion. Not a means by which God bestows his salvific grace from, on to or into his creatures for redemption.

This is not reformed theology, is it? Sounds Baptist. Baptist sacramentology combined with Calvinist soteriology?

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

You haven't annoyed me at all! I am here to learn from you and others. I'm not sure someone can be too earthly minded? Jesus created the earth and called it good He assumed a body, a family and an earthly life. That you look forward to what life has to offer is to look forward to the blessings God has for you. You are not a spirit, but a spirit-body composite. You were made to live here, on this earth. So no worried, you didn't upset me at all.

Just because I am a member of a Lutheran church does not mean that my thoughts are truer to our theology than yours. If anything I feel that you are more knowledgeable than me.

I am sorry if I annoyed you, I did not mean to. Also I want to state that I find a lot of what you are saying very helpful.

Probably I am not spiritually minded enough in my refusal to look forward to dying. Too earthly, too much focused on what life still has to offer. Maybe a belated midlife crisis.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Can you be more specific about what is difficult, so I can address?

Thanks.

Aren't you saying that Luther and the Lutheran Confessions contradict one another?

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

This is from Article 5 of the Smalcald Articles that Luther wrote:

Nor [do we agree] with Scotus and the Barefooted monks [Minorites or Franciscan monks], who teach that, by the assistance of the divine will, Baptism washes away sins, and that this ablution occurs only through the will of God, and by no means through the Word or water.

The Augsburg Confessions, like I said, were written during Luther's lifetime. Melancthon was Luther's right hand man. So I don't think putting one against the other is productive?

Likewise.



I gave you the source of my information on the matter. Now do with it as you please.



I think Luther believed it but the Augsburg confession (written by melancthon) in article 9 states a person needs to be baptised for salvation. How does that jive with solus Christus? If I am to be justified by faith in Christ without any deeds to accompany or assist my faith in Christ (Romans 3:27) how can a Baptism be a necessary requirement? This causes an apparent contradiction.



Election is the source of salvation (Romans 9:16). So Gods salvific grace flows from his sovereign choosing of his friends before the world began. Baptism is not or part of the source of salvation. If it were, you would have to believe that man is not dead in sins, he can choose to do good after the fall and does have the ability to choose salvation. How can someone who is dead in sins choose a baptism that he knows will save him? And if man is not dead in sin totally dependent on the grace of God for salvation, it is not what Luther taught.

 

[All Glory To God]

I didn't realise you were Reformed. That being the case, I can leave you with this — If you're interested in the Lutheran Reformation, I can recommend reading The Concordia published by Concordia Publishing House, which comes with a lot of notes and historical backgrounds. For free resources, I can also recommend The Augsburg Confession by Neve, Conservative Reformation by Krauth, and Doctrine of the Church by Weidner.

Also, just to throw in a quick explanation for your confusion regarding Article IX: Baptism — What is meant here is that Baptism is ordinarily necessary because that is a means God instituted. That does not, however, mean that God is bound by His means. So, it's ordinarily necessary, but not absolutely necessary. In short, it's necessary. In the context where it's being discussed in our Confessions, it's against those who deny the necessity of Baptism. That is, the discussion is really about upholding the doctrine of original sin against those who deny it. What Luther taught on this is no different from what you find in our Confessions (cf. Luther's Small Catechism: The Creed). But even if he did teach contrary to what is taught in the Confessions (which he certainly didn't regarding original sin and Baptism), we still hold to the Confessions. The Lutheran reformation is not the works of Luther. We do not, for example, share his earlier views on some of the books of the Bible. Luther was a leading figure, no doubt, but even so, he was one of many theologians striving for purity of doctrine, who all came together into what became to be known as the Lutheran church.

For good measure, the Lutheran position is simply this: Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Baptism is not something we do for God or for ourselves, but something God does for us. It's a gift. It's God's grace. And as such, we do not withhold it from children.

Thanks for the well thought out post. I don't have any to add.

Thank you for the time.

 

[All Glory To God]

This is not reformed theology, is it? Sounds Baptist. Baptist sacramentology combined with Calvinist soteriology?

Well within Reformed, election is the source of salvation but there are different views of Baptism. And that's a whole different topic.

 

[All Glory To God]

Aren't you saying that Luther and the Lutheran Confessions contradict one another?

I am and it has been confirmed multiply times throughout this thread.

 

[All Glory To God]

This is from Article 5 of the Smalcald Articles that Luther wrote:

Nor [do we agree] with Scotus and the Barefooted monks [Minorites or Franciscan monks], who teach that, by the assistance of the divine will, Baptism washes away sins, and that this ablution occurs only through the will of God, and by no means through the Word or water.

Post #44 in this thread describes what I have been saying all along. You should read it and re-read the thread back over.

. . . So I don't think putting one against the other is productive?

If the two don't harmonize, that's not my problem. I am not striving for ecumenism but truth and Gods glory.

Since I have now given you my (unhelpful?) advice there's not much more for me to do apart from wish you well in your studies.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

But that doesn't make sense, since Luther wrote a huge chunk of the Confessions. One of the examples that I gave you,which confirms that Luther held to baptismal regeneration comes from the Smalcald Articles. The Smalcald Articles are a part of the Lutheran Confessions and was written by Luther.

So, I don't really get what you are saying.

I am and it has been confirmed multiply times throughout this thread.

Post #44 in this thread describes what I have been saying all along. You should read it and re-read the thread back over.

If the two don't harmonize, that's not my problem. I am not striving for ecumenism but truth and Gods glory.

Since I have now given you my (unhelpful?) advice there's not much more for me to do apart from wish you well in your studies.

 

[Till Schilling]

But that doesn't make sense, since Luther wrote a huge chunk of the Confessions. One of the examples that I gave you,which confirms that Luther held to baptismal regeneration comes from the Smalcald Articles. The Smalcald Articles are a part of the Lutheran Confessions and was written by Luther.

So, I don't really get what you are saying.

If I understood him correctly his main point is not regarding sacraments - here he considers not just our confessions but Luther himself to be in error - but regarding election and salvation.

Many reformed consider the doctrines regarding election and salvation to be only thinkable following either a Calvinist or an Armenian approach. They cannot accept that the Lutheran doctrines fall outside of that dichotomy. For them the Lutheran doctrines are inconclusive, illogical and thus essentially Arminian.

Some Calvinists then also claim Martin Luther himself to have held the same doctrines as TULIP calvinism. Different from the doctrines of latter Lutherans. As Luther himself was never confronted with this debate within reformed theology - the Arminian-Calvinist dichotomy - and thus did not have to state his position on this debate, he is an easy target for such usurpation.

See also Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination by Brian G. Mattson

CONCLUSION:

Something has gone wrong in Lutheranism. It has been more than adequately shown that regarding the doctrine of the eternal predestination of God Martin Luther taught things directly contrary to the standards of Modern Lutheranism. Something very clearly happened in Lutheran doctrine between 1546 and 1580. In the span between Luther's death and the Formula of Concord a radical shift came in "Lutheran" theology. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to examine exactly what did happen, enough has been said to demonstrate that something did indeed happen.



Luther never taught any such doctrine as "single" predestination. The concept was clearly very foreign to him, as it required the suspension of God's sovereignty over the reprobation of man. Such a suspension to Luther was the "denial of Deity itself."[58]



Luther understood that in terms of God's predestination, the principle is indeed "double or nothing." Either God is sovereign over all things which comes to pass, or He is not sovereign at all.

 

[All Glory To God]

But that doesn't make sense, since Luther wrote a huge chunk of the Confessions. One of the examples that I gave you,which confirms that Luther held to baptismal regeneration comes from the Smalcald Articles. The Smalcald Articles are a part of the Lutheran Confessions and was written by Luther.

So, I don't really get what you are saying.

What is happening on your end? Are you disagreeing or are you not comprehending my thoughts on the matter? If you are challenging and think Martin Luther believed the same as Lutheran confessions and overall faith, we have a well informed Lutheran in this very dialogue (@Daniel9v9) explaining (in post #44) how Luthers early writings do not agree with Lutheran faith. I agree also.

If this a matter not understanding I would advise to seek knowledge from Lutheran Pastors or learned people. I think it's only fair to learn from the source itself about what they themselves Lutherans believe.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Edit

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Edit

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

I have nothing to add. That's a whole different world from what I'm use to.

If I understood him correctly his main point is not regarding sacraments - here he considers not just our confessions but Luther himself to be in error - but regarding election and salvation.

Many reformed consider the doctrines regarding election and salvation to be only thinkable following either a Calvinist or an Armenian approach. They cannot accept that the Lutheran doctrines fall outside of that dichotomy. For them the Lutheran doctrines are inconclusive, illogical and thus essentially Arminian.

Some Calvinists then also claim Martin Luther himself to have held the same doctrines as TULIP calvinism. Different from the doctrines of latter Lutherans. As Luther himself was never confronted with this debate within reformed theology - the Arminian-Calvinist dichotomy - and thus did not have to state his position on this debate, he is an easy target for such usurpation.

See also Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination by Brian G. Mattson

 

[Till Schilling]

I have nothing to add. That's a whole different world from what I'm use to.

It is what made the gentle-minded Lutheran Pastor and poet Paul Gerhardt state that he cannot consider Calvinists to be Christians.

That is probably a bit harsh but it is definitely a different mindset. Different priorities. For true Calvinist it is all about God’s sovereignty and a system of thought based on that. Very systematic, very logical and conclusive but not the God revealed in Christ Jesus and witnessed in Scriptures.

 

[All Glory To God]

If I understood him correctly his main point is not regarding sacraments - here he considers not just our confessions but Luther himself to be in error - but regarding election and salvation.

Many reformed consider the doctrines regarding election and salvation to be only thinkable following either a Calvinist or an Armenian approach. They cannot accept that the Lutheran doctrines fall outside of that dichotomy. For them the Lutheran doctrines are inconclusive, illogical and thus essentially Arminian.

Some Calvinists then also claim Martin Luther himself to have held the same doctrines as TULIP calvinism. Different from the doctrines of latter Lutherans. As Luther himself was never confronted with this debate within reformed theology - the Arminian-Calvinist dichotomy - and thus did not have to state his position on this debate, he is an easy target for such usurpation.

See also Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination by Brian G. Mattson

Well this article is arguing in my favour, so I'm not sure why you posted it. Did you actually read it? Hear is the conclusion.


CONCLUSION:

Something has gone wrong in Lutheranism. It has been more than adequately shown that regarding the doctrine of the eternal predestination of God Martin Luther taught things directly contrary to the standards of Modern Lutheranism. Something very clearly happened in Lutheran doctrine between 1546 and 1580. In the span between Luther's death and the Formula of Concord a radical shift came in "Lutheran" theology. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to examine exactly what did happen, enough has been said to demonstrate that something did indeed happen.


Luther never taught any such doctrine as "single" predestination. The concept was clearly very foreign to him, as it required the suspension of God's sovereignty over the reprobation of man. Such a suspension to Luther was the "denial of Deity itself."[58]


Luther understood that in terms of God's predestination, the principle is indeed "double or nothing." Either God is sovereign over all things which comes to pass, or He is not sovereign at all.


Modern Lutheranism, however, treats reprobation in an almost agnostic fashion. Recall the quote from Robert Hoerber: "[T]he 'unreasonable' doctrine of election to salvation (but not to damnation) is a particularly comforting part of the gospel message."[59]


No explanation is given by Hoerber as to how it is possible (indeed, he admits that it is "unreasonable") for God to maintain sovereignty over election yet not over reprobation.


One can almost anticipate Luther's response that "the Christian's chief and only comfort in every adversity lies in knowing that God does not lie, but brings all things to pass immutably, and that His will cannot be resisted, altered, or impeded."[60]


Hoerber's supposedly "comforting" single predestinarian view is thus rejected by Luther himself. Comfort is only drawn through faith in God's sovereignty, not faith in His relinquishing of it.


Though Martin Luther and other Reformers like Calvin and Zwingli may have differed over many issues, such as the regulating principle of worship, the nature of the sacraments, the use of law in civil government, and the like, they never had a public disagreement over their respective doctrines of predestination.


In an age of controversy, this fact is quite remarkable, especially as the doctrine remains the most controversial of all doctrines. If one reads the doctrine as presented by the Reformers, a single, uniform, voice will be found: God is sovereign over heaven and hell, salvation and damnation, life and death.


The health of the church today requires re-thinking on the issue of God's sovereignty. With semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism the norm rather than the exception in the modern church, the tough issues must once again be grappled with. There must be another reformation.


Perhaps this should start with a "rediscovery" of the doctrines of times long past. Perhaps there must be a revival of reading ancient documents and treatises to discover the secrets long obscured. The church must see its place in history through the light of the past. The author, however, does not speak now of that ancient light of St. Augustine, now dimmed and wearied with age. God continues to raise up new lights for the continual reformation of His church. The light now shining is not Augustine, but Martin Luther himself.


Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria

Original article with references found at the following URL:
Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination Brian G. Mattson