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.
So, what you're saying is that I'm using a term that most Lutherans knee-jerk to abhor. Thus, I'm not Confessional, even if I agree with all the confessions. That makes no sense. And, Luther would be appalled. He was all about theology being correct, not about whether the 'right' words were said.While we agree with those limitations of Calvinism, Lutherans have always looked beyond that. The negative side of such an identification is that it is not consistent with how the Confessions speak about who we are when we confess the faith. That is, Calvinism as developed during the formative years of Lutheranism (post Augsburg, post Apology, post Catechisms, post Smalcald Articles) was shown not to be the standard (Formula of Concord, in particular, addresses the Calvinist teaching regarding the Lord's Supper and derivatively the two natures of Christ).
This followed the earlier confessional writings which did the same with the RCC or the Anabaptists who were not the standard, rather the Church Catholic. As Lutherans, the Church Catholic is our heritage, not a corrective of a side show (Calvinism). That is why when someone wants to discuss theology coming from the Reformed camp (in the broadest application of that term), we refuse to accept the definitions and parameters of either Calvinists or Arminians, because neither represents the Biblical, Catholic faith as confessed in the Book of Concord (each for different reasons).
Thus, it appears that applying any kind of adjective that includes "Calvinism" misses the positive confession of the Book of Concord, who we are as Lutherans.
Calvinism isn't a denomination. It's a sotierology. There are calvinists in most denominations. I started a thread in CC to discuss calvinism and said I pretty much lined up with Christmas calvinists with regard to sotierology.
The two are not mutually exclusive. And, no. I am not going to start a thread in the TCL main forum to satisfy your belief that I'm not a Lutheran. I am LCMS and have as much right to post in this subforum as you do.Start another thread concerning that topic in the TCL main forum and I will. Of course, you'll have to explain exactly what it is a Christmas Calvinist believes. Are you now saying that you are a Christmas Calvinist as opposed to a Lutheran.
I have, and I agree with it. I never said I was a full-blown calvinist. Christmas calvinists are a different breed. And, knowing me, I'm probably not a very good calvinist.But as I noted, Calvinists run into a problem in soteriology as well. Read Formula of Concord, Article VIII, The Person of Christ.
So, what you're saying is that I'm using a term that most Lutherans knee-jerk to abhor. Thus, I'm not Confessional, even if I agree with all the confessions. That makes no sense. And, Luther would be appalled. He was all about theology being correct, not about whether the 'right' words were said.
I don't hold to nearly all of Calvin's teachings. My saying I was a Christmas calvinist had to do with the sotierology, nothing more. I would have expected people to care more for the theology than the terminology. So far, nobody has pointed out to me how believing in election of the saints without election to damnation conflicts with the Confessions.
I had a question about the fellowship aspect of worship. From what I've read, the WELS don't agree with worshipping with non-WELS, as that is considered to be fellowship as well. Is that a correct reading on my part? If so, does that mean that WELS won't attend churches of other faiths or synods?
Let me lay out what I believe and we can go from there. I haven't read a ton of Calvin, so it is entirely possible that I could be wrong.Well, let's back up a just a minute. Are you saying that one portion of "election" is the cornerstone of soteriology? And if we agree on that one part of election, then we agree with that person on soteriology?
Originally Posted by Studeclunker
I'm really at a loss as to where in my post that you quoted you got the idea that I condone things that are clearly outside the official doctrinal and practical stance of the synod. Placing a bed in the chancel is clearly outside the doctrinal position of the Confessions since it places an emphasis on the flesh rather than on God. I doubt very highly that the synod "approved" such a thing, but there is no doubt they "allowed" it, which concerns me greatly. My post had to do with the worship of our Lord, not the worship of the flesh. Two completely different things.
Also, don't equate the actions of your congregation in CA with the synod as a whole. The LCMS is still very much a congregational polity, and as such, the practices of that congregation must have been asked for and approved by the majority of the laity. There is where your concerns should lie, not with me nor with the synod as a whole.
I've already said that I am open to correction on this. So, show me where what I said I believe is in conflict with the Confessions.
I am not a cradle Lutheran and am not tied strictly to denominational identity. I go with what is scripturally correct. So, if you show me scripturally where I am wrong, then I am willing to listen. If you beat me over the head and accuse me of unionism or heresy or whatever, it ain't gonna fly. Even Luther himself would say stick to the scriptures. Zeph hasn't shown me the courtesy to do so. Instead, he's insulted and baited me for weeks now.
Let me lay out what I believe and we can go from there. I haven't read a ton of Calvin, so it is entirely possible that I could be wrong.
People are totally depraved--i.e., they aren't able to do good without God's influence and help.
God chose us from before creation. It isn't based on any merit of our own. And salvation is a gift from God.
Jesus' atonement was for all mankind--i.e., nobody is predestined for damnation.
Those God has chosen, He draws to himself irresistibly. People can fight it and some do for a really long time, but He will have whom He will have. (This might be where I differ a bit from orthodox Lutheranism.)
One can't just walk away from God. I suppose it is possible to completely renounce God, but one doesn't casually lose salvation.
People are totally depraved--i.e., they aren't able to do good without God's influence and help.
God chose us from before creation. It isn't based on any merit of our own. And salvation is a gift from God.
Jesus' atonement was for all mankind--i.e., nobody is predestined for damnation.
Jesus' atonement was for all mankind--i.e., nobody is predestined for damnation.
Those God has chosen, He draws to himself irresistibly. People can fight it and some do for a really long time, but He will have whom He will have.
One can't just walk away from God. I suppose it is possible to completely renounce God, but one doesn't casually lose salvation.
I know Luther called a lot of names. But, he always followed up with scriptural arguments. All I get is "You're not Lutheran." Well fine. Perhaps I should go back to the Church of Christ I left since I'm not worthy to be called a Lutheran.
See, I don't want to do that. But, what alternative do I have if people only call me names and don't bother setting me straight on scripture. If you think I'm a heretic, correct me. Don't insult me.
This also is the Lutheran position. But here we begin to see the difference between Luther(an) and Calvin(ism). Calvin (following Augustine) wanted to address the question behind the question: "why then are some saved and others not?" Calvin wanted to draw back the curtain and see God's work behind the scenes. His conclusion is based on absolute election or better double predestination. Hence sovereign predestination became the absolute ground for Calvin. He even mistranslated 1 Timothy 2:4 to avoid contradictions with his doctrinal position (God desires all kinds of people to be saved rather than the correct, God desires all people to be saved). Salvation becomes secondary to his position on predestination.
Luther(ans) do not try to look behind the curtain, because Scripture does not permit us. For Luther(ans) predestination took second place to justification by grace through faith. By doing so, Luther placed predestination in its rightful position, subordinate to the central doctrine of faith, meaning that justification by grace through faith informs predestination. Scripture does not give us a glimpse behind the curtain and determine the sovereign predestination. Rather, we can only look at predestination from the perspective of faith; predestination as Paul presented it in Ephesians 1:4 (just as He chose us in Him) 1:5 (He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ), etc.
This has implications for the living out of the faith. According to Calvinism, the key is whether you have been predestined. But how does a person know? One can never know from predestination, unless one ultimately gave demonstration that this is proof that I am predestined. But is that enough? On the other hand, according to Lutheran teaching, the key is whether you are in Christ. If you are in Christ then you know that you have been predestined. There is no other way than being in Christ. See FC, Article IX.
This is where the No-L part comes in. Jesus died for the whole world. I have no quarrel with the Lutheran teaching at all.The first part directly impacts soteriology (salvation) and the Person of Christ. If Christ did not die for the whole world, then what does that say about his saving work? Unfinished, diminished, lacking...? Calvinism teaches that Christ died only for the elect; notice how election/predestination is the determining factor, which then has to force a wrong understanding on the work of Christ, which affects the salvation of people.
Here again Lutherans differ from Calvinism. While the statement itself can be agreed to by both sides, the question behind the question shows the distinctions. For Lutherans, we believe that God has given us means of grace, tools that the Holy Spirit uses to bring us that saving grace to create and sustain faith (the Word, Baptism, and the Lords Supper). The means actually convey what is presented, namely, forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation (Luthers Small Catechism and Large Catechism, and FC Article VII).
For Calvinism, Baptism and the Lords Supper do not actual convey the grace, but are merely outward symbols to indicate the inward work. If you ever read this statement, it is not by Lutherans (or perhaps by misinformed Lutherans). Thus, they refer to them as ordinances, which become law keeping, rather than means of actually conveying Gods work of grace in the life of a person.
I have seen many walk away and renounce God. I've done that myself. But, God is always faithful to draw people back. At least He was with me, and he has been with many others I know. I truly believe that if you are elect, He will draw you to Himself--eventually. I think that the few exceptions are likely people who never had Christ at all. Is it possible for somebody to completely and irrevocably walk away? I suppose. But, I think that it happens only very rarely. If you talk to people who have lost the faith and come back again, they will tell you of how they never felt quite right during the time they were away. It was God drawing them, even then.Once again, this reflects a Calvinist position regarding salvation (once saved, always saved). It contains a partial truth, but doesnt give the entire picture. We see in Scripture that people do walk away from faith and renounce God. Calvinists offer the response, Well, the person was not one of the elect. The problem is: how do they know? The elect will never walk away from faith, a circular argument set up to reinforce both views, neither of which is Biblical.
I do see that. You should see the arguments that I have with my many fundy relatives about it. They tend to hold the view that salvation is an act of will rather than an act of grace. When I first realized that (at the feet of a very patient Lutheran pastor), it was such a release from the burden I had always borne.I hope that what you begin to discover is that Lutheran theology is of one piece built around the chief article of the Christian Church, justification by grace through faith in Christ), and by which the Church stands or falls. AC Article IV, Apology Article IV, FC Article III. We do not put piece meal what we want or take bits and pieces from here and there. Rather, we take the entirety of Scripture as witness to the truth of what we confess.
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?