Featured What if Calvinism & Arminianism are both wrong

Big sigh. The ongoing Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate: there is a third option, it called Confessional Lutheranism, which is the correct biblical option.

Lutherans, like Calvinist adhere to divine monergism. Calvinist are correct to teach divine monergism (Amen) but they are wrong to teach “limited atonement” and “preservation of the saints”. The “Five Points” (TULP) is only 1.5 correct, sigh then you have Arminianism.

As a confessional Lutheran I’ll just grab myself a bucket of popcorn and watch Calvinism vs. Arminianism battle it out. We don’t have these kind of debates (Calvinist vs. Arminianism) neither positions are not compatible Lutheranism.

I’m just a visitor to the forum, I’ll leave this alone, since after all, this a Baptist Forum.

May God’s grace and peace be with you. Kyrie eleison Christe eleison. God Bless you all you Calvinist and Arminianist. In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

Really. Right off the bat the1689 (emphasis on 1689 ) Calvinist comes out swinging with a straw man fallacy. Lutherans, like Calvinist adhere to divine monergism.

 

Confessional Lutherans have not problem with “The Bondage of Will”. The Bondage of Will is referenced in our Confessions (The Book of Concord) and is in agreement with The Bondage of the Will.

When a Calvin a says they like Martin Luther, what they really mean, is they like “The Bondage of Will” because they think it teaches and supports the error of Calvinistic double Predestination which it does not. They could really care less what else Martin Luther, taught about everything else.

The Calvinist versions of the “Bondage of the Will” should be avoided. The J. I. Packer's introduction to Luther's “Bondage of the Will” can be torn out and thrown in the trash where belongs (no Luther was not a Supralapsarian Calvinist or some prototype Calvinist).

If you want to read the Bondage of the Will without Calvinist “introductions”, I would suggest Luther’s Works Volume 33 it’s a better choice.

———

The Formula of Concord: Solid Declaration II. Free Will

[24] But before man is enlightened, converted, regenerated, renewed, and drawn by the Holy Ghost, he can of himself and of his own natural powers begin, work, or concur in working in spiritual things and in his own conversion or regeneration just as little as a stone or a block or clay. For although he can control the outward members and hear the Gospel, and to a certain extent meditate upon it, also discourse concerning it, as is to be seen in the Pharisees and hypocrites, nevertheless he regards it as foolishness, and cannot believe it. And in this respect he acts even worse than a block, inasmuch as he is rebellious and hostile to God’s will, unless the Holy Ghost is efficacious in him, and kindles and works in him faith and other virtues pleasing to God, and obedience.

II. Free Will | Book of Concord

—————

References to the Pure Doctrine of the Church: The Book of Concord.

The Confession of Faith: I, art. XVII Concerning Free Will.

Article XVIII. Of Free Will | Book of Concord

The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Art. XVIII: Of Free Will

Art. XVIII: Of Free Will | Book of Concord

The Formula of Concord: Epitome, art. II Free Will

II. Free Will | Book of Concord

The Formula of Concord: Epitome XI. Election

XI. Election | Book of Concord

The Formula of Concord: Solid Declaration II. Free Will

II. Free Will | Book of Concord

The Formula of Concord: Solid Declaration, art. XI God’s Enteral Foreknowledge and Election

XI. Election | Book of Concord

 

Oh really, how so?

The Bondage of the Will is often misread as if it is teachings were identical to Calvinist teachings on predestination; I am hardly the first to suggest it is not. At any event, we must not read this one book as if it were the only or last thing Luther wrote on the subject of predestination (Genesis commentaries).

Sacred scripture doesn’t teach limited atonement. Sacred Scripture teaches single predestination, not double predestination. There is a paradox. The problem with false teachings from Calvin and Zwingli, is not that its “logical”, but that it misuses logical syllogism to overthrow scriptural teachings.

Another problem with the “Reformed” is they read Luther through a Reformed lens, most don’t get the real Luther. They get Luther through R.C. Sproul, Ligonier ministries, or some other Reformed ministries or books. Most of the time is quite limited in scope (to a few of his works) and they are spoon feed though a Reformed lens.

Let me tell you something about Martin Luther. You do realize Martin Luther adhered to the Unaltered Augsburg Confessions, Small and Large Catechism, etc. right? Have you read his Genesis commentary, or any other writings of Martin Luther? I referenced the Lutheran confession. How about The Book a Concord (Augsburg Confessions, Small and Large Catechism, etc.)? You should read what Martin Luther has to say about those who neglect the sacrament of private Confession and Holy Absolution (A Brief Exhortation to Confession).

You do realize Martin Luther and Lutheran Confessions never abolished a Mass? Not only did they not abolish the Mass, Lutherans maintain the historic Sacramental Theology (e.g. Holy baptism (baptismal regeneration), private confession and Holy Absolution, The sacrament of the Altar (The true corporeal body and blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins, etc.). You realize Martin Luther subscribe to it all… all the sacramental Theology of the Lutheran Church (the historic church).

The Mass. The Lutheran Reformers did not seek to abolish the Mass. Our confessions, contained in the Book of Concord make this abundantly clear. In other words the Lutheran Church is a liturgical Church and our worship is properly called the Mass. That is Martin Luther and confessional Lutheranism. Not some flaky Baptistic evangelical with scorched earth theology and double predestination which dams most to hell before Genesis 1:1.

Calvin taught that God elected some people to salvation and others to damnation. Concerning election he said, “Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which he has determined in himself the destiny of every man. For they are not all created in the same condition, but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say, he is predestinated either to life or to death.” Institutes of the Christian Religion III, xxi, 5

Concerning his teaching that God elected some to reprobation, Calvin wrote, “Whom God passes by, he reprobates, and from no other cause than his determination to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his children.”

We love Luther says the Protestant Calvinist. That’s a one-way street, because Luther didn’t like those who followed after the one true Lutheran Reformation. There is a reason why the Lutheran confessions (Book of Concord) rejects the false teachings of Zwingli and Calvin (I bet you didn’t know that). Your hero (Luther) rejects your theology.

Lutherans, like Calvinist adhere to divine monergism. Calvinistic double Predestination, limited Atonement. No.

—————

Logia (Journal of Lutheran Theology) : Bondage of the Will Calvin and Luther Burnell F. Eckardt Jr.

“In some respects Luther’s position sounds similar to Calvin’s. He too declared, “God foreknows and predestines all things.” For Luther, however, a divergent vantage point can soon be detected. Where Calvin was concerned with upholding God’s sovereignty, Luther was primarily concerned with upholding God’s grace.”

“Luther’s concern was always Christocentric, whereas Calvin’s was theocentric.”

“The doctrine of the double predestination is the classical expression of the sovereignty of God. None of this is true for Luther.”

“Yet for Calvin this motif was the sovereignty of God, while for Luther it was his mercy. The bondage of the will was a reality for Luther and for Calvin alike. The critical divergence between the two is their divergent understandings of God himself. For Luther it is the nature of God to be merciful: he punishes the wicked because he has to; he saves the faithful because he wants to. But for Calvin it is the nature of God to be sovereign: he saves the faithful to glorify himself; he punishes the wicked likewise to glorify himself. In the end, it makes no divergence, for in either case God is glorified. Such a view was foreign and inimical to Luther. It can be seen, therefore, that Calvin’s approach to all of theology is radically divergent from Luther’s, and here is the most helpful result of a comparison between the two. This comparison demonstrates that Christian theology either must begin with a merciful God, or it will inevitably result in a God whose chief aim is to take rather than to give.”

https://logia.org/pdf-back-issues/7-4-bondage-of-the-will?rq=Bondage of

Luther also believed that any debate, discussion, or argument over the doctrine of election should be largely avoided. Luther did not teach double predestination nor was the doctrine of predestination central to his theology. If you only read the Bondage of the Will (Luther’s Genesis commentaries clearly teacher single Predestination) think otherwise.

He wrote:

“A dispute about predestination should be avoided entirely... I forget everything about Christ and God when I come upon these thoughts and actually get to the point to imagining that God is a rogue. We must stay in the word, in which God is revealed to us and salvation is offered, if we believe him. But in thinking about predestination, we forget God . . However, in Christ are hid all the treasures (Col. 2:3); outside him all are locked up. Therefore, we should simply refuse to argue about election.

Such a disputation is so very displeasing to God that he has instituted Baptism, Absolution, the spoken Word, and the Lord’s Supper to counteract the temptation to engage in it. In these, let us persist and constantly say., I am baptized I believe in Jesus. I care nothing about the disputation concerning predestination.”

Amen!

 

Ya, I know Baptist will scoff at the historic apostolic biblical view of sacramental theology. I want won’t comment much on the subject other than say, mere symbolism of Holy Baptism or Eucharist is not taught in sacred scripture. I married a fundamental Baptist, it took almost two years for her to become a confessional Lutherans and she lost fiends in the process. Despite the fact sacramental theology clearly taught in sacred scripture. When she started the process she knew she couldn’t go back because of the richness fullness of the sacraments and sacramental Theology.

The whole purpose of the Lutheran Reformation was not to be as un-catholic as possible but faithfully catholic.

Much of the radical reformation in their quest to be as un-catholic and anti-catholic as possible, cease to be catholic at all. Despite their errors the papist church, they have a lot right. All that was needed was a conservative reformation, not a scorched earth reformation of Calvin and Zwingli. They exchange one side of errors for a whole set of errors.

Today, most of American Protestants are largely Gnostic and semi-pelagian and heretical, which is far worse than Rome. American Evangelicalism is a utter train wreck. The errors of Nestorius was literally resurrected by Zwingli and Calvin what could possibly go wrong.

Zwingli and Calvin did a fair about of damage to the church catholic. “The attitude that attacked medieval Christianity for its outward, ritual expressions of faith (Zwingli & Calvinist theology) became secularized during the Enlightenment. This critical attitude was then turned on the Scriptures, giving birth to radical criticism of the Bible and the destruction of Christianity in much of Europe.”

"Ritual and Devotion

The Books of Moses demonstrate close unity between the ritual acts of religion and sincere devotion. The ritual is devotion. For example, consider the close relationships between the following: (1) covenant ritual with loyalty, love, and trust; (2) ritual vows with peace; (3) ritual sacrifices with forgiveness and atonement; and (4) ritual cleanliness with holiness. These features illustrate the unity and antiquity of the Books of Moses as well as their relationship to later biblical writings. (The Books of Moses do not raise great concerns about empty ritual, later raised by Joshua [24:15–25] and decried by the prophets [e.g., Is 1:10–17; 29:13; 66:3–4; Am 4:4–5; 5:21–24; Mal 1:6–14].)

Radical criticism of the Books of Moses, which chopped them up into primitive religion and later, priestly religion, failed to recognize this essential unity between ritual and devotion. In part, the critical approach can be traced to extreme Protestant revulsion toward ritual, tradition, and legalism. The attitude that attacked medieval Christianity for its outward, ritual expressions of faith became secularized during the Enlightenment. This critical attitude was then turned on the Scriptures, giving birth to radical criticism of the Bible and the destruction of Christianity in much of Europe. (See Hummel, pp 19–31, 156–62.)
Sincere Christians should recognize the roots and the dangers of radically dividing between outward expressions of faith and inward devotion. God made us body and soul, and His Word applies to us body and soul. God’s people need both sincere faith and sincere ways to express that faith in the services of the Church. They likewise always need both of God’s messages: Law and Gospel."

https://ref.ly/o/lsbconcordia/233415?length=1734 via @Logos

Unfortunately, many that followed, took the five Solas and shape them into their own liking. For example; Sola Scriptura was never meant to be taken as SOLO Scriptura, that was never Martin Luther’s intent. Just me and my Bible, to bushwhack my own doctrine, as if I’m the first one to do so, or fully abolish tradition and disregard Church Father’s and councils.

—————

This will be my last comment on the gift of Holy baptism. I don’t feel like getting into an endless loop argument with a Baptist.

You have been taught bad baptismal theology my friend. You have zero biblical or patristics support for mere symbolism and most importantly a straightforward reading of sacred scripture teaches baptismal regeneration.

Faith is what saves and faith is received by word and sacrament (and God’s word is attached to the sacraments). Baptism unites us to Christ (Rom 6:3-5). We don’t see baptism and faith as being opposed to one another, just like we don’t see the word of God and faith as being opposed to one another. God’s word is connected to Holy baptism. “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you…(1Pe 3:21) “by the washing of water with the word” (Eph 5:26), in baptism God makes promises and we believe them and we cling to them by faith. Another important point is that baptism is not a “get out of jail card” to live a life of unrepentant sin, a baptized saint lives in daily repentance and by faith, faith in Christ Jesus (“once saved always saved” is a false teaching).

Literally every single baptismal passages teaches baptismal regeneration (which is the most important fact) and literally every single Church Father and Council. Sacred scripture does not teach a mere symbolic view of Holy baptism, the historic, biblical view of Holy baptism is Baptismal regeneration.

All the baptismal passages talk about the cleansing, washing, renewal, rebirth, regeneration, forgiveness, receiveing…It’s all gift talk…Holy baptism is a gift that we receive promises and those promises are received by faith. It’s an objective means of grace. That faith received in Holy baptism is the same faith you read above in Hebrews chapter 11. Faith, in Christ Jesus.

Anyways, I can be a little passionate at time.

 

Perhaps, you should read The Book of Concord, referenced above, which is in agreement with the Bondage of the Will. The Bondage of the Will. It’s referenced in our confession. No Luther was not a prototype Calvinist. You’re being ridiculous.

Luther put these words into classical form: “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the gospel, … and will at the last day raise up me and all the dead, and give unto me and all believers in Christ eternal life. This is most certainly true.”

Luther rejects your theology. Luther said Zwingli had a different spirit…meaning he wasn’t a Christians.