Featured What if Calvinism & Arminianism are both wrong

I find Luther everywhere in scripture according to the Bondage of the will. But I cannot find Lutheranism anywhere. Can you provide at least one scripture to identify Lutheranism in the New Testament?

Where is your system of salvation found anywhere in the New Testament? How are you supposedly saved?

 

This is featured? Really?

 

VDMA. Glad you posted. This is interesting. I actually looked at some local Lutheran churches while we were doing the online stuff during Covid. I am a Calvinist, not because the wonderfullness of the TULIP impressed me but the writings and sermons and theology of Calvinists both old and modern did. One Puritan concept was the priority of preaching. When I looked at Lutheran churches I found the following:

Most of them are in various stages of apostacy.
Or they tend to be embracing the trendy social gospel
at a level not even seen in the Gospel Coalition.
Those that aren't have a very undeveloped preaching
ministry and seem to deliberately limit sermons to 20
minute talks laden with personal stories and jokes. I
felt there was nothing there.

I know the Missouri synod is still pretty good I think. Am I right? And before we argue theology, which I'm happy to do, I wonder if you could point me to some actual useful Lutheran preaching on internet or written. Because if it ain't there, the theological merits of the man Luther don't matter. I was in a Catholic church for a funeral of a friend and they even had "A Mighty Fortress" in their hymnal. We all like Luther.

 

Both rituals are works. Both rituals have symbolic meaning, Romans 6:1-4, Luke 22:19-20. Both are instructed to do. Neither are required in order to be saved.

 

How about, Calvinism, and Arminianism, and your stated Lutherism are all wrong?

 

"All" meaning each as a whole. All three have parts which hold to the truth.

 

UNBIBLICAL

 

Romans 6:16, ". . . Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? . . ." Bondage of the will.

 

Have you ever experienced a backslide? How about the incestuous Corinthian brother who Paul turned over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that his soul would be saved? Do you ever pray "lead me not into temptation but deliver me from evil"? You should. None of us are above the worst sins imaginable.

 

Hello and welcome to our efforts to discuss the actual teachings of scripture.

I agree with you, both Calvinism and Arminianism contain invalid doctrines.

Monergism (with the meaning of God saves individuals rather than individuals save themselves) is valid. Romans 9:16 teaches salvation does not "depend" upon the person who wills to be saved, or does something to be saved, but upon God alone. However, God's command is that we believe in the Gospel of Christ, and to deny the capacity of lost individuals to put their trust and devotion upon Christ is bogus, in my opinion. But only when God credits that faith, as worthless as it might be, as righteousness, does that faith become conditional upon which God chooses individuals for salvation. Thus individual election occurs not before the foundation of the world but during our lifetime after we respond to the gospel. The election of Ephesians 1:4 therefore is corporate as we existed as not a people chosen for God's possession during our lifetime.

 

All 5 points of Calvinism are unfortunately unscriptural. (The P is not about eternal security. As to those who would change it to eternal security, then I would agree with that 1 point).
The loss of salvation in Arminianism is unscriptural - but only in the church age. In other ages, that doctrine is true, just not in this age, hence the unceasing controversy.
Lutherism is wrong in as far as it accepts any 1 point of the Tulip and the loss of salvation of Arminianism.

 

So an Arminian, if he sins worries that he has lost his salvation. A Calvinist who sins worries if he really is elect. A Baptist doesn't worry at all because once saved always saved. Methodists get to where they never sin at all. Catholics can always go to mass tomorrow or buy an indulgence. What about Lutherans?

 

George, from your statement I take it you don't think the Bible declares that all humans are radically corrupt, God doesn't elect people, especially not without meriting the election, God paid all the sins of all humans, making all humans guiltless, God can be overcome and resisted, and there is no need to persevere in the faith.
This would be the way that a person concludes that all 5 points are unscriptural.
The opposite would be, people all got some good that impresses God, merited effort gets God to save you, the whole world is perfectly redeemed by Jesus payment on the cross, humans can and do resist God and overcome God's will, and people can live and let live without any effort to struggle against sin.
Doing that would make all 5 points of no significance. Is that the biblical method of salvation you image exists?

Of course it isn't. You would never say that or believe that. Therefore, I conclude that you don't actually believe all 5 points are unbiblical. Instead, you just can't imagine humans having no ability to drive the car to save themselves with Jesus as the driving instructor.

 

Well, I have my personal understanding. I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminianist.

My difficulty are not mere disagreement. But false accusations about what one believes or does not believe.

 

This is a good point. For instance someone will say that justification is a one time permanent declaration that makes a person right with God forever. Then they say a holy life is essential for salvation. Now if I go to Owen's works he explains that - in 47 pages, part of which is Latin. And it makes perfect sense. But I could not explain it to someone else in a paragraph if my life depended on it. And I have to admit that someone who might say "look, if justification is all of God and makes you right with God then you can't turn around and claim the necessity of a holy life". They are not heretics and it would be wrong to start chanting works based, works based, works based and piling up wood.

 

Strawmen.

 

When I was a kid we used to take a jar with a bunch of red ants in it and pour it on a black ant hill. I didn't know which of the ants were Calvinists but it was interesting. I must have been a Lutheran when I was a kid. You guys let the Lutheran get on here and start something. He needs to get on here and defend his third way. All I know about the Lutheran way is that they make the sign, wear the clothes - except they won't wear the big hat.

 

No, not a strawman. The five points made at the Council of Dordt all have solid biblical support. Thus, if you reject all 5 points, you reject human depravity, unmerited grace, full payment for sin only to those who believe, God's will being stronger than man's will and the need for believers to continue daily in the faith.
To say all 5 points are unbiblical is to reject 5 essential truths in scripture, George.
I don't believe you reject these truths. I think you just recoil from the acronym of TULIP.

 

Thank you for this thread. My wife has started to attend a 'Confessional Lutheran church' (LCMS) in Sutherlin, Oregon. As I have said on this forum for year, I came here to learn with an open mind. In my opinion, 'confessional Lutherans' did not throw the baby out with the bathwater during the Reformation. Please continue to teach us here and be aware that there are those of here who are teachable and open. May God bless your efforts here in the name of the F & of the +S, and of the HS, amen