Martin Luther on the atonement

[examiningcalvinism]

I asked a Yes/No question, and you gave no answer, which in effect is an answer. I realize that Lutherans have nuances on Calvinism, and Calvinism is broad enough to cover it under its big tent. Have I discussed this with Lutherans? Of course I have, and one Lutheran stated that on the matter of Unconditional Election and God's Sovereignty, he stood in agreement with another Calvinist.

True or False: Lutherans affirm Unconditional Election.

True, which even you conceded.

True or False: Lutherans profess the doctrine of Preterition, as outlined in the Westminster Confession of Faith, whereby God "passes by" people when giving saving grace.

True, as agreed by Sprugeon, and as documented as "Lutheranism" in the wikipedia reference.

True or False: Lutherans affirm Irresistible Grace.

True, which Lutherans teach as Monergism.

True or False: Lutherans affirm that some people, namely Calvinism's elect, are predestined to become saved.

True

 

[DQuixote]

This is Baptist Theology and Bible Study?

 

[Allan]

Would you consider former SBC president, Adrian Rogers, as being an Arminian? Certainly not, yet functionally, he was one. As a backdrop, "Arminian" was a label that was assigned to me by my Calvinist brothers when I left their fold, and I have kept it ever since, and became especially confortable with it, when I learned about who Arminius was, and what he taught. Classical Arminianism is precisely what Adrian Rogers teaches, though he may not adopt its name, and I feel that he truly exemplifies the SBC, along with Johnny Hunt, Jerry Vines and Paige Patterson. Each of these individuals would not dare profess the "Arminian" label, yet each teaches just that, especially considering that Classical Arminianism was NOT a movement of Conditional Security (refer to the Remonstrance), and which DID affirm Total Depravity and the necessity of Prevenient Grace, in contrast to Calvinistic Irresistible Grace. So if you are talking about "labels," then I agree with you. But if you are talking about "functionality," then I have to disagree with you.

Click on the link to the Calvinist Gadfly and tell me which category you find Jerry Falwell, Ergun Caner, Charles Stanley and Hank Hanegraaf: http://www.calvinistgadfly.com/

None of them would confess to being "Arminian," and yet the Gadfly accurately diagnoses them as functionally "Arminian." That's precisely why I listed the SBC as an Arminian denomination.

You have SO many errors here it isn't even funny.

First you go to a NON- SBC entity (a blog site) to get your information concerning the agreed upon Theological view of the SBC.
AND
If that isn't funny enough, you say "the Gadfly accurately diagnoses them as functionally "Arminian." "
THERE IS NO DIAGNOSES.
Here is what they state:

Some may be surprised to see particular individuals or orgainizations under the ‘Arminian’ category. Even some of the individuals in this category will object to this labeling. I was not haphazard in deciding this. I am very confident that all these individuals share the same Arminian tradition that is known as synergism. That is to say, in general, they believe that two forces in the universe are necessary to bring about regeneration in the life of the sinner. In specifics, the two forces at work (cooperation) that are necessary to bring about regeneration, or spiritual life, is the will of man and the Holy Spirit (grace).

To put it another way, the work of the Holy Spirit is dependent on the creature’s will, hence, “synergism” (working together). These individuals will sincerely say, “I believe in grace alone.” But in reality, they believe that grace is not alone (sufficient), but that man’s will is necessary for regeneration to be effective.

It could be said that these individuals are “functional” Arminians because even though some will deny the label, their theology functions synergistically (i.e., How they identify themselves is inconsistent with what they teach and believe).

Calvinists affirm what is called “monergism.” The belief that there is only one force in the universe (grace alone) that brings about regeneration in the life of the sinner. In specifics, because of the deadness of man’s spiritual state, his moral inability, the Holy Spirit performs the miracle of spiritual resurrection (regeneration) in that person, hence, “monergism” (one work). Grace is sufficient to be effective, and does not depend on some action of man.

In other words, the Holy Spirit does not merely whisper in the hardened sinner’s ear and hopes that the rebel sinner will “cooperate”; rather, while the sinner is in a state of hardness and rebellion, the Holy Spirit penetrates in the will of man and performs the miracle of spiritual life (regeneration). That is grace alone. Faith does not precede regeneration, regeneration precedes faith.

“But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions– it is by grace you have been saved.” Ephesians 2:4-5

“Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” John 1:12-13

“He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” John 8:47

Arminians cannot affirm monergism (grace alone); they must always have the creature’s will as the final determiner of their destiny, not God. I must give Arminians some credit though. Invariably, they pray Calvinisticly, “God, change my unbelieving relative’s heart.” I have never heard them pray, “God, only whisper in my relative’s ear, but don’t change their heart unless you’ve been given permission.” The Calvinist prays and affirms biblical truth consistently.

Gadfly's understanding regarding this issue is about as limited as the "L" in Tulip.

They are the functionaly the same because they share (in his opinion as he states) a similar aspect of theology? :laugh:
Your sourse is ... inaccurate AND mistaken.

I will say this once more, The SBC nor any of the Pastors you flipantly set forth as the Gadfly did, DO NOT hold to Arminianism and therefore CAN NOT BE "funuctionally Arminian" by stating they have a similar attribute!! You must hold to Arminian theology to "function" as an Arminian that it may be considered to be employed in an Arminian way.

We do not hold to Universal Redemption - as in
"Christ's redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone.."
We believe
Christ's redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved (though not all will), but it did SECURE the salvation of those whom he foreknew.
It is Universal Atonement but Specific Redemption.

We also deny the Arminian version of Resistable Grace. Specifically this:
"He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation."
NO
The Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, His righteousness, and His judgment to come AND Reveals Christ Jesus who brings grace and truth. He does NOT do EVERYTHING HE CAN, but does that which His ministry constrains Him to due by the Will of the Father. IF the Holy Spirit did all He could do, we would see miricles, blessings, supernatural insights operating toward every single person of the world to bring them to salvation. No, the Holy Spirit is to fulfill His ministry of convicting the world of sin, His Righteousness and His Judgment to come AND reveals Christ Jesus who brings grace and truth to a world of sinful and wicked men.

And of course we deny the forfieture of Salvaiton
and the newer model of loosing your salvation.

It is hard to be Arminian when you deny 3 of the 5 points - agreed?? (I say 3 because CLASSICAL Arminiianism holds to Total Depravity otherwise it would be 4 out of 5)

PS> It say NOTHING about the SBC there

 

[npetreley]

[SIZE=-1]Dr. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the SBC. You won't find an iota of Arminianism or free-willism in Albert Mohler.

[/SIZE]

 

[Allan]

[SIZE=-1]Dr. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the SBC. You won't find an iota of Arminianism or free-willism in Albert Mohler.

[/SIZE]

:laugh: WIthout question, I agree :laugh:

The SBC IS NOT Arminian in it's soterology, because each church has it's own theology in the Covention. Thus it is made up of many variaties but all holding to essentials of scriputure and basics for Baptist polity.

Actaully the SBC isn't even technecally a denomination but a Covention, but since we are so big it is consistantly refered by those outside the SBC as a denomination. But that is neither here nor there.

 

[npetreley]

Actaully the SBC isn't even technecally a denomination but a Covention, but since we are so big it is consistantly refered by those outside the SBC as a denomination. But that is neither here nor there.

Well, if it's neither here nor there, then you shouldn't have said this:

That's precisely why I listed the SBC as an Arminian denomination.

Furthermore, when Mohler became president, he required all faculty to agree to an Abstract of Principles, which includes election and total depravity. Many people at the Baptist Theological Seminary left or were fired because they refused to agree to the principles.

I can only confirm from experience that most SBC churches I've attended are packed with free-willers, led by free-willer pastors. But these pastors were a product of the seminary before Mohler, which had become infected with liberalism. That's why Mohler required people to agree to and sign the confession (Abstract of Principles).

IMO, many pastors tend to parrot whatever they're taught without actually drawing their own conclusions from the Bible. If this is true (it would be sad if true, but IMO, it is true), then the SBC will eventually become functionally Calvinist, because they'll parrot what the leading seminary taught them. It's still sad that pastors parrot what they're taught, but at least they'll be teaching the truth.

 

[Allan]

Well, if it's neither here nor there, then you shouldn't have said this:

I didn't say that, Exam did.
HE listed the SBC as Arminian.
I stated:

I can say the SBC is NOT Arminain in the Soterology...

Furthermore, when Mohler became president, he required all faculty to agree to an Abstract of Principles, which includes election and total depravity. Many people at the Baptist Theological Seminary left or were fired because they refused to agree to the principles.

I can only confirm from experience that most SBC churches I've attended are packed with free-willers, led by free-willer pastors. But these pastors were a product of the seminary before Mohler, which had become infected with liberalism. That's why Mohler required people to agree to and sign the confession (Abstract of Principles).

IMO, many pastors tend to parrot whatever they're taught without actually drawing their own conclusions from the Bible. If this is true (it would be sad if true, but IMO, it is true), then the SBC will eventually become functionally Calvinist, because they'll parrot what the leading seminary taught them. It's still sad that pastors parrot what they're taught, but at least they'll be teaching the truth.

Agree that in many Colleges and Seminaries they are not as they aught to be and create many parrots like ministers but by the same token, we must train our ministers up in accordance with our scriptural understanding so we do not train up every wind of doctrine. That is why I am thankful they are teaching truth even now.

 

[Allan]

BTW - I thought this thread was about Luther on Atonement.

OR

Is it about Exam.s website of who is Calvinistic and who is Arminian??

 

[npetreley]

I didn't say that, Exam did.
HE listed the SBC as Arminian.

Sorry, my bad. I got my replies mixed up.

 

[Allan]

Sorry, my bad. I got my replies mixed up.

np, np.

(no prob), np :laugh:

Yes, I know my jokes are bad.

 

[npetreley]

np, np.

(no prob), np :laugh:

Yes, I know my jokes are bad.

I thought that was pretty good, actually. :laugh:

 

[examiningcalvinism]

Allan

Did you get your definitions of Arminianism from a cracker-jacks box, or from an actual Arminian source? I am holding a copy of Roger Olson's book, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities if you would like for me to be your Professor and clear up your errors about what is truly Arminian Theology.

Does the SBC profess Total Depravity taught by Classical Arminians?

Yes, as per Adrian Rogers.

Does the SBC teach Arminian Prevenient Grace or Calvinistic Irresistible Grace?

Prevenient Grace, as per Adrian Rogers. Quotes are available.

Does the SBC teach Unconditional Election?

Not according to Adrian Rogers. Quotes are available.

Does the SBC teach that God's foreknowledge is Deterministic?

Not according to Jerry Vines. (the quote is on the website).

Does Arminianism teach Conditional Security?

Yes, for the Modern Arminians, but not the Classical Arminians, such as myself, nor the Remonstrants as documented.

Does Arminianism teach Universal Redemption?

No. They teach a universal purchase with redemption in Christ, as per Robert Shank's book, Elect in the Son.

Does Arminianism teach a Substitutionary Atonement?

Yes, as per Roger Olson.

All of these things add up to show that the SBC is much more inline with Arminianism than Calvinism. Have a nice day.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

I asked a Yes/No question, and you gave no answer, which in effect is an answer. I realize that Lutherans have nuances on Calvinism, and Calvinism is broad enough to cover it under its big tent. Have I discussed this with Lutherans? Of course I have, and one Lutheran stated that on the matter of Unconditional Election and God's Sovereignty, he stood in agreement with another Calvinist.

True, which even you conceded. True, as agreed by Sprugeon, and as documented as "Lutheranism" in the wikipedia reference.
True, which Lutherans teach as Monergism.
True

What did I ever concede? You are a stubborn aren't you? I guess Lutherans are crypto-calvinists because some guy with a website says so :laugh:

Here's what I've discovered to be your new definition of an already useless word: "calvinism."

according to the examiningcalvinism guy, "calvinism" includes any form of "monergism," "unconditional election," and "God's Sovereignty." Well that's as specific as you can get isn't it?

Hey, why don't you sign up Augustine for your website, since his views are closer to Luther's than Reformed orthodoxy. Given your sloppy methodology you could proclaim that the Roman Catholic Church after the Council of Orange was a prominent calvinistic denomination. If someone points out the various differences, I'm sure some source on the Internet or a quote from a pastoral sermon can help you out in defending your position.

I'm not surprised that you see no difference between Lutheran and Reformed theology, you're methodology has been sloppy in most of your posts here giving people anachronistic labels and inventing doctrines for dead people. I can only imagine the details of your website.

Your cocky post above in response to Allan is humorous given the source.

 

[Allan]

Did you get your definitions of Arminianism from a cracker-jacks box, or from an actual Arminian source? I am holding a copy of Roger Olson's book, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities if you would like for me to be your Professor and clear up your errors about what is truly Arminian Theology.

I'd back up just a bit if I were you. You don't know me from adam and you could very well walk right into My Classroom. So pretend your not the high and mighty, alright?

Second - I had some fun with your posting of Calvinist Gadfly. Those definitions are from their websight of what Arminians believe. You know, the theology those preachers such as Adrian Rogers, Ergun Caner, and such...

So much for your...sourse.

Yes, as per Adrian Rogers.

Prevenient Grace, as per Adrian Rogers. Quotes are available.

Not according to Adrian Rogers. Quotes are available.

Not according to Jerry Vines. (the quote is on the website).

Yes, for the Modern Arminians, but not the Classical Arminians, such as myself, nor the Remonstrants as documented.

No. They teach a universal purchase with redemption in Christ, as per Robert Shank's book, Elect in the Son.

Yes, as per Roger Olson.

All of these things add up to show that the SBC is much more inline with Arminianism than Calvinism. Have a nice day.

First: being "much more in line with Arminianism than Calvinism" is not the same as being Arminian.

Second: is that these men do not speak for the SBC of which this is actaully about.

The SBC is not Arminian, regardless of your opinion and that of Calvinist Gadfly.
They are not the functionaly the same because they share a similar aspect of theology.

In your line of reasoning anyone not not Calvinistic/Reforned is Arminian. You need more schooling before you become anyones professor.


BTW - Total Depravity doesn't come from Classical Arminianism, it is Classical Calvinism. It is a point they both agreed upon but was first documented as Calvinistic aspect.

 

[Allan]

Again - I thought this thread was about Luther on Atonement.

OR

Is it about Exam.s website of who is Calvinistic and who is Arminian??

 

[Jarthur001]

Allan,

Strange as it may seem, I just deleted a post that, other then your opening line, read nearly word for word as yours.

great minds

I would add one thing. The SBC seems to flow back and forth over a time frame of 20-30 years. At the moment, the Calvinism side seems to be growing. This after 20-30 years of Arminian slant.

 

[Jarthur001]

Again - I thought this thread was about Luther on Atonement.

OR

Is it about Exam.s website of who is Calvinistic and who is Arminian??

ummm... wait...Is this a trick question?

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Again - I thought this thread was about Luther on Atonement.

OR

Is it about Exam.s website of who is Calvinistic and who is Arminian??

I'm partially complicit Allan. My first reply addressed Luther on the atonement. Unfortunately, the only part of my reply that the OP cared about was my postscript that bickered over whether he should call Lutherans "calvinistic," of which it is obvious to me that they are not.

Perhaps I'll launch two websites: www.definingcalvinismandarminianism.com and www.examininglutheranism.com

On second thought, I think I've got better things to do like searching boxes of cracker jacks for theological tips. I hear that has worked for you.

 

[Allan]

I'm partially complicit Allan. My first reply addressed Luther on the atonement. Unfortunately, the only part of my reply that the OP cared about was my postscript that bickered over whether he should call Lutherans "calvinistic," of which it is obvious to me that they are not.

Perhaps I'll launch two websites: www.definingcalvinismandarminianism.com and www.examininglutheranism.com

On second thought, I think I've got better things to do like searching boxes of cracker jacks for theological tips. I hear that has worked for you.

Apparently not, but the Cracker-Jacks were good :thumbs: :laugh: