Do Lutherans consider Calvinists heretical, heterodox, or what?

EPISODE #22: Ted asks Rod about how Lutherans view Calvinists and their doctrine. Rod talks about what he was taught about the differences and speaks about his history with Mike Horton on the White Horse Inn radio program, and what he thinks is the most important focus of both camps. youtu.be/
SHOW NOTES:
“Wittenberg vs. Geneva” by Pastor Brian Thomas
www.amazon.com/Wittenberg-vs-...
“Between Wittenberg and Geneva” by Robert Kolb and Carl Trueman
www.amazon.com/Between-Witten...
Support the show - www.1517.org/donate
Subscribe to the podcast now on your favorite podcast software!
podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
===
/ talkswithdadrod
/ talkswithdadrod
/ talkswithdadrod

[@THEBURKEMASTER2010]

This is such a breath of fresh air. Especially coming from a Calvinist who heavily uses 1517. And is becoming curious about the Lutheran faith.

[@justinscherrer1793]

Same!

[@caedmonnoeske3931]

No! Don't go! Don't trust these trixy Lutherans!😂😂

[@mathete9968]

I listened several times to "The Romans Revolution" series that the White Horse Inn produced. And there is very much that I appreciated about it and learned from it. (There were a small handful of problems in comments also). Notwithstanding, I respect the calibre of the men and their thinking and the many true points they raised. Nevertheless a few things ought to be said. I was a former baptist, and at that time, I was influenced by certain Calvinist and semi Calvinist doctrines. But I was also first and foremost a Bible believing Christian. And as such, my loyalty is to Christ and not man. And therefore, I was determined to prove all the doctrines by Scripture alone. However, the more I tried to prove baptist doctrine from the proof texts they adduce, the more I saw those passages fall apart at a Grammatical level in the original Koine Greek. For: "Whoso errs in grammar, blunders in theology" This one principle alone simply astonished me and went more than 50% of the way to delivering me from that "doctrinal" delusion. But I was also influenced by Chiliasm and some of the distinctly Calvinist and semi Calvinist ideas I had been exposed to during those years. It was through gaining an understanding of the Rules of Scripture Exposition that I was brought to see, one by one, that these teachings are all false. By God's grace I was delivered from Calvinism and millennialism "baptist" and reformed doctrines. So I take exception to parts of this discussion in the following grounds: - Those who are truly "Baptists and Presbyterians" CANNOT use or CONFESS or ACCEPT and BELIEVE the Nicene Creed when it states: "I believe in One Baptism FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS" - We can certainly respect other Christians. By Dr Rosenblatt of all people should know that Missouri once held and taught the Bible Doctrine of Church fellowship which requires unity of doctrine in ALL POINTS - (Romans 16:17, 18; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Jeremiah 15:19; 23:28) (See also : The Brief Statement of 1932 - LCMS) - Although it has become common to play loose and fast with certain Bible terminology, such as "Heresy", we have no right to destroy the Bible definition of that word. The Apostle instructs us to speak God's Word Alone (1 Peter 4:11) - Sola Scriptura. The word "heresy" comes from roots that refer to holding "opinions" and "options" and is condemned in Scripture as a work of the flesh (Galatians 5:19, 20). It is further true that Missouri synod departed in 1945 from the historic position on this point. (See: The Statement of the 44). So "heresy" encompasses ALL FALSE TEACHING. And while some heresies are called DAMNABLE HERESIES in Scripture (2 Peter 2:1), all Doctrines of man taught alongside (παρα) Apostolic Doctrine is indeed HERESY. And those who teach it are to be MARKED and AVOIDED (Romans 16:17, 18). This is not to say that those who, in ignorance, teach heresy ALONGSIDE the truth are not Christians. Rather, a true Christian who knows the truth, cannot join in with false teachers or allow their doctrines. He must MARK and AVOID. This does not refer to friendships, but it does relate to joining false teaching churches in formal fellowship in the sense of communion and formal church membership. Therefore thus saith the LORD, IF THOU RETURN, then will I BRING THEE AGAIN, and THOU SHALT STAND before ME: and IF THOU TAKE FORTH THE PRECIOUS from the VILE, THOU SHALT BE as MY MOUTH. LET THEM RETURN UNTO THEE; BUT RETURN NOT THOU UNTO THEM. (Jeremiah 15:19) The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream. And, HE THAT HATH MY WORD, LET HIM SPEAK MY WORD FAITHFULLY. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the LORD. (Jeremiah 23:28)

[@mathete9968]

​@@caedmonnoeske3931You have no idea what you are talking about. So DEFEND YOUR CLAIM. What exactly is "untrustworthy" about them?

[@caedmonnoeske3931]

@@mathete9968 Damn, I guess you've never heard of sarcasm. I mean, I AM a Calvinist. However, I hold the Lutheran faith in extremely high regard and wouldn't really have a problem with someone hopping from Geneva to Wittenberg. God bless!

[@Chilubans]

As an elder in the PCA, let me just say you guys are killing it with these videos and everything you do! Also, your set for these videos is amazing (I see those pipes!). Thank you for your graciousness and thank you Dr. Rod for the wealth of knowledge you have shared over the years that has enriched my walk.

[@pamwehking2457]

I attended my first 1517 Conference in SandyEggo in 2019. I came w/ my niece w/o knowing what I was getting into!That was not a great year for me. I lost my only son to suicide in April and had not received much in the the way of support. As a former LCMS teacher & DCE, I was broken but never did I feel abandoned by God. My days following the loss of Ryan were much the same as Chad(Bird) recounts following his loss of Luke. Though I am no scholar, I have done my fair share of time 🎉as a child and as a servant. It was the gentle love from a local Baptist pastor that allowed me to grieve and scar, anonymously, for the past 3 1/2 yrs, in his church. I so appreciate your talks! And I can hardly wait for October when 1517 resumes and you are back to feeding us! Thank you so much!

[@tedrosenbladt9976]

@Pam Wehking Thank you very much for sharing that. Truly, hearing the news of Chad's son has deeply affected me, far more than I expected. My heart breaks for those who have to go through a horrible loss like you and he have. Lord, have mercy! Yet, I am VERY thankful for that faithful Baptist pastor who shepherded you down that dark path. We're so glad you're here joining us and that you find our content helpful. And, yes, we are VERY excited to be able to get together again this year in October. Spending that time among one another is more than encouraging... it always feels like God allows heaven and earth to meet for a brief time. It's 3 of the fastest days of the year. But I'm also so glad we get to do it every year. God's peace and consolation be to you, in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ. Amen.

[@jjjsalang]

I am sorry to hear that you lost your son. May God be with you in mind and heart, day and night.

[@ericverby6969]

I joined an LCMS church for a year after hearing Dad Rod on WHI. Since then I’ve been mostly part of Reformed churches and circles, currently part of an OPC church for 15 years. But I still have affinity for Lutheran theology, teachers and distinctives. Keep up the great work!

[@paulsmallwood1484]

Nice to see a place on you tube where anathemas are not being hurled against one another.

[@howardbabcom]

Mike's defence of Sola Fide at the 'What Still Devides Us?' conference in Pasadena in the early 90s was one of the most vital moments I have witnessed, and the White Horse Inn and all that CURE has done is so helpful - it introduced me to Dr Rosenbladt and to the treasures of Lutheranism, so I am deeply grateful for Mike and Rod. It will be a joy to sit with them at table in the new creation.

[@lc-mschristian5717]

Love y'alls videos. Thank you and God's peace be with you all.

[@TheDroc1990]

We watch alot of the same videos lol. God Bless.

[@618society7]

The doctrine of limited atonement denies the very work of Christ. How can we call someone who affirms that vicious doctrine a brother in Christ? I’m really asking the question.

[@reformedcatholic457]

I have a high respect for Lutherans, I have even started reading the commentaries and Luther's large catechism. I think it's important to learn from the other point of view and not have a narrow view.

[@TheDroc1990]

Hey man did you say in a recent video that you were feeling Luthers view on Baptism? God Bless

[@StephenGibney]

Tell me about Dads view of the Puritans.

[@andypatscot7737]

At one point in the history of Lutheranism did it drift from the reformed position of Martin Luther?

[@SolaScriptura21]

I wont lie, the title got me to watch.

[@janicecisco725]

excellent.... we are different in some ways....but we are still on the same page

[@Rich-vp4ih]

Confessional Lutherans and Calvinists are so close on justification and imputation, I'm having a hard time deciding. BTW, I was at that Reformation II conference in 1987 at Biola and it was there our Lord began shaking off my Arminian shackles

[@coreyellerbe]

I really wish that Reformed churches would go back to the classical Reformed theology and ditch the stuff like Piper, Washer, etc. (New Calvinism).

[@stephenclem1045]

I'm a Baptist and I truly love Lutherans. I grew up under the Calvinistic umbrella and have always been taught that baptism is not necessary for salvation because that would be salvation (at least partially) by works which is contrary to Ephesians 2:8-9, but rather it is an act of obedience and a sign of our identity in Christ. But when I read for myself "repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins" as a response to "What must we do?", I thought ever since that perhaps we could be wrong about baptism. If baptism isn't necessary for salvation, why would Peter answer in this way? Thankfully I am baptized and we take baptism very seriously but I believe that you guys could be right. But I don't know if I can accept the literal physical presence of Christ's body and blood in the communion. I would have to agree more with Calvin that Christ is only present in spirit. I'm open to having my mind changed though. Any thoughts? "Edit: fixed a typo"

[@tedrosenbladt9976]

@Stephen Clem We are, as you would expect, very clear on the differences between us and our Reformed brothers and sisters. ALWAYS the final hurdle people struggle with (and this includes people in other denominations as well), when it comes to considering Lutheran doctrine, is the sacraments. We hear from all kinds. And inasmuch as we are not here to convert people to Lutheranism, we DO want to bring the sense of peace that Dad brings with Lutheranism. Multiple times I've compared it to an image of sitting with a beloved grandfather, in whose eyes you can do no wrong, who loves to have you sit on the floor next to him in his big chair in front of his giant fireplace to listen to him read and tell stories until you're conked out on the floor, only to be carried to bed for one of the best night's sleep of your life. And then waking bright and shiny in the morning to coffee and cocoa and sweet bread breakfast things with the same grandfather joyfully greeting you as though he couldn't wait for you to wake up and join him. THAT is the spirit of my father's house, and the spirit of Lutheranism that I grew up in. And I have many brothers and sisters in that. So, if part of our audience just can't agree with our position on the sacraments, that's fine. We're not here to correct that. We're here to remind you of the sound of the ever loving kindness in Christ and His Gospel. We would like that beauty to steal on the ears of the faithful once again, regardless of denomination. And in that, I hope you continue to join us and stay in touch with us.

[@stephenclem1045]

@@tedrosenbladt9976 Amen! This is exactly the reason why I love you guys so much.

[@Window4503]

I guess I’d say that the Bible doesn’t say Christ is present only in spirit but that the bread is declared to be his body and his wine the blood. So it simply is. Paul says when we have communion, we proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Just as a mirror reflects the light of a lamp (physically those same photons from the lamp bounce off the reflective surface) yet is not the source of light itself, so the bread and the wine are reflections/channels of the real body and blood, not transformed or sacrificed multiple times but once for all from that central point of history.

[@Window4503]

I guess I’d say that the Bible doesn’t say Christ is present only in spirit but that the bread is declared to be his body and his wine the blood. So it simply is. Paul says when we have communion, we proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Just as a mirror reflects the light of a lamp (physically those same photons from the lamp bounce off the reflective surface) yet is not the source of light itself, so the bread and the wine are reflections/channels of the real body and blood, not transformed or sacrificed multiple times but once for all from that central point of history.

[@mathete9968]

I feel for you, truly I do. I am a recovered Baptist . I put that delusional doctrine behind me many years ago . Back then I was determined to "prove" the Baptist doctrine from Scripture once and for all . But the more I went to the so called "proof texts", the more I saw them fall apart at the grammatical level .... And the old proverb holds true: "Whosoever errs in grammar, Blunders in theology" The Greek grammar, not only does not support Baptist opinions. It actually refutes it . One of the most eye opening books I read was Dr Daniel Featley's "The Dippers Dipped ...." He was one of the original King James Bible translators. And Dr Featley met and debated the very first baptists in human history in the year 1642, in London These new Baptists were full blown Calvinists and had left the Anglican church which has separated ultimately from Rome . In any case, the famous Baptist Historian , Leon McBeth admits that no true Baptists existed definitely prior to 1641. It was simply a new religion . What is more, Dr Featley proved that Baptist doctrine is nothing more than a private interpretation of the various paraphrases found in the KJV. It's a wrested interpretation based in very poor translations , perpetuated particularly by the English speaking world , but also by other Europeans

[@tygerhoods5222]

I'll never grasp, how we can with a straight face say "a group that denies Christ died for all is not Heterodox". That's a pretty big deal, but people (we Lutherans) want to play nice with the reformed so much we seem to gloss over it. This is why i love the Saxon Articles.

[@jacobthornblad4684]

So I am a calvanist and I think people misunderstand this doctrine a lot. Yes I believe that God has chosen a certain number of people. But there is a certain number of everything. Grains of sand on the earth are numbered, hairs on our head are numbered, etc etc. Basically anyone that receives Christ through the regeneration of the spirit IS part of the elect. We don’t know who is part of the elect and who is not, so what we do is we preach the Christ crucified gospel to everybody and make it available to everyone because that is what we are called to do Also weather you believe in calvanism of Lutheranism. At the end of the day God is sovereign and knows who will be saved and who will not. Therefore all of us who believe in Jesus can rest in our salvation

[@severalstories3420]

Jacob Thornblad How many people do you love?

[@robreich6881]

Only universalists believe Christ absolved everyones sins on the cross, so everyone limits the atonement who isn’t a universalist.

[@robreich6881]

@@severalstories3420 If God loves everyone equally why doesn’t he grant everyone the grace to believe?

[@Window4503]

@@robreich6881 Read John 3:16 again. Faith becomes personally ours by faith. That doesn’t negate Jesus dying for everyone. People will be judged by whether they believe in Christ and if they rejected his payment, not whether Jesus actually died for their sins (which he did).

[@carolbest5660]

I’ve listening to a lot of you all Lutherans and also Reformed I’m new coming out of the evangelical moralistic pietism But something about the Lutheran faith can’t really put in words Just much love and respect to my Lutheran brothers and sisters Look forward to learning more in both camps

[@thethikboy]

I wish Dad would let go of the cell phone.

[@lberlen9644]

Mike and Kim my guess

[@jeremylamont1855]

I would like to have seen more discussion proceeding from "heretical, no..." discussion to "...but heterodox, yes." Lutherans have a long (and sometimes violent) history with the significance of difference in belief with the radical reformers (see Prussian Union, etc). And I understand the need and desire to be genial and brotherly, but I think it is important to really understand the actual differences in doctrine (more significant than mere "disagreements", with all due respect Dr Rod) between Lutheranism and Calvinism/Zwinglianism/Reformed teachings. These differences DO affect the Gospel. If, as Reformed teaching holds, you can't rightly walk up to any human and tell them that Christ died for THEIR sins... then we do not share the same Gospel. Spreading bad doctrine, especially one that undermines that proclamation of the Gospel, is a sin, and should be indicated as such, especially in a video like this. Are there differences? Yes. Are they significant? YES. We must give other people lots of breathing room for being misled and confused, and I'd agree that Reformed people are not damned for a wrong understanding... but false teachers also need to be acknowledged as such.

[@1517org]

What was the purpose of the White Horse Inn radio program which Dad did with Mike Horton, and others, for over 30 years? What were the greatest benefits of that show? How did they handle the differences in their doctrines that made the show such a success for so long? White Horse Inn is THE paradigm to use in regard to this discussion. - Ted

[@jacobthornblad4684]

As a calvanist I think you’re misunderstanding the reformed view of election I don’t know who God has elected or not. But I do know that if someone accepts Christ by the regeneration of the spirit then they are FOR SURE saved If I were to go door to door and share the gospel, I would know from scripture that anyone that genuinely accepts Christ’s is indeed part of the elect

[@jacobthornblad4684]

We preach the gospel to EVERYBODY even though we do not know who will receive it. BUT we do know that everyone who does is chosen by God

[@jeremylamont1855]

@@jacobthornblad4684 Thanks for the comment. I think I've got a passing good grasp on Calvinist soteriology, and whether you preach the Gospel to someone (and we'd have to talk about what Calvinist doctrine and belief is with respect to the word "gospel" also), the problem is that Scripture says Christ died effectively for that person, and no matter how earnest or heartfelt a Calvinist is, he or she (like you said) can't be sure and can't pass along the promise of Christ's salvation for that person WHOEVER it is. That's a big important difference--and, as a Lutheran, we'd say a deviation from Scripture--between us.

[@jacobthornblad4684]

@@jeremylamont1855 I would argue that we can preach to everyone that Christ died for their sins because as I said before, anyone who receives Christ is indeed elected by God. When I did street evangelism with my friends I totally preached “come to Jesus, repent and you WILL be saved” It is my job to carry the gospel to everyone, and it’s Gods job to change the heart. The whole “I don’t want to tell everyone that Christ died for their sins because I don’t want to give hope to the non elect” is hyper calvanism and I don’t think it’s biblical Yes I do believe in predestination, but I also know for a fact that Jesus commands us to preach the gospel to the nations Also because we do not know who Is elect and who is not, I definitely don’t think it’s wrong to preach the same gospel to EVERYONE we meet. Even though we don’t know ALL who God is chosen, we do know some. Everyone you know that believes is chosen, you are chosen, I am chosen. Etc. We don’t know who is chosen or not but we do know that anyone who receives is chosen. Therefore I do not think a calvanist like me is lying when they tell people that if they repent and follow Jesus than they will be saved

[@TheTheologizingSubject]

What about objective Justification

[@henrka]

Objective justification was the toughest doctrine for me to grasp. For a long time I felt it was heretical,, or at least I did not think it was the gospel, but it is. To proclaim that Christ has forgiven the sins of all men ever born at Calvary, Judas included, is the gospel and must be preached to all the world. The Reformed would cringe at this as I did up until very recently when I realized that the gospel is a declaration that our sins were forgiven at Calvary and it is a command to all men to believe this. Calvinists reject it, and by doing so they reject the gospel.

[@BeniaminZaboj]

@@henrka They don't reject the gospel becasue they belive in all what they need to be saved - salvation trought Justyfication of Christ; they don't need to understand "objetive justification where Judas is included"; Gospel is celarly defined by Apostoles. Humble yourselfes and don't accuse ridiciously members of Christ body.

[@henrka]

@@BeniaminZaboj I agree that believing in universal objective justification is not necessary for salvation, I do not believe in universal objective justification either, just recently changed my position on it. That said there are many calvinists, i.e. the puritans, that lacked assurance of salvation because instead of looking at Jesus they looked inside themselves to see if their hearts were cleansed and they had good works. Many calvinists, confuse law and gospel, and doubt their salvation. Furthermore it is difficult for them to offer the gospel freely to all men, as the Marrow controversy showed. Even to this day a very high number of calvinists still deny the free offer of the gospel, John Murray's articulation of the free offer of the gospel is still opposed by many calvinists. That is not just problematic, but highly so. The other issue I recently noticed in calvinism is that they do not affirm 6-day creation, not even Michael Horton does, and this causes me to wonder whether this people have saving faith or not. Just recently Horton made certain statements on how to deal with the LGBTQ community that are serious cause for concern. I am not going to pass judgment on this people, but I have serious concerns with their theology and what they believe.

[@oracleoftroy]

​@@henrka I'm not sure what you mean by all our sins being forgiven at the cross. So anyone who is sent to the lake of fire is legally innocent and forgiven in God's eyes, but God sends them there anyway? That seems to be the implications, unless you want to stray into universalism. In my understanding, the reprobate do not have their sins forgiven and pay for them themselves. That seems to be the 'wage' their works earn them throughout scripture.

[@mathete9968]

@@henrka The best Scripture texts to establish Objective Justification are: - Psalm 85:3 - Zephaniah 3:15 - Isaiah 12:1 - Hosea 14:4 - Ezekiel 16:63 - 2 Corinthians 5:19 Consider now Psalm 85:3 Thou hast taken away ALL THY WRATH: Thou hast turned thyself from the FIERCENESS OF THINE ANGER. Think about it. This is the language of PROPITITATION. - First we must have a reconciled God whose wrath has been propitiated (Romans 3:24-26; 1 John 2:2) - Then we can have sinners subjectively forgiven all their iniquities on account of Christ (Psalm 85:2; 1 John 1:7) Ask yourself: Why is God "FAITHFUL" and "JUST" to FORGIVE us our sins and to CLEANSE us from all iniquity? (1 John 1:7) Answer: - God is FAITHFUL because he promised and has sworn with an oath (Ezekiel 33:11; 2 Timothy 2:13) - God is JUST because he has set forth Christ to be the PROPITIATION of the sins of the WHOLE WORLD (Romans 3:24-26; 1 John 2:2) And IF God was in Christ, reconciling the WORLD UNTO HIMSELF (2 Corinthians 5:19) THEN we truly have a Gospel to preach to ALL sinners Calvinism has no Gospel whatsoever. They cannot preach to any individual that Christ has died for YOUR SINS. Calvinists must ultimately look to their supposed "faith" in order to trust whether they are saved. They cannot say with certainty FROM SCRIPTURE ALONE that Christ has died for my sins. Indeed Calvinists cannot FROM SCRIPTURE that they have a propitiated God. They have to infer this from their subjective faith rather than an objective declaration of scripture. Their faith rests not in the external Word but actually in their subjective, "perceived" faith. And that is no foundation at all. True Christians indeed possess saving faith. But it lays "EXTRA NOS" - Outside ourselves in the Written WORD, by which we may say: ALL WE like sheep HAVE GONE ASTRAY; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him THE INIQUITY OF US ALL. (Isaiah 53:6) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself A RANSOM FOR ALL, to be testified in due time. (1 Timothy 2:5) Having a reconciled God, we can subjectively apply the Gospel to those objectively justified so that they may receive subjective justification through faith (Romans 3:24-26) Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered all their sin. Thou hast taken away all thy wrath. Thou hast turned thyself from the fierceness of thine anger. (Psalm 85:2, 3)

[@Edward-ng8oo]

Luther said the following: "The Holy Spirit does not permit Himself to be separated or divided so that He would teach or have us believe one doctrine truly and another falsely. Exceptions (of course) are the weak who are ready to be instructed and do not contradict maliciously. Otherwise, if it would be permitted that anyone could without harm to himself deny one article and regard all others as true (though really that is impossible) then no heretic could be condemned,...(p.92, True Visible Church, CFW Walther) Given the fact that Luther argued for the truth of double predestination in The Bondage of the Will, he would have regarded confessional Lutherans as heretics, because they're completely opposed to predestination to hell. The fact that many confessional Lutherans attempt to deny that Luther taught double predestination in this book when it's clear that he did, is evidence to me that they don't have the Holy Spirit, because if they had the Holy Spirit they wouldn't try to deny this, assuming they'd read it and weren't just repeating hearsay. I agree that Christ's atonement is universal but at the same time I also hold with Luther that only those who have been chosen by the Father in eternity and who He draws to Christ will be saved (John 6). The remainder having not been drawn to Christ are therefore predestined to be dammed as Romans 9 teaches. (I'm in agreement with the doctrines contained in the Book of Concord except for the doctrines of single predestination and the universal operation of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace in the Formula of Concord.)

[@mathete9968]

You are mistaken friend. You are reading into Luther's words what he simply doesn't say. Especially from P. 317 of Luther's Bondage of the Will (Clark & Co. Edition). You haven't understood "the sense" (Nehemiah 8:8). To understand Luther you must compare "Luther with Luther" (cf 1 Corinthians 2:13). So I suggest reading Luther's handling of Predestination in his commentary on Romans . Throw in his preface also while you are at it. On the preface to Romans he admonishes not to search for Predestination outside of the progression of Romans 1--->8 by way of experiencially lived out order from chapter 1 onwards. And by way of lived out experience, step by step. And Romans 1----> 8 teaches no double Predestination. To understand Luther on Foreordaination (Bondage of the Will, P. 317), I suggest you look up Muller's Dogmatics pp. 169, 170, 177 , Concordia Publishing House. In so doing you should come to realise that you are viewing Luther through artificial Calvinist glasses. Your pre-existing presuppositions of what you have chosen to believe are colouring your reading of Luther. Luther is not using the vocabulary in the same way as Is evident from Muller's use of the sane vocabulary. I know reformed writings and the use of the vocabulary is not the same. But there is just one problem, Luther everywhere teaches differently in his writings . HOWEVER, it's really irrelevant what Luther or any other man should teach. And I am constantly astonished at all those who go running to Luther, or any other man for authority. It remains written: Cursed be the man that TRUSTS IN MAN, and maketh flesh his arm (Jeremiah 17:5) Do you not see that this applies also to Luther ? And do you not realise that this applies to all men ? And do you not see that this curse applies to you inasmuch as you are seeking your authority from Luther ? I have long been accustomed to proving NOTHING except by the Biblical Principle of Sola Scriptura. Why would I appeal to Luther as though I could justify departing from Scripture? Even Paul called himself accursed if he should deviate in the slightest from the Objective Word of the Gospel. (1 Peter 4:11; Jeremiah 23:28; 1 Corinthians 2:13, Galatians 1:8, 9) You CANNOT prove double Predestination from Romans chapters 8 and 9. All you are left with is your arguments. But you can only wrest Scripture (2 Peter 3:16). The APOSTLE simply uses completely different expressions in Romans 8 and 9 and he switches between verb tenses also . Such that he only speaks specifically of Predestination to salvation regarding the elect, never of the non elect. And he always uses God's working in time to refer to his operations in the lives of the non elect. And these operations are judicial consequences of sins in real time, not Predestination to act out such consequences. Calvinism involves making God the author and finisher of sin. And it is a blasphemous religion.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@@mathete9968 ​I've just recently been replying below another video concerning Luther's defence of double predestination in The Bondage of the Will so I'm going to repeat some of my replies here in answer to you: Luther maintained in The Bondage of the Will that God’s foreknowledge necessitates everything that happens, and that everything is willed and predestined by God to happen and that there's no free will. This means that God causes both good and evil things to happen but isn't responsible for the sinfulness of actions as this is attributable only to man. Luther likened God’s role in bringing about evil through sinful men to a rider of lame horses in that the horses go badly which isn't the rider's fault. However there's no compulsion involved because when God moves evil people to act they sin willingly. One can see that in relation to Christ’s crucifixion where God had foreknown and predestined it to happen (Acts 2:23; 4:28) yet the Jews and Romans crucified Him willingly and not because they were forced to against their will. With respect to predestination to heaven and hell, Luther argued that God sends the Holy Spirit to irresistibly convert the elect so that they're predestined to be saved, but that He withholds the Holy Spirit from others who He has predestined to be damned. This is the teaching of Scripture in for instance John 6:64,65 where those who didn't believe in Christ were unbelievers because they hadn't been drawn to Christ by the Father through the Holy Spirit. Luther in commenting on Romans 9:19 wrote: …it would be pointless to introduce those who murmur against God the potter if the fault were seen to lie with the vessel and not with the potter. For who will complain if he hears that one deserving of damnation is being damned. (pp. 205, 206, Vol 33, Luther's Works) This shows that Luther understood Paul as meaning that God has decreed and predestined people's damnation, which is denied by Chemnitz in the FC who maintained that God doesn't prepare the vessels of wrath for damnation. Chemnitz maintained that the only cause of people's damnation is their refusal to believe the Gospel, whereas Luther denied that this was the only cause and maintained that God over and above this has predestined them to be damned by withholding the Holy Spirit from them. In a nutshell Chemnitz denied that God’s foreknowledge necessitates what happens whereas Luther maintained that it does, and therefore it's inescapable that Luther and Chemnitz disagreed on God’s foreknowledge and predestination.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@@mathete9968 Where I agree with you is over the fact that we don't know who God has elected to save by His hidden will, and that we can only have knowledge of this for ourselves according to whether we have faith in Christ because God has determined to save only those who have this faith which is worked in us by the Holy Spirit and isn't something we can obtain through free will. This much I agree with. However by maintaining that God hasn't predestined to be damned those who don't possess faith and affirming in effect that unbelief is caused by free will this invalidates the truth that conversion is worked in us monergistically by God without our cooperation. It does require cooperation if damnation is caused by resistance to the Holy Spirit as it involves us offering no resistance so that the Holy Spirit can regenerate us. So the position of the FC on conversion is an illogical combination of monergism and synergism. Monergism can only be true where God irresistibly converts only those He has elected to save by His hidden will. Also by saying that God wills to save everyone and no one is predestined to be damned and people alone are responsible for their damnation one is believing something illogical where God has elected to save only some people when He actually wills to save everyone. But if He actually willed to save everyone He would have elected to save everyone. The fact that He hasn't elected to save everyone shows that He doesn't will to save everyone (by His hidden will). Only according to God's revealed will can it be said that God desires everyone's salvation but this is no more than a desire. It doesn't determine anything. It merely offers reassurance to those who have been elected to be saved that God is favourable towards them and doesn't wish to damn them and won't damn them because they have faith in Christ. Romans 9 disproves the position of the FC on their being no predestination to hell. Paul likens God to a potter who forms not just vessels of honour but also vessels of dishonour. If single predestination was true (which logically it can't be) then Paul's analogy of the potter is wrong as God should have been likened to a potter who forms only vessels of honour. Simple logic also disproves single predestination as God can't choose (elect) to save only some people without also at the same time relegating the rest to be damned, which means He has predestined them to be damned as this can't happen without His will to damn them. The position of the FC on predestination can't be true in reality because it's illogical and nothing illogical can ever be true. The truth is that Chemnitz managed to convince people of the truth of single predestination because he misinterpreted Scripture in a very convincing way. He also managed to convince people that truth doesn't need to be logical through misinterpreting Romans 11:33. Paul however wasn't meaning that God can act illogically but only that we don't understand His ways.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

​@@mathete9968 But if God is robbed of the power and wisdom to elect, what will he be but the false idol, chance, at whose nod everything happens at random? And in the end it will come to this, that men are saved and damned without God’s knowledge, since he has not determined by his certain election who are to be saved and who damned,... (p. 171, ibid) Luther said this against Erasmus who was arguing that God doesn't determine and necessitate who is saved and damned but rather both are determined by free will, and Luther was commenting that if this was the case then God wouldn't elect people to be saved and damned because everything would just happen at random. Luther was affirming that God does elect people to be saved and damned, and wasn't just saying that God has this ability. Also since Luther said this in the context of stating that God wills and necessitates everything that happens from eternity it's undeniable that he’s affirming that people are saved and damned because He has elected some people to be saved and others to be damned. Nothing that Luther said in opposition to Erasmus would make any sense if it was the case that he was only affirming single predestination to heaven. Not only does Luther never affirm this but he makes plenty of statements in The Bondage of the Will which state that God is the cause of people’s damnation. I’ll quote a passage from The Bondage of the Will after this which affirms that God is the one who has determined that some will be damned, and it's not due to man's will that people are damned. Of course it's also true that people are damned because of their sins but the point is that God doesn't in their case elect and predestine them to be saved but rather elects to leave them in their sins so that they're damned. Luther denied that the Holy Spirit works universally in the Word and that conversion is resistible. His position was that the Holy Spirit is only operative through the Word (irresistibly) in those who He has elected and predestined to be saved, and those He has elected to be damned aren't the subjects of the Holy Spirit’s working, and can't be converted. See for instance what Luther says with respect to John 6:44 on pages 285-286 in Vol. 33. __________________ Admittedly, it gives the greatest possible offense to common sense or natural reason that God by his own sheer will should abandon, harden, and damn men as if he enjoyed the sins and the vast eternal torments of his wretched creatures, when he is preached as a God of such great mercy and goodness, etc. It has been regarded as unjust, as cruel, as intolerable, to entertain such an idea about God, and this is what has offended so many great men during so many centuries. And who would not be offended? I myself was offended more than once, and brought to the very depth and abyss of despair, so that I wished I had never been created a man, before I realized how salutary that despair was, and how near to grace. That is why there has been such sweating and toiling to excuse the goodness of God and accuse the will of man; (p. 190, ibid)

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@@mathete9968 ​In conclusion to his book against Erasmus Luther writes: I will here bring this little book to an end, though I am prepared if need be to carry the debate farther. However, I think quite enough has been done here to satisfy the godly and anyone who is willing to admit the truth without being obstinate. For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it (as reason itself is forced to admit), then on the testimony of reason itself there can't be any free choice in man or angel or any creature. (p. 293, ibid) This short passage summarises Luther's basic argument against Erasmus who argued that free will determines who is saved and damned. Essentially what Luther said in response is that everything is determined by God who has willed, foreknown and predestined everything that happens, which includes that people are predestined to be saved and damned, and so therefore logically there can't be any human free will operating in salvation and damnation. When Luther refers to the testimony of reason he's referring to the testimony of logical reasoning and not to human reason (i.e. common sense) which he castigated as the Devil's whore. Those who subscribe to the Formula of Concord on predestination are used to thinking of logical argument as not being determinative of the truth of a theological position, but this was anathema to Luther. He used logical argument against Erasmus to show that free will isn't true. He constantly refers to God's foreknowledge as necessitating what happens because God is omnipotent and works everything according to what He has willed to happen in eternity. Luther wouldn't have subscribed to the Formula of Concord as it denies that God’s foreknowledge necessitates what happens. Whether Martin Chemnitz (the main author of the FC) realised it or not (and I don't personally see how he couldn't have realised it) he directly contradicted Luther's position in The Bondage of the Will. Chemnitz denied that all things are predestined to happen by God and that His foreknowledge necessitates what happens. With respect to who I think is Scripturally right I side with Luther and against Chemnitz, which is why I hold that the FC teaches false doctrine. Also since I also agree with Luther that the Holy Spirit doesn't allow a person to believe false doctrine, with the exception of those who are misled through lack of instruction in the truth but open to being instructed in it, I conclude that Luther had the Holy Spirit and Chemnitz didn't. Chemnitz wasn't open to being corrected on predestination because he was vehemently opposed to God having predestined some to be damned, so I don't accept he was a true Christian.

[@chriskenney9073]

how could Lutherans not be Calvinists? Martin Luther's famous book, "The Bondage of the Will" is thoroughly Calvinistic?

[@matthaschanged]

Total depravity, or “the bondage of the will” is not limited to the Calvinist tradition

[@augustinian2018]

Don’t you mean how could Calvinists not be Lutheran? The Bondage of the Will is thoroughly Lutheran-it was written by Martin Luther, after all. It preceded Calvin’s thought by a decade or two. 😜 (On a more serious note, it would be more accurate to say that both Lutherans and Calvinists are Augustinian.)

[@robreich6881]

Luther is more similar to modern Calvinism when it comes to the doctrine of predestination specifically. Lutherans rejected Luther’s view.

[@caedmonnoeske3931]

Lutherans are monergistic and Augustinian, but they do differ from Calvinists on certain points of Soteriology. I would probably refer to Lutherans as "soft monergists" and Calvinists as "hard monergists".

[@mathete9968]

Then you have never understood "The Bondage of the Will" . But remember this: The doctrines of Predestination and Election are not Calvinist. Goodness, Huss and Wycliffe both taught these long before Calvin. And so did Luther ! Calvin simply plagiarised these doctrines and embellished the doctrine of Perseverance. Hence , there is no such thing as a 5 point Calvinist ! - Total Depravity is just a re-work or "Original Sin" - Unconditional Election is just the Biblical doctrine of election - Limited Atonement was never taught by Calvin. It was a false Gospel introduced by his successor, Theodore Beza. - Irresistible grace is also a heresy not supported by Scripture (Acts 7:51) - Perseverance of the saints in Calvinist circles is a lie . They falsify the Augustinian teaching on perseverance and Louis Berkhof is forced to admit this , albeit he too attempts to hide this fact . But, to return to your comment, Luther wrote The Bondage of the Will long before Calvin was active . And he simply stated how it 8s that God could redeem the world and choose the Elect whilst truly desiring the salvation of all mankind . This is the constant teaching of scripture on both sides ...and it's not rocket science

[@momiowa9509]

But Calvinist DO deny parts, chunks of the ecumenical creeds. Especially the Nicene.

[@oracleoftroy]

What parts would that be?

[@momiowa9509]

@@oracleoftroy "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins"

[@oracleoftroy]

@@momiowa9509 Care to look at the Reformed Confessions with me then? Presbyterian Reformed (Westminster Standards) Westminster Confession of Faith - Chapter 28: _Of Baptism_ 1. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, *of remission of sins,* and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His church until the end of the world. 7. The sacrament of baptism is *but once* to be administered to any person. Westminster Larger Catechism 165. What is baptism? Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into Himself, *of remission of sins* by His blood, and regeneration by His Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s. -- Continental Reformed (Three Forms of Unity) Belgic confession - Article 9: _The Scriptural Witness on the Trinity_ ... And so, in this matter we willingly accept the three ecumenical creeds-the Apostles’, *Nicene,* and Athanasian-as well as what the ancient fathers decided in agreement with them. Article 34: The Sacrament of Baptism We believe and confess that Jesus Christ, in whom the law is fulfilled, has by his shed blood put an end to every other shedding of blood, which anyone might do or wish to do in order to atone or satisfy for sins. Having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, Christ established in its place the sacrament of baptism. By it we are received into God’s church and set apart from all other people and alien religions, that we may wholly belong to him whose mark and sign we bear. Baptism also witnesses to us that God, being our gracious Father, will be our God forever. Therefore Christ has commanded that all those who belong to him be baptized with pure water “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” In this way God signifies to us that just as water washes away the dirt of the body when it is poured on us and also is seen on the bodies of those who are baptized when it is sprinkled on them, *so too the blood of Christ does the same thing internally, in the soul, by the Holy Spirit.* *It washes and cleanses it from its sins and transforms us from being the children of wrath into the children of God.* This does not happen by the physical water but by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God, who is our Red Sea, through which we must pass to escape the tyranny of Pharaoh, who is the devil, and to enter the spiritual land of Canaan. So ministers, as far as their work is concerned, give us the sacrament and what is visible, but our Lord gives what the sacrament signifies-namely the invisible gifts and graces; washing, purifying, and cleansing our souls of all filth and unrighteousness; renewing our hearts and filling them with all comfort; giving us true assurance of his fatherly goodness; clothing us with the “new self” and stripping off the “old self with its practices.” For this reason we believe that anyone who aspires to reach eternal life *ought to be baptized only once without ever repeating it-for we cannot be born twice.* Yet this baptism is profitable not only when the water is on us and when we receive it but throughout our entire lives. *For that reason we reject the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers.* We believe our children ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as little children were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises made to our children. And truly, Christ has shed his blood no less for washing the little children of believers than he did for adults. Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of what Christ has done for them, just as the Lord commanded in the law that by offering a lamb for them the sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ would be granted them shortly after their birth. This was the sacrament of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, baptism does for our children what circumcision did for the Jewish people. That is why Paul calls baptism the “circumcision of Christ.” Heidelberg Catechism - _Holy Baptism_ Q & A 70 Q. What does it mean to be washed with Christ’s blood and Spirit? A. To be washed with Christ’s blood means that God, by grace, *has forgiven our sins* because of Christ’s blood poured out for us in his sacrifice on the cross. To be washed with Christ’s Spirit means that the Holy Spirit has renewed and sanctified us to be members of Christ, so that more and more we become dead to sin and live holy and blameless lives. Q & A 71 Q. Where does Christ promise that we are washed with his blood and Spirit as surely as we are washed with the water of baptism? A. In the institution of baptism, where he says: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.” This promise is repeated when Scripture calls baptism “the water of rebirth” and *the washing away of sins.* Q & A 73 Q. Why then does the Holy Spirit call baptism the water of rebirth and the washing away of sins? A. God has good reason for these words. To begin with, God wants to teach us that the blood and Spirit of Christ take away our sins just as water removes dirt from the body. But more important, God wants to assure us, by this divine pledge and sign, *that we are as truly washed of our sins spiritually as our bodies are washed with water physically.* -- Care to try again? I mean, even the Reformed adjacent Particular Baptists retains the remission of sins language in the London Baptist Confession, though interestingly they remove that it is to be administered "but once".

[@mathete9968]

@@momiowa9509 Well said, and how vital it is to say it! I have long noted this very clause that you stated: "I acknowledge one baptism for the Remission of Sins" We have it retained in the Augsburg Confession of Faith of 1530. So why did the Westminster Confession of Faith which followed some 116 years later in 1646, depart from the historic faith as outlined in the Nicene creed? As a former "die hard baptist" or "recovered baptist" - recovered from error to the truth of Scripture, I can testify how appalling and spiritually bankrupt all reformed sects are. It is no use for the Presbyterians to claim to be "Orthodox" in doctrine. They are indeed children of their spiritual father, Ulrich Zwingle, who followed the false principle of Scripture + human reasoning. The Truly Historic Christian Faith acknowledges that Baptism is "For the Remission of Sins" (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3; Acts 2:28)

[@keithbaker1859]

something's not right here. I'm getting olsteen vibes. you have too much money. for shsme...