Lutheran Vs Calvinistic Views of Justification

[@jamesmeyer9574]

It's refreshing to be challenged on areas like this from the Lutheran perspective. It's much more interesting and in my opinion important than Calvinism vs arminianism

[@Nathan-mf2yz]

Calvinism vs Arminianism is so narrow a subject. In reality, I view the debate as being between Monergism and Synergism with some intricacies.

[@villarrealmarta6103]

This is so good and important for us to know the distinctions.

[@TheRoark]

As a reformed Christian I have definitely seen people despair about not being able to do something to be sure of their elect status, but I am not sure that telling them that they can lose their salvation is really going to comfort them. At least, it wouldn’t make me more assured of my salvation, rather it would make me constantly worried that I have failed and lost my salvation. I know Luther was a Monergist, but would modern Lutherans be considered monergists since our wills can override God’s will for our salvation?

[@bphifer]

I agree with a lot of this but regarding the difference in justification it seems almost like a difference in rhetoric. As a reformed guy I do tend to think of justification as a one time thing, but what happens at justification is all my sins, past, present, and FUTURE are forgive and there is now no condemnation. So while I’ve always kind of spoken of justification as the step before sanctification, I don’t disagree that it happens continually. One thing that I’m really liking about what you’re saying is the emphasis on faith being a gift of God. Perhaps us reformed don’t differentiate between faith and belief and make belief an action we are to do. I think it would serve us well to emphasize more that faith is a gracious gift. Lastly...I’m not some scholar. Honestly, I’m not that smart. Just someone who’s aligned with reformed thinking most of my Christian life and trying to learn and stretch and go

[@Joseph-yx3jp]

Thank you for this! After listening your review of Paul Washer, some of Flame’s album, and this, I’m glad I didn’t fall completely into the Reformed circles. I almost fell into looking at my sanctification for my primary assurance, but the objective work of Christ is a greater reassurance!

[@cjfoster4179]

Reformed people look to Christ for assurance. At least I do and I’m reformed lol.

[@doctor1alex]

The primary source of assurance in reformed theology is Christ. He is the root of assurance because He is the object of faith. However, secondary evidences are taught to be used to evaluate one’s faith, in accordance with the Scriptures (e.g. James 2).

[@frimports]

I know many reformed people rejoice in the Cross. The trouble with the use of “Secondary Evidences” such as “insert work of choice here” we not will flawlessly perform such work or evidence such fruit sufficiently to be convinced by them. Instead of being built up in the gospel in some Reformed circles and I stress some people are taught to look to themselves, what about a season of pruning when there is no fruit? I will look to Christ alone, whether I see the transformation I desire or not.

[@tomtemple69]

"I almost fell into looking at my sanctification for my primary assurance" yeah, the truly Reformed do not do that, Paul Washer is just a calvinistic baptist sanctification is just another means of assurance but not the sole or primary source of assurance

[@tomtemple69]

@@frimports there are a lot of lordship/fruit inspecting Calvinists... that is not what Reformed theology believes, many legalists just teach that

[@hansimgluck4965]

It's important to distinguish between the Lutheran doctrine of justification as set forth in the Book of Concord, and the synodical doctrines of justification that have arisen in the North American Lutheran synods since Walther. The confessional Lutheran church fathers who authored the Book of Concord taught justification to be solely individual, through faith alone. One of the heresies they had to address was brought in by Huber, who taught that the whole world was justified - a general justification - but that there was also a second, particular justification that applied to individuals who apparently hadn't been covered by this "justification of the world". The Wittenberg faculty expelled Huber for false teaching. When the first emigrants arrived in the United States and the LCMS was formed, the Huberian doctrine of a "general" and of a "particular" justification was revived, and is taught today in the synods as "Objective Justification" (LCMS) or "Universal Objective Justification" (WELS) with counterpart "Subjective Justification" - as though there were two justifications, or as though justification had two component parts. But the orthodox Lutheran doctrine of justification as set forth in the Book of Concord is of a universal atonement, and of an individual justification which is by faith alone. In distinction to the present-day North American synodical doctrines, the original orthodox Lutheran doctrine is not of a "justification of the world" but rather of a universal atonement, the benefit of which is received by the individual only through the gift of faith which comes from God - and that is the original, orthodox Lutheran doctrine of justification.

[@Zorlig]

Yeah it was of no small amount of joy to great him quote from Gerhard. Perhaps later in the year he can get being beyond the first page?

[@hansimgluck4965]

Agreed. When it comes to the chief article of the faith, you have to go back to the fathers in Germany. And although I might just have missed it, when it comes to these Waltherian/Huberian synodical doctrines of justification, I have yet to hear Cooper ever compliment the emperor on his new American clothes.

[@hansimgluck4965]

Good to hear that podcast. Cooper's defense of OJ/SJ is not the most enthusiastic I've ever heard, but he does seem to defend it, mostly by pointing to others who actually are passionate about it. The whole thing really boils down to this: For the sake of preserving this mess, this linguistically nonsensical representation of the doctrine of justification, it behooves us to strive for more "nuance", by welcoming and by integrating the concept of periodic changes in the meanings of words - the period, in this case, being this blip since the arrival of C.F.W. Walther and his band on these shores - and the word being "justification". Cooper in this podcast argues for a postmodern, Humpty Dumpty approach to language whereby, since this mess of a systematic construction must be preserved at all costs, we are expected to realize and to understand that when Humpty uses a word, it means just what Humpty intends it to mean. In this way, Cooper argues, when the defenders of this theological and linguistic disaster use the word "justification", the onus is upon the hearer (or reader) to realize and to understand from the context, and/or from having studied the broader corpus of the theologian in question, that what he is thinking of is that concept which, until the advent of this sacrosanct Missourian blip, was represented in the English language by the word "atonement". If the hearer (or reader) fails to do this, it is he who is engaging in "distortion". So, when Humpty Dumpty says "dog", it is incumbent upon us in need of more nuance to understand that he really means "cat". For the sake of those who are hopelessly deficient in nuance, Humpty will condescend, and at least apply the adjective "objective" to the word "dog" in those cases wherein simpletons, who cannot read his nuanced mind, might otherwise become confused on account of their insufficiently nuanced English whereby words are actually connected to concrete meanings. Unfortunately, his approach to language being a postmodern one, we cannot even be certain of Humpty Dumpty's intended meaning in his use of the word "objective". Here we have an argument to the effect that, for the sake of this sacrosanct blip, and for the sake of nuance - and at the risk of the confusion concerning the doctrine of universalism which has overtaken virtually all of Lutheranism - we should, rather than stick to the clear, patristic language of "cat" and "dog", instead favor "objective dog" and "subjective dog". This apparently is the state of scholarship in North America today with respect to English and theology.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@@hansimgluck4965 It seems from the following quote that Luther was in agreement with objective justification: Isaiah here [53:11] uses the word “many” for the word “all,” after the manner of Paul in Rom. 5:15. The thought there is: One has sinned (Adam), One is righteous (Christ), and many are made righteous. There is no difference between “many” and “all.” The righteousness of Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord and Savior, is so great that it could justify innumerable worlds. “He shall justify many,” says he, that is to say, all. It should, therefore, be understood of all, because He offers his righteousness to all, and all who believe in Christ obtain it. (What Luther Says, 1857) I need to read up on the subject of objective justification because at the moment at least I don’t see any essential difference between affirming that Christ took away the sins of the world (John 1:29) and has reconciled us to the Father (2 Cor 5:19) and saying we’re objectively justified through Christ’s atonement. Update: Just listened to Dr Cooper's podcast: The Doctrine of Objective Justification, and I agree with his position. I think the quote above also shows that Luther was a supporter of objective justification. justandsinner.libsyn.com/the-doctrine-of-objective-justification

[@hansimgluck4965]

The fact remains that, apart from the heretical formulation of Huber, this particular systematic construction of a "general" or of a "universal justification" - with a potential individual "subjective" justification to follow - was unknown in Lutheranism before it became popularized by C.F.W. Walther and his academic followers. At its worst it communicates universalism, and at its confusing best, it brings the needless and unacceptable risk of doing so unwittingly. It is the theological equivalent of asbestos - at one time dug up and enthusiastically launched into widespread service in everything from curtains to handkerchiefs. And this is to slander asbestos, which does have some important and necessary uses, and which may be used safely under very controlled conditions which would certainly not be analogous to a children's catechism book or Sunday school class. Luther's connection of Isaiah 53:11 to Romans 5:15 is interesting to read, but with respect to justification, the meaning of "all" in Romans 5:15 is defined just two verses down in Romans 5:17 - For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Clearly, the Apostle is writing of those which receive abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness - all believers, but not all people. Concerning John 1:29, Chemnitz explains in his Harmony of the Four Evangelists: "We noted a little earlier that we must observe from the fact that he says "sin of the world." To that let me add only this: That the Baptist is showing in this way that the Messiah's kingdom was not political, for it is not like that ram and he-goat of Dan. 8:20, but a lamb that takes away the sin of the world. There is a silent antithesis in the phrase "of the world," for they used to place the sins only of the people of Israel on the Levitic sacrificial victims, but this Lamb takes away the sins of the entire world. Therefore, he is affirming that Christ's blessings have to do with not only the Jews, but with the entire world, and that from these blessings no one who is in this world is excluded if only they should wish to accept them by faith." Chemnitz interprets "of the world" to mean a universal atonement the benefits of which are available not only to the Jew, but also to the Greek. He does not interpret John 1:29 to mean a "universal objective justification." He goes on to point out that Chrysostom states that the Baptist did not say "will take away" - pointing to a future point in time at which there would be a "declaration of universal justification" - but rather "takes away," indicating the continuous action of the Office of Christ. The same continuous conjunction is found in 2 Cor. 5:19. I might go along with Cooper's defense of the adoption of new terms and constructions implemented specifically to fight heresies; but the OJ/SJ construction does precisely the opposite - Hunnius and the Wittenberg faculty determined that in the 16th Century.

[@stephenjackson4012]

Luther and the Reformed did not fail to reach unity over Justification. The real problem was that the Reformed insisted on an infinite distinction between God and Man and Luther continued to hold to the notion that Salvation results in Imparting the Divine Nature to man. Since Luther is now in heaven praising his Saviour, I am certain he clearly understands the infinite difference between a perfectly holy finite human nature, and the infinite, eternal, and unchangeable nature of God.

[@j.harris83]

Maybe discuss how this also fits into Luther’s “Bondage of the Will” or how the Reformed misunderstand it.

[@bcpfinishes2791]

Interesting talk on these subjects I wish we had more of these types of subjects in conversation at the church I attend. I'm not sure I understand your viewpoint on justification. As a reformed believer( Presbyterian) Justification is a forensic legal matter whereas it is applied to the believer and every day after that they remain justified. It sounds like you are saying that justification is re-applied over and over as if it is a spiritual substance being imputed again and again and again. Is this stated in Lutheran confessions?

[@zekdom]

5:12 Predestination and justification are related. 5:19 “… justification is the execution of predestination”

[@paulburdine88]

Thanks for this and the recommendations on justification. I'm looking more deeply into these things and the differences with reformed theology

[@heresyhunters]

Reformed guy here. I always like the analysis from Dr. Cooper, but it seems like in some of these cases, he's trying to draw distinctions when there really are none. For example, towards the close of the video, he takes on Reformed guy (with no reference to who it is) as an example to contrast Lutheran vs. Reformed preaching on Law and Gospel. I think the vast majority of Reformed preachers would insist that some gospel must always be present in any giving of the law. And virtually every Reformed author I've read sees justification as a reality whose significance permeates the entirety of our Christian life. So it seems like in some areas, he's almost searching to create distinctions when there is little to no difference. k

[@doxyl4269]

As another Reformed guy (in seminary atm), I think these definitely seem like emphases rather than differences. I could amen everything Jordan said, but I'll amen them quieter or louder depending on where my theological emphases lie. I can definitely attest that union with Christ takes centre stage in Presbyterianism ('cause it takes centre stage in Calvin) rather than solely justification, and that means we approach things a bit differently while still affirming the same truths in very similar manners.

[@jeffryan5302]

Furthermore as a soteriology Calvinist, if that view of Justification is is wrong ( similar to Catholics at Trent), then are Lutherans like Dr.J implying that is a false gospel ?

[@PhillyboulJ215]

So if Justification is the cause of our Sanctification. Wouldn’t that be making our justification do something in motion and not just a forensic, legal, declaration? Help me out here Jordan? I’ve read Gerhard O Forde on the Lutheran view on sanctification. Even though I’m a Calvinist I do mostly agree with that view. And I think the 3rd use of the law is for information not motivation. But how does justification become active causing us to do something if it’s just a legal declaration?

[@joshnelson3344]

About justification being a present reality throughout our lives Michael Horton writes...”While all of this happens definitively, once and for all, when we are converted, it is a lifelong process as well: We are always becoming Christians ‘again’ every day, realizing afresh in our lives the power of Word and Spirit in our baptism into Christ. Repentance and faith are always renewed daily.” -pg 150 “A Better Way”

[@ninjacell2999]

Bavinck says that the Reformed would hold that infants can be regenerated by God's Spirit and can receive the "seed of faith". Where does the idea that there are two justifications come from?

[@bloodboughtbigphilr8266]

Tis utter nonsense and a leftover from deviant Catholici notions which the Reformation failed to divest itself of entirely. Desperate attempt to cling on to the unScriptural practice of infant baptism. The only seeds of faith are in those who have had the pure Gospel preached to them, are at a level of cognitive development where they can understand and even then, it still takes the Lord to provide the increase in regenerating power granting the ability to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and what He has done for the eternal salvation of their soul. Young children and learning disabled adults who have not attained to an age or state of responsibility are covered by the atonement should they be taken from us and absolutely no need for the paedo-Baptist rite whether by sprinkling, pouring or dunking.

[@joshualindley2461]

There is often a disconnect between defining a term such as justification and others, and the spiritual/mental outliving of such systematic terms. Coming from a reformed perspective I don't think that anyone you talk to would not agree that justification is always a present reality but it did as you also agree have a beginning point.

[@ninjacell2999]

I agree, I'm not really sure what Dr Cooper is getting at there. The Reformed have often spoken of Christ interceding at God's right hand based on his righteousness for us. Does that not count as daily part of justification?

[@joshualindley2461]

@@ninjacell2999 So often, within theological discussions our human language is so inefficient and we end up debating semantics. You have given another good example of justification being ever present in all our lives.

[@SonOfTheLion]

This video was very helpful. I've recently converted and was curious about denominations. My father was a Lutheran and my mother was a Methodist. I was reasonably sure I preferred Lutheranism to the "Born Again" denominations. However, I was foggy on how Lutherans differed on predestination and election from Calvinists. This differentiated and presented both sides very clearly. My concern was that Calvinists putting election above predestination seemed to contradict God's desire for all to be saved. The more I heard the Lutheran take the surer I was that I am a Lutheran.

[@jalapeno.tabasco]

"My concern was that Calvinists putting election above predestination seemed to contradict God's desire for all to be saved." can God not fulfil His own desires? He's God, what prevents Him? also, does God desire that all men perfectly obey His law? if so, why would He command it?

[@RansomedSoulPsalm49-15]

”For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.“ ‭‭Romans‬ ‭8‬:‭29‬-‭30‬ ‭ESV‬‬ ”even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ“ ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭1‬:‭4‬-‭9‬ ‭ESV‬‬ ”In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.“ ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭1‬:‭11‬-‭14‬ ‭ESV‬‬

[@Tim-AlexPowell]

Do people who are reformed and lutheran view each other as brothers in christ with different perspectives or as false converts?

[@ihiohoh2708]

Generally, Presbyterians like Lutherans more than the other way around; but I think most would consider each other brothers and sisters in Christ. That doesn't mean that Lutherans will have communion with you though. They are very picky in that regard. Now as far as Reformed Baptists, that's more tricky. Reformed Baptists would consider Lutherans way too Catholic, and even to some degree Presbyterians as well. This is because both have a high view of the sacraments, are higher church, and baptize babies. Lutherans especially wouldn't care for Baptists, but I think many would still consider them brothers and sisters. Whereas Presbyterians are kind of in the middle of the two and can be more ecumenical between them.

[@doctor1alex]

From this video and my understanding from a reformed perspective, it doesn’t really seem so much like a difference, more a difference in emphasis on certain doctrines?

[@doctor1alex]

And perhaps a greater breadth of views within the historical “reformed” faith.

[@doctor1alex]

The Lutheran view of justification impacting sanctification is absolutely true of reformed theology also.

[@SibleySteve]

John Barclay’s “Paul and the Gift” was the greatest thing I have ever read to contrast the perfections of grace in the minds of famous reformers including Luther, Calvin, jumping ahead in time to Barth, so on. When I read Barclay on Luther’s perfection of grace I recognize it as my own and it brings peace to me. When I read Calvin, it disturbs me on many points including the insistence by Calvin to return to the law as a source of ethical formation and holiness, somewhat ironically since as gentiles, the mosaic covenantal system never applied to us either legally or christologically which bothers me that Calvin would bind us to a “walk” of anxiety instead of full throated Thanksgiving for Christ’s work. Something about Calvin has the stink of works about him. I am not antinomian, but Calvin is shady to me. I feel like Calvin would send us back to the slave master after we got away.

[@patrickbarnes9874]

Regarding the steps of having 1) justification unto salvation, 2) receiving that salvation through faith, and 3) a decree to bring people to the 2 previously mentioned universal gifts: How are the gifts universal if you need to be decreed to receive them, and conversely, what purpose does a decree serve if the gifts are already universal? I'm confused.

[@Mygoalwogel]

We trust in the word, not in preconceived theological categories. Useful categories help to summarize the word. Heretical categories dismiss portions of the word. *Luke 7:30* God's βουλή (plan/purpose/resolve/counsel) for the Pharisees was to accept them. But they rejected this βουλή of God for themselves, by refusing John's baptism. *Luke 8:13* Jesus asserts that some really do *joyfully believe* the gospel for a while, and actually *fall away* through trials and temptations. *1 Timothy 4:10; 1 John 2:2* He is especially the Savior of believers. He remains the Savior of all people. This makes the labor of evangelism and the reproach of scoffers bearable. He is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the church AND the world. *John 1:29; 3:16* The lamb of God takes away the sins of the world. God loved the world. *Luke 11:13* Jesus is emphatic that the Father gives the Holy Spirit to anyone who asks. *Eph **4:30* The Ephesians were sealed for the day of redemption, yet Paul warned them that the possibility of grieving the Holy Spirit was a reality. *2 Peter 2:1* Christ bought even the heretics who deny Him and destroy themselves. *1 Tim 2:1-6* Christ died for all people and wants all people to be saved. Therefore, Paul commands us to *interceed* even for godless kings and rulers. *Hebrews 3:1-12* Even "holy brothers and sisters" can "turn away from the living God" with an "evil, unbelieving heart." *Hebrews 2:1, 12:25* The author and the audience could reject God's warning and not escape. *Ephesians 3:3-6; Isaiah 45:19* As God has revealed his secret will in scripture, it is always to extend greater mercy.

[@marekfoolforchrist]

What is your opening song?

[@villarrealmarta6103]

Marek Kizer “a mighty fortress is our God”

[@sophianikolai8381]

hello again. I want to revisit again where you said "justification is re-enacted every day". Is this also meaning justification is a constant-unwavering state we are in? Or are you saying each day as we sin we lose justification until the next day justification is re-enacted?

[@sophianikolai8381]

So just to confirm- when you say justification is a daily reality that causes sanctification- you're not saying this in terms of justification being an ongoing progressive progress right? (like catholics presume). You're rather saying God keeps us each day, declaring us righteous every day- lest we lose faith. We do not merit any more justification tomorrow than we do today by our works in sanctification. Correct?

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Correct.

[@sophianikolai8381]

@@DrJordanBCooper okay! lastly, do lutherans believe Christ's (both) active and passive obedience/righteousness is imputed to us? Or only passive?

[@DrJordanBCooper]

@@sophianikolai8381 active and passive.

[@Iffmeister]

So are we gonna get a review of Flame's new album?

[@villarrealmarta6103]

Ify Nsoha I don’t think rap and Christianity should have ever mixed.

[@Iffmeister]

@@villarrealmarta6103 yah, cause an avenue through which urban lower class teens got saved is so bad 😆😆😆 you're average priest or pastor from a small church with mostly white folks isn't going to reach inner city kids, and that's just facts. Don't hate on an alternate way that God has been saving folks. I am a Christian in large part cause of Christian Hip Hop and I can tell you there's a lot of us

[@Iffmeister]

@@villarrealmarta6103 wasn't born in the inner city but most of the cats out there who actually reaching people in urban communities got saved cause of Christian Hip Hop. Don't knock it

[@villarrealmarta6103]

Ify Nsoha I’m from an urban city and was brought up in gang culture. Rap music was my breakfast. When I read the scriptures I don’t see God using a sinful art-form in order to save anybody. These people you say are saved I can’t verify that. Neither can you. It’s as if you’re playing God by saying that. You can’t be saved by a album, but only through believing the promises which God who is pure and Holy has offered to us. By living in God’s word we can come out of the world and see that the culture we were brought up in is corrupt. Rap music has no form of humility and speaks with arrogance. I’ve even been shocked by some of the videos I’ve seen. But to put it frankly it’s just another way of blending the world and the church together. The more we get closer to the end this will become so routine that we won’t be able to even see a difference between the church and the world. It’s the same with psychology now the churches have adopted that instead of listening to the scriptures teach us which ways are right. I wonder how the saints have made it all these years without “cool music” to attract them to Christ. That’s the problem since the 90s when these cultures clashed and ultimately mixed to become one. What you call good, God calls sin. As I said. God and sin don’t mix. Rap is not pure and Holy, it’s worldly and “cool”. A Christian shouldn’t be interested in what’s the cool fashion or music. I threw that all away when I became saved from inside solitary confinement 15 years ago, because that music helped grow an attitude in me that God wanted gone. You can put God’s words in it but remember Satan is an expert at quoting God’s word.

[@liudvikas6534]

@@villarrealmarta6103 We shouldn't play it in the church but listening it for yourself isn't bad it can bring us closer to God.

[@SunnytheWeim]

Sound reformed folk don't preach law without gospel. Not sure who she is, but she separated from confessional reformed folk. Great video, from an Augustian Calvinist...

[@RCopley23]

Excuse my ignorance, but doesn't the augsburg confession pretty clearly state that infants ARE NOT saved without baptism? Therefore, wouldn't a Lutheran claiming that "all infants dying are likely saved" be in conflict with your own confessions? Most confessing lutherans I know told me that no one is saved apart from baptism, isn't that the driving force behind you baptizing your babies?

[@ihiohoh2708]

I'm not Lutheran, but generally those that hold to baptismal regeneration would say baptism is the ordinary means of grace; but not the only means of grace. From a Presbyterian perspective, baptismal regeneration is only for the elect, and not necessarily at the time it is administered. However, baptism and grace are not so inseparable that one cannot be regenerated without baptism.

[@RCopley23]

@@IronPoorBlood I am certainly not arguing against the salvation of infants. I am curious about the contradiction between the message of the video and the augsburg confession..

[@ChristianPapa777]

So does God elect some for hell as well as heaven? If he has the ultimate sovereign will and men don't, then who condemns who to hell? Is free will truly free if predestined through the cross of Christ?

[@sophianikolai8381]

I don't really see the big deal in the differences! I agree with both sides I think it creates a rich view of it all to consider both sides!

[@bcpfinishes2791]

Are you sure that Calvinist think that an infant can't have the gift of faith (justification) the same? I realize their intellect is so un developed but if God can give knowledge innately I don't see why union with Christ can't spiritually take place as I said faith is a gift, in reformed theology.

[@bcpfinishes2791]

I think ther may be more Calvinist than you think that agree about what you say concerning John the Baptist in the womb and spiritual faith to infants.

[@oracleoftroy]

@@bcpfinishes2791 Yeah, that's just weird. The Westminster Confession 10.3 even calls out that infants are saved the same as anyone else. Salvation is all of God and God is mighty to save; how could saving infants be beyond Him? And I always love the example of John the Baptist as you referred to.

[@ZachFish-]

Is the Lutheran view the Catholic view?

[@ZachFish-]

@Last-Generation707 I watched a couple more videos, they do seem very similar. I’m still can’t remember exactly what the difference is, because they both say you can be removed from the state of salvation. Is it something like Catholics link justification and sanctification both being from faith, and Lutherans think justification is by faith which produces works and they can fall from faith which justifies. (Something like that).

[@ninjacell2999]

Interestingly, Michael Horton often talks about justification in terms of speech-act theory.

[@1920s]

NinjaCell What does that mean?

[@nicolassantiagoortega5474]

17:30 example...

[@cjfoster4179]

Many similarities 🤔

[@ninjacell2999]

Saying that all infants probably have faith despite not having received baptism seems incredibly speculative to me. Would the Lutherans hold that most infants have faith prior to Baptism then?

[@DrJordanBCooper]

It is a little bit speculative, so I think we have to be a little careful in making any kind of bold statements on the topic, but it is the most popular Lutheran view (at least it was in the past). Charles Krauth has a response to Charles Hodge where he delves into this question and its historical pedigree in Lutheran thought. In short, it is really a combination of two beliefs: 1. No one is saved without faith, and 2. Infants who die are saved.

[@ninjacell2999]

@@DrJordanBCooper yeah, I think most people's views on this tend to be speculative. That's just the nature of the question I guess. Would it still be correct to say that Lutherans believe that Baptism regenerates a person and creates faith in them? Because it seems to me that believing the above would mean faith precedes baptism even in the case of infants. Saying that regeneration is not necessarily tied the event of baptism seems more in line with what the WCF says in that regard.

[@nicolassantiagoortega5474]

4:20 his reading

[@annakimborahpa]

Excerpt from John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter 21, Paragraph 7: "We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his PLEASURE one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his PLEASURE to doom to destruction." Ezekiel, Chapter 18, Verses 23, 32 (ESV): "Have I any PLEASURE in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? ... For I have NO PLEASURE in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live."

[@RehdClouhd]

Can you either link the book you recommended by ?Mathias Loyes or write the title and authors name? Thanks.

[@billburkey2310]

Being justified is like a move to a new house. Once your there, your there. It doesn't continually happen, it happened. Being in the new house can continually remind you of the move

[@Solideogloria00]

Your analogy doesn’t adjust to the Bible (Romans 4)

[@billburkey2310]

@@Solideogloria00 explain please

[@Supermariocrosser]

Lutheran belief is the foundation of the Nordic model in scandinavia

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

Can anyone explain to me how is it possible that, starting from the same Scripture and applying the same principle of Sola Scriptura and guided by the same Holy Spirit, you may end up with tons of different theologies that contradict each other even on fundamental concepts like justification? Is Sola Scriptura a broken tool?

[@apilkey]

Hi I’m not familiar with Lutheran theology... Do you believe you’re born again before you’re justified?

[@dimitri1225]

You are born again when you are baptised.

[@apilkey]

Lutheran Prince Thanks for the reply however that’s not what I was asking... I’m asking if you’re born again before you’re justified?

[@dimitri1225]

@@apilkey No the other way around

[@apilkey]

Lutheran Prince Ok thanks so is that one of the differences between Lutheran and Reformed theology? Reformers believe in pre-faith regeneration which would mean they are regenerated before they’re justified because we’re justified by faith. I’m trying to understand all the differences between the two theologies.

[@dimitri1225]

@@apilkey Yes I know.For starters you should read the Augsburg Confession,the small cathecism and the Formula of Concord. After that I recommend you get the Book "Doctrinal Theology of The Evangelical Lutheran Church" it's available for free as PDF on Pastor Brandon Wolfmuller's website.What this book does is,give quotations from all the major Lutheran theologians on each theological subject.

[@alexjoneschannel]

They're all wrong. Pope said so

[@JoWilliams-ud4eu]

This video is four years old, Alex. What are you doing?

[@alexjoneschannel]

@@JoWilliams-ud4eu And that comment was 10 months old. What are you doing?

[@JoWilliams-ud4eu]

@alexjoneschannel this comment is five days old. What are you doing?

[@bloodboughtbigphilr8266]

I believe in the bondage of the will and on account of this, God had to step in and choose a people for Himself granting the ability to believe the Gospel.. I reject limited atonement and am a hypothetical universalist - Christ's death sufficient for all and to be offered to all but efficient only for the elect. In the ordo salutis, decision to provide a Redeemer comes before election of who will be enabled to receive Christ. Also, I'm emphatically Free Grace holding to eternal salvation by faith alone in Christ's Finished Work alone. Don't like the term 'perseverance' of the saints and prefer preservation. Implies effort and performance to prove a state of Grace rather than God keeping whom He saves. All this probably places me nearer to classical Lutherani soteriology (pre-Melancthon) than credal Calvinism though would be considered a 4 point Calvinist if the P in TULIP is rendered as preservation..Come from neithet background being non-denominational dispensational, see the Reformation as incomplete and hold to believers baptism.

[@michaelstanley4698]

Abstract reasoning is limited and ineffective. You should read Melancthon's commentary on Romans. Your answers are vague and not always accurate. Do you understand the many aspects of grace?

[@Kinetic.44]

Your papal rituals are blasphemous... you are roman/pagan catholic in everything but name. Bow to your grove ashteroth this christ-mass season

[@truth7416]

If Calvinism is true, it means that God creates disposable people, people without any hope,” “It means that God not only allows, but micro-manages and sovereignly ordains, every war and every abortion and every rape of a child. It means that Calvin’s god does not love the world; he hates it because it is full of “totally depraved” individuals having apparently created us that way for his own glorification, or is it for his amusement? If Calvinism is true , it means that if that dying child that you held in your arms was not among the elect, then God did not love her. He never had any intention of loving her. She was nothing to Him. In fact, he would delight and find glory in her eternal torture in hell.” Who are really created in the image of then, God or satan? “And whenever I raise these points with Calvinists, all they can say is that I should be more grateful for my own salvation! It’s like, ‘as long as my eternal destiny is secure, as long as my life is all planned out and taken care of by God, who gives a damn about family, friends or anyone else!’ How can you be okay with that? How can anyone be okay with that? Why do I feel find this heresy morally offensive?” Only the devil should be at ease with such an abomination! According to Calvinism the lost hate God because God first hated them. They won't say it that way, but that's what it boils down to. Romans 16 : 17 I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.

[@lolhey6954]

Lutheran perspective Biblical. Calvinist not. Period Full Stop.