One MAJOR Difference Between Reformed Theology, Lutheranism, and Everyone Else

[@loganpeck5084]

One of the nost clarifying videos ive ever watched. Thank you

[@ryanperalta5128]

Love your videos! Perhaps you could do a video on the Reformed view of confirmation. I’m a 1689 guy who is currently challenging my Baptist convictions. One area I struggle with is why not paedocommunion? I see a lot of Baptists bring this up in the paedobaptism debates. Thanks!

[@PreDustined]

Who should check out r. Scott clark on the heidelcast and heidelblog made me become member of a Dutch reformed church

[@loganpeck5084]

I was in the exact same spot a few years ago. That question was one of the main ones that took me a while to answer before I got all my kiddos baptized in our local PCA church. For me, it came down to the nature of the sacraments as well as the scriptural warnings. For one the verbs on baptism are passive: "be baptized"... Vs in communion, they are active: "take and drink". This implies a different nature of the thing itself. Additionally, we have scriptural warnings of self examination before partaking in the super, lest we eat and drink judgment to ourselves. Plus the baptism is something that can easily be done to infants. Even if the proper mode was immersion (which is not necessarily the case), the Eastern church has immersed babies for centuries. Solid food, however, is not given to babies. Even Paul happens to mention this fact. The ancient passover feast was given to children who could ask questions but not to babies. So there is logical reason to withhold the supper for some time anyway. It wouldn't be very strange to have a pretty young child communed in a traditional reformed church either. It just depends on the child.

[@ryanperalta5128]

@@loganpeck5084 thank you, that was helpful. My wife and I will continue to pray and study this topic.

[@loganpeck5084]

@@ryanperalta5128 you're very welcome. I will pray for both of you as well. I know it is a difficult decision. It was for us too.

[@RevDonBaker]

@@ryanperalta5128 Thanks! I’m trying to put together a list of topics to discuss so I’ll keep it in mind.

[@ericmatthaei9711]

There is a biblical foundation for the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Jesus said, "This is my body." And the inferences that produce Transubstantiation are coherent and compelling, but Lutherans reject Transubstantiation. Even though it has a biblical leg to stand on, the doctrine does not come to us from God's Word. It comes from our desire, as creatures bent toward unbelief, to answer the question: "How is this Jesus' body?" God does not answer that question, and so we must also hold our tongues. Lutherans reject Limited Atonement for much the same reason. Does it have a biblical leg to stand on? Yes. God's people are chosen by the Father in Christ before the foundation of the world. The inferences drawn from this are coherent and compelling, but what is driving the motion from premise to conclusion? That is a subject this video completely ignores. Why are we moving down this path from Election to Limited Atonement? It's because we want to answer the question: "Why does God save some people, but not all people?" When Jesus is first introducing the doctrine of baptismal regeneration in John 3, He explicitly tells us that the answer to that question is out of bounds. It is not given to us. "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." So, your video is interesting and informative. Thank you for making it. But from a Lutheran perspective it doesn't really explain the major difference between Reformed Theology and Lutheranism.

[@RevDonBaker]

@@ericmatthaei9711 Of course in the video I want to argue for the Reformed approach but that’s not necessarily the only point. The point is to show the reasoning the Reformed make. As a Lutheran I understand why you’d disagree with how we apply these trinitarian doctrines, but I hope you can see the line of reasoning even if you believe that reasoning to be going too far. I’d encourage you to watch Dr. Jordan Cooper’s video I mentioned where he does mention our approach to election as being a core difference. In this video I’m essentially saying, “Yes, that’s right, and here’s why.” But thanks for watching!

[@ericmatthaei9711]

@@RevDonBaker I appreciate that you are addressing a real distinction between Lutherans and Reformed, and your presentation is very good. Like I said before, Reformed inferences are coherent and compelling. My question would be: If you take the crux theologorum out of the picture, if you do not ask or seek to answer the question, "why some, and not others," how does Scripture take you from the doctrine of election to the doctrine of limited atonement?

[@RevDonBaker]

@@ericmatthaei9711 In the Westminster Confession of Faith I.6 we have, “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.” This is one of those areas where we deduce from good and necessary consequences. Just as Jesus’ highly priestly intercession is limited to the elect in union with the Father’s will in election, we deduce that the Son’s high priestly sacrifice is consistent with His intercession. This is one of the more commonly spoken of differences between the Reformed and Lutheran approaches. Lutherans are more likely to leave things alone if not expressly taught while the Reformed are more willing to make deductions. A prime example is Lutheran single predestination with election and Reformed double predestination with both election and reprobation.