The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Lutheran Soteriology

Is this where you finally tell us which Lutheran synod you belong to? After all you've castigated both WELS and LCMS and at the same time claimed that your not a CLC member. And denied any teaching by any Lutheran theologians that are considered official teachings except by you. You say that you hold to the Formulas of Concord, yet you make statements regarding them that I have never seen held by any Lutheran. (your views regarding the Lord's Supper for instance) Just where exactly does this teaching come from Speratus? Which synod?

If you recall my reply to J Edwards, I quoted the FOC as saying that unregenerate man always resists grace:


It is not degree of resistance. The Holy Spirit works faith when and where God pleases. I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified me and He keeps me in the true faith.

Please show me where my views depart from the doctrines taught in the Book of Concord. I am currently in "Status Confessionis" with the LCMS. Their departures from scriptural teachings are intolerable. As it relates to the topic of this thread, I am most concerned with church growth (synergistic) methods frequently used by ABLAZE!, contemporary worship, and fringe charismatic groups.

Speratus, once said, ”1 Cor. 11:18-22 goes beyond that. There must be no divisions.” He strengthens his argument later and says, “The holy Catholic Church is without any division, continues stedfastly in the Apostle's doctrine and in breaking of bread, marks and avoids those who cause divisions and offenses, etc.” He then adds, “Most Protestants go to churches that commune everyone without exception. Even in churches that require communicants to give an account of their faith, the examination is often so brief that basic tenets of Christianity are omitted. Are such churches communions of saints or public restaurants? May a Christian, in good conscience, commune at these churches?” He adds, “If the visitor belongs to a church that teaches false doctrine, the elders may ask why the visitor has chosen to associate himself with a church that teaches error.”Thus, you must be in "Status Confusion" vs. "Status Confessionis."

Speratus, now we all wonder why you have choosen to be a member of the LCMS when with your own post you state, "Their departures from scriptural teachings are intolerable?" One wonders if you are or even may have communion. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

Good afternoon!

Clearly Lutherans are not Calvinists as Lutherans hold that Jesus died on the cross for the entire world. That is known, to Lutherans, as objective justification.
This is appropriated to those persons who God PREDESTINES from BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD by faith, and this faith is GIVEN BY GOD, THROUGH NO ACT OF MAN(I am not 'e-yelling, simply emphasizing how Lutheran theology is NOT synergistic, pelagian, etc.). To summarize Kolb's "The Christian Faith", we are:
1) Chosen by God - God's sovereign choice of us to be His children through no merit of our own
2) Predestined - These are those who he intended before the foundation of the world to incorporate into Christ's death and resurrection. This predestination is not foreknowledge, it is not looking ahead to see who will 'accept Jesus'. It is simply this: God's choosing. We do not have choice in the matter.

Thus salvation (subjective justification is the Lutheran term and yes, many have states this is a poor choice of words) is fully a gift of God, there is no place or room for human effort.

So, to summarize,
1) Lutheran's have a very 'high' view of God's sovereignty in salvation. To be sure there are those who have perverted this within confessional Lutheran denominations...just like some within the PCA and OPC have perverted the Westminster Confession and traditional Reformed Theology.
2) There is a clear difference between Calvinism's Limited Atonement and the Lutheran Objective Justification (Atonement for the world). This is obvious, yet since this is a Calvinist board it would NOT be appropriate for me to argue this position, nor would it be appropriate for a Calvinist to come to a Lutheran site and argue LImited Atonement. I am pointing this out because it IS a clear difference and an obvious one, yet one that does not mean that Lutherans are synergistic. That would be like me saying that Calvinist's have a God is evil and wicked because of double predestination, a silly contention for anyone who has studied double predestination.

Since some have asked for recommendations for what a confessional Lutheran actually believes, I would recommend:
Pieper's Dogmatics (that is huge, I would not expect you to read, but read anything by Pieper)
Walther - read anything by him
Preus - read Preus' Fire and the Staff', anybody, including a Calvinist, who loves doctrine and tradition should like this
Kolb - Read his 'The Christian Faith'
Koehler - Read 'A Summary of Christian Doctrine'

Again, the above is not an attempt to convert anybody to the Lutheran position, but rather an honest attempt to faithfully present Lutheran doctrine. I have probably not done the best job as I attempted to do this between conference calls at work, so to the extent I have failed or have been unclear, I do apologize.

Steve

Why do some believe and others don't?

Well I sympathize with you regarding the encroachment of the CGM on the LCMS synod (which actually is encroaching on not just Lutherans but upon all). However, since I am in disagreement with FOC and since I believe that many people (Joe, Pilgrim, et al.) have already pointed out to you how you disagree with what is the clear teachings of Scripture, which is more important than the FOC, I don't think I have to show you anything what you need to do is realize that Scripture supersedes creeds.

Well stated sir! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ClapHands.gif" alt="" />

The confessional Lutheran answer is that God is that Being, for whose will no cause or reason is to be assigned as a rule or standard by which He acts.

How does your answer have the slightest relevancy to what Tom asked you? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/dizzy.gif" alt="" />

What part of "no cause or reason is to be assigned as a rule or standard by which He acts" don't you understand?

Again, what I do not understand is the RELEVANCY of your response to the specific question Tom asked. What part of Tom's question don't you understand? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

Thanks Pilgrim, I thought perhaps I was missing something in Speratus's response. But like you, I see absolutely no relevancy to the question I asked him.

I would be interested in seeing if others feel the same way.

Tom

Tom,

I'm sorry you fail to see the relevancy of my answer. I suggest you read the Lutheran symbolic book, "Bondage of the Will", in order to better understand the Lutheran position on why some believe and others don't.

Only God has free will. Everything that happens or doesn't happen happens or doesn't happen because of God's will. But, as Luther opines, "no cause or reason is to be assigned as a rule or standard by which He acts." Luther says concerning His cause or reason, "This belongs to those secrets of Majesty, where 'His judgments are past finding out.' Nor is it ours to search into, but to adore these mysteries."

I have absolutely n idea what this means. I doubt Luther knew either!!!!

I think this was right after much ale he wrote this phrase.

THis is an example of Luther. Much he wrote wel, at other times he was incoherent and still believed error.