I was once a firm believer in the 5 points of Calvinism but by the grace of God I was blended the Book of Concord and now I am a firm Lutheran. Thank you for this and all your videos. God's peace be with you.
The part I can't seem to reconcile between Westminster and Concord are the views on baptism. Lutherans believe that baptism regenerates all people and at the moment it is administered. Yet the Reformed view on the efficacy baptism is not tied to the moment it is administered. Would this not more appropriately explain those who are baptized as an infant and come to the faith much later in life? I would greatly appreciate an explanation for this. God bless.
@@ihiohoh2708 God works faith in humans by His Word ."Faith cones by hearing and hearing by the word of God." Faith is given by God alone through the means He provides and declares in His word. Faith is not a decision. Baptism is the means of grace Jesus teaches, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." ( Mt. 28:19) And Peter says, "baptism now saves us," (1 Peter 3:21). God gives faith and baptism births us into His family.
@@lc-mschristian5717 Thank you for the response. Are you saying those who are regenerated at baptism as a baby are later given faith through the preaching of the Word? I can sort of understand that. I’d never deny the efficacy of baptism, I’m not Baptist. It’s just a bit hard to wrap my head around the idea of someone being regenerated as a baby and then not showing faith until say 45 for example.
@@ihiohoh2708 I'm saying God gives faith through the word even in the womb as John the Baptist or as infants before or at Baptism. Baptism can be denied by the person but hopefully is brought up in the word and Sacraments ever increasing their faith. If it is denied that is the person's fault, if it increases that is God's work. Unless converted from heathens, all Christians were only baptized as infants and grew up in the grace of their baptism. Only in the 1500s was this practice even challenged. God's peace be with you.
@@lc-mschristian5717 I converted later. I wasn’t baptized as an infant. I agree 100% baptism saves and infant baptism is biblical. You’ve given me some things to think about. Other than the differences of sacraments the only other thing that I struggle with in Lutheranism is the iconography. I pray often for God to give me discernment of where I should be. God bless you for after a 3 year old comment being so quick to answer my reply.
5:32, 6:23 - unconditional election 6:36, 7:23 - limited atonement 7:05 - different Calvinist views 8:21, 8:32, 9:01 - irresistible grace 8:41 - implications of universal grace 9:44, 10:32 - perseverance of the saints 10:41 - areas of agreement 10:55, 11:18 - perseverance is a gift 11:46 - arminians and Calvinists, why are some saved and not others? 12:25, 12:38 - a Lutheran take
I know this is 2 years old, but I have to say that as a Lutheran, I’ve been listening to lots of Catholic theology from Catholics themselves, and found that we agree way more than disagree. Praying that we could one day be in communion again 🙏
Excellent video. In chapter 103 of Augustine's "Enchiridion," he disagrees with the Lutheran view, as Dr. Cooper expresses it at the 7:34 point, that "the Father desires the salvation of all." It would be interesting to see a video that takes inventory of the major points of difference and agreement between Augustine and Luther (and Calvin too, for that matter).
This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. 1 Timothy 2:3-6 ESV
Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live.” Ezekiel 18:31-32
@@BibleLovingLutheran Now, of course, there is a response to that text made through the centuries. Gill: By all men whom God would have to be saved, we are not to understand every individual, of mankind, since it is not the will of God that all men, in this large sense, should be saved; for it is his will that some men should be damned, and that very justly, for their sins and transgressions; ungodly men, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation (Jude 1:4); and to whom it will be said, go, ye cursed, into everlasting fire. Also, since you undoubtedly hold that there is only 1 WILL of God, you have a problem as Gill points out, "Moreover, if it was the will of God that every individual of mankind should be saved, then every one would be saved; for who hath resisted his will? or can do it? Does he not do according to His will in the armies of the heavens, and among the inhabitants of the earth? (Rom. 9:19; Dan. 4:35; Eph. 1:11)." Hence, if God wills something that can be thwarted from where does our confidence, perseverance, and assurance of prayer being answered come from?
Reformed Baptist here. I felt like you were fair in your presentation of the five points, given the brevity of the treatment. Much appreciated. Came to hear your take on it and your own presentation of your (Lutheran) position, rather than a reformed summary of the Lutheran take. Thanks!
Ok. I truly don’t mean disrespect, just genuine curiosity: How can you Calvinists ever be sure of grace and salvation? That is after all the promise of Jesus we are to have Faith in so it seems like the thing you would want to be most certain of, really the only question that matters. It seems very nihilistic to hope in what to me sounds like God playing with a Plinko board to determine salvation and damnation. Is Faith in Jesus who gave his life that all who believe in him may be saved like a free space on a Bingo card? I just don’t understand.
@@nemoexnuqual3643 Reformed (not Baptist) here. I don't exactly understand where you are coming from in your question or what the issue really, but that is the subject of Westminster Confession chapter 18, so that might give you an idea of how we approach the question of assurance.
@@oracleoftroy with double predestination how can anyone have assurance. At that point you have stripped free will which means God is basically playing the sims and you can only hope that your number comes up in Gods bingo roller. If your every move is scripted why are some punished and some rewarded? The Lutheran idea that if you surrender free will and follow God who has done all the work then the glory is to God but by choosing to idolize your sin and not repent you have only yourself to blame if condemned makes sense to me. Then there is a loving God who defaults to desiring that no man be condemned but then making condemnation just for those “stiff necked.”
@@nemoexnuqual3643 The Reformed and Lutherans have pretty much the same view on predestinstion and the bondage of the will to sin, even more so historically, so I don't see why that would be a problem. Double predestination is not equal ultimacy. We certainly reject "every move is scripted" nonsense. It sounds like you've listened to a lot of anti-calvinists define Calvinism, but have you read our confessions? Westminster Confession chapter 9 lays out the Reformed affirmation of free will. Chapters 3 discusses how it interacts with the decree of God, in which it teaches that God establishes the free will of man and the liberty and contingency of second causes by what he ordains. Chapter 5 talks about providence, in which second causes are able to play out freely and contingently, not just necessarily. Contingent events and "everything is scripted" don't go together. But even if they weren't the case, I'm still not sure what the issue is. Are you implying that if God didn't allow contingent behavior and micromanaged every last event in the universe, we would have less cause of assurance than if man had a role in saving themselves? A huge part of my assurance is because I didn't do the saving, as I am the sinner who willfully sinned and so put me in a place of needing saving. If my salvation was up to me, I would be condemned. It is because God is mighty to save that I can be assured of my salvation. I trust God far more than I trust myself to save me.
What ultimately allowed you reject sin and surrender to God is regeneration by the Holy Spirit. This is 100% a work of God in you and only God. So the unbeliever is simply not given this saving grace because if he was given it… he would believe and be saved. Us calvinists don’t necessarily reject free will. We are free because we act in accordance to our desires… but our desires are not free but actually bound by sin. So us turning to God is paradoxically an act of God’s sovereignty through election because he has changed our desires through regeneration and a free act by us because we acted according to our desire. Which is exactly what it means to be free. Hope this helps.
How can god freely choose everyone that is elected, who then have the ability to reject it but everyone who is elected will be saved in the end through the perseverance God gave them? This seems like an inherent contradiction in Lutherans. You cannot simultaneously reject God’s grace to be saved as an elected person but will inevitably be saved through the perseverance that God will choose to give them anyways. If God makes the perseverance for them to stay in the Church so they can inevitably be saved, that’s just irresistible grace with extra steps.
@@SonOfTheLionThis is a perfect example of directions Calvinists vs non-Calvinists go when confronting a paradox: The Calvinist inevitably appeals to logical restraints and then to established dogma (the deductive approach). Meanwhile, the non-Calvinist appeals to the texts (even if recognizing one’s limitation at being able to reconcile them), taking the Inductive route. I just find it fascinating- this reality repeats over and over on topic after topic!
as a reformed Baptist I actually find the Lutheran view as very appealing biblically on this issue. I have started reading a book showing the differences between reformed and Lutheran. Very convincing exegesis
How can you simultaneously believe that it's God's desire for all to be saved and that Jesus died for ALL people AND in unconditional election? Calvinists believe that the elect are predestined. Wouldn't that mean that Jesus only died for them by necessity?
Great explanation. Been researching this and i keep landing in the camp as you explain it. Im okay with a little mystery as i will never fully comprehend God's ways.
I was raised as a Calvinist, but I would really like to become a Lutheran. The problem is that in my city there aren’t Lutheran churches. I really enjoy this video and I completely agree with it. God bless you. Sorry for my English, is a work in progress.
You could go to an Anglican Church in North America (ACNA); though Reformed, Anglicanism is a broader tradition. I'm an Anglican-Lutheran hybrid. God bless you!
@@allisvanity...9161problem with Anglicans is even the breakaways still have liberal tendencies like female pastors. Anglican in general is not bad but you get into difficulties with Communion and other things. Here we have a similar problem (Lutheran church is liberal) so the closest is Catholic.
Irresistible Grace doesn’t mean God’s grace can’t be resisted, it means God’s grace can only be resisted as much as God allows. God can overcome our human resistance whenever He so chooses.
But that’s not any different than Arminianism. Arminians believe God has the power to override our will if He wanted to. The difference is we believe He doesn’t.
@@thomasthellamas9886 Forcibly yes. If God is all powerful, then He can forcibly do anything. The difference between Calvinists and everybody else is that Calvinists believe that God will force people to be saved (irresistible grace) whereas everyone else thinks God won’t forced people to be saved (resistible grace).
I would sort of disagree, so I know that you might be saying not all of us say this but I sort of lean more on the Lutheran approach and I feel like most people might accidentally misinterpret it because of how it looks but limited atonement just means it only saves the elect. We know that it can save everyone in the world but obviously not everyone is saved, so I think in terms of universalism not being true limited atonement if interpreted correctly can be found in scripture.
Also, when we say irresistible grace, we mean those who have been elected, God will use his irresistible grace on them, otherwise they wouldn’t really turn because we would just resist it. So his irresistible grace only applies to the elect. Most people resist because God doesn’t use irresistible grace on them and just common, resistible grace on them. Hope this clears up these 2 points. Much love everyone in and not in Christ. God bless.
God's offer of saving grace can be rejected by humanity choosing to remain in sin. If they are saved, it is purely grace, if they aren't, they damned themselves by choosing their own sin. Hope this helps!
@@TKK0812 God's decree of election is not what saves us, but rather our justification is by faith in hearing the gospel. God mediates the word to us and makes it available to via the preached and written word. His will is for all to be saved, but because of man's sinful desires they will reject his word. Those who are elect are those who hear his word and believe and have faith in the gospel, and that is credited purely towards God's grace
Martin Luther and John Calvin did not differ in doctrine. Luther wrote the Bondage of the Will against Freedom of the will by Erasmus. “With reference to the elect we might distinguish between three classes. First, there are those who are satisfied with God’s will, as it is, and do not murmur against God, but rather believe that they are elected. They do not want to be damned. Secondly, there are those who submit to God’s will and are satisfied with it in their hearts. At least they desire to be satisfied, if God does not wish to save, but reject them. Thirdly, there are those who really are ready to be condemned if God should will this. These are cleansed most of all of their own will and carnal wisdom. And these experience the truth of the: Song of Solomon 8:6: “Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as death.” Such love is always joined with cross and tribulation, for without it the soul becomes lax, and does not seek after God, nor thirst after God, who is the Fountain of Life.” ― Martin Luther, Commentary on Romans
He mentioned those who stay in course to be saved is through God’s grace of perseverance he gave them to stay and will be inevitably be saved. This just sounds like irresistible grace with extra steps.
If it is God's will that all will be saved, and all are not saved, doesn't that mean that God is not able to fulfill his will, or that contradictions exist within him?
Calvinists actually give the same answer for why some aren’t saved as Lutherans. Because man certainly does reject. Although this position makes more sense in the 4 point view. I have one question: Will a saved man who is not one with the gift of perseverance always fall away? I may not even be asking the question in the best way God bless
I see why you'd say that the answer is the same, but even in an infralapsarian view, the ultimate reason why saving grace is not given to some fallen creatures is in God's decree. Yes, that decree is based upon a fallen mass of humanity who has, due to original sin, rejected him, but within that mass, God chose to pass over some.
For those keeping score, it would seem, from a Calvinist perspective: - Full Calvinists are 5-pointers: (TULIP) - Amyraldians are 4-pointers: (TU_IP) - Lutherans are 2.5-pointers: (TU__p) - Provisionists are 1.5-pointers: (t___P) - Arminians are 1-pointers: (T____) Who can speak into Anglicans?
@chaddonaI4331 No. Lutherans don't believe in P and for U in calvinism is always with ordenation for reprobation. There is no room for supra or infra in Lutheranism. The only thing in common with calvinism is T.
Have a question for you brother. Do the believers that you consider to be "regenerate" who are not part of the "elect" have any chance of making it to heaven? Thanks for your answer 👍 Be blessed
Fides Quaerens Intellectum Paradoxes or contradictions? And Lutherans wonder why they get left out of the mainstream discussions. 🤔 Y’all won’t take any real stances and take this half-pregnant approach.
Jeremiah B because we don’t go further than scripture. Scripture clearly says we won’t understand all while here. But calvinists just like to let their human reasoning take over and fill in what scripture does not say.
Jeremy Thompson I reject Calvinism, but I also see the obvious inconsistencies and contradictions in Lutheranism. Are you saying that God laid out the Bible is such a way to be the author of confusion even amongst His children? I also think Lutherans are stuck in the Augustinian branch of church history just like Calvinists and are blind to other interpretations of Scripture passages that exist that don’t end up in a ton of contradictions.
Jeremiah B where is the contradiction?! That’s why I love Lutheranism, there is no contradiction and we don’t make up things to cover for things that aren’t biblical.
Jeremy Thompson See all of my other comments. I don’t feel like going through all of it again. But what Lutherans call paradoxes are not paradoxes. Of course you are a Lutheran, so you would have a biased view of your beliefs. No one will admit problems within the beliefs they hold to. People on the outside can see clear contradictions, especially between the Lutheran doctrines of universal objective justification and the individual view election to salvation.
I believe total depravity means that we are totally dead in sin before we are born again. Paul says we are dead to sin and through Christ we have life. So we are dead, dead dead, totally dead until God regenerates us.
"All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned." - Martin Luther. From this Luther’s quote, how do you arrive at the conclusion that God’s election/predestination only works for “the positive”?
Mygoalwogel refers you to a video by Ryan Reeves but Reeves is simply wrong to say that Luther was reluctant to talk about predestination, and that he didn't, unlike Calvin, go in the direction of teaching reprobation. I quoted from Luther’s Bondage of the Will in my replies below Dr Cooper's recent video "Lutheran Devotional Practices and Literature" and showed that Luther held to double predestination. My replies can be found in answer to Nick.S.C. who wrote: 'I have heard that Luther taught double predestination in "On The Bondage Of The Will." Is this true?' th-cam.com/video/u-AP9a16HHU/w-d-xo.html
Since God does actively elect some to salvation, and that is His Sovereign choice, doesn't that mean He also chose not to elect the others? I don't think you can affirm predestination logically if it is not double. God chose to elect some. He also chose not to elect some. He has the right to do that, and His choice was before the foundation of the world. If He chose to elect All mankind their would be no cry of injustice, also if He chose not to elect any their would be no cry of injustice. If one affirms the doctrine of election, they affirm that all the ones the Father has chosen were completely dependent on His choice for their salvation. Sovereign election is an active work of God, and He chose who He willed to elect. He also passively chose not to elect some according to His own will, leaving them in their sin. The call of the Gosple is a universal call to all mankind and those who come to the Lord Jesus were brought to Him by the Father being placed in Him from the foundation of the world.
Romans 5 :18-19 Paul makes it explicit that the gift is not like the offense. Through the offense, we fell into many. Through the gift, all offenses are justified. It is plainly given to all mankind as Paul says
The natural man always resists the gospel and hates the light. The Father chooses to give eternal life to some. “In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will!” Ephesians 1:11 The Son died for the elect and was raised from the dead. “I lay down my life for the sheep....You do not believe because you are not my sheep. John 10:15, 26 The Holy Spirit, in time, regenerates the elect and they receive the gift of faith. “We were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions-it is by grace you have been saved!” Ephesians 2:3-5 Jesus says: “Assuredly I say to you, the one who believes in me has everlasting life.” John 6:47 Belief equals everlasting life. A person cannot stop believing and bearing fruit because everlasting life never ends by its very definition. “Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus!” Philippians 1:6 No contradictions with the correct Biblical theology. Lutheran view splits the very nature of the one God and the work of the three persons. This is an infinite serious problem. Lutheran view contradicts the first two Lutheran points with its last three for which you admit not having an answer. There is no answer to a contradiction. God does not contradict himself. The non-elect go to hell no matter if you call it single predestination or if the Son dies for them. Plus why would Jesus die for people in hell? He doesn’t. Jesus came to effectively die and save the elect as he says: “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day!” John 6:39
@@bobtaylor170 I don't see how that verse says what you claim it says. That is, I see how you can hold your position and be fine with that verse, but as one that rejects your position, I also have no trouble reading the verse as written.
12:15 - _"Some are saved because they have chosen to accept Christ, they have chosen to be Christians, and other are not saved because they have chosen to reject God's grace."_ The problem I have with this is that none of those things "save". What saves is faith - BELIEF. You BELIEVE God, and it is accounted to you as righteousness, just as it was with Abraham. When you BELIEVE God, when you BELIEVE Jesus when he says, _"I am able to save to the uttermost, them that come to me by faith (ie, those that believe me)...",_ that is what saves you. But one thing that is never involved in belief is "choice". So, I see that Dr. Cooper was careful with his words here. You *can* "choose to 'accept Christ' (mental ascent), you *can* choose "become a Christian", you *can* choose to get baptised. But you cannot choose to believe. And not just believe God, but believe anything at all. None of us believe anything at all because we laid out both sides, and all the evidence, examined it, and then CHOSE to believe one side or the other. Belief (faith) just does not work that way. We hear, and we either believe or not. But we certainly do not choose either way. If you believe because you CHOSE to believe..., if belief is a CHOICE that you can make, then may I suggest a simple exercise? For just the next five minutes, chose NOT to believe. It's highly unlikely that you are going to die in the next five minutes, so it should be safe. You can choose to believe again at the end of the exercise. Can you do it? Of course not. We don't have any control over what we believe. We may have control of what evidences we choose to pile up on one side or the other, but even then, by that point, you already believe or not, and you are just bolstering the belief (or unbelief) that already exists in your heart. But if our faith is not something that we chose to do, then where does it come from? That is whole point of the Gospel, and I'll let you take it from there.
I don't think you can argue this. Believe means to trust. When I trust I am making a choice to place my faith in something or someone. It's all the same.
If you agree with the positive aspect of unconditional election (election unto salvation), but disagree with the negative aspect (skip them and leave them in their sin), where exactly do you go, then? What other outcome is there? If man is unable to do anything to effect his own salvation, except for grace, then if that grace is *not* extended to another man, he has no other possible outcome other than to perish. Because, again, he cannot do anything to effect his own salvation apart from the Grace of God. What third path is there for the Lutheran (or the reprobate) to take?
Ooops. I should have been more careful with the wording there. I am not calling Lutherans "reprobates", or even suggesting that they are together in the same class. My bad.
@@hgbitner8486 God has saved man through the vicarious suffering and death on the cross for sin and is not willing that any would perish but that all would come to repentance. That free gift is available to the world. If anyone will not receive God's forgiveness then it is on that person... and they have condemned themselves. God is blameless and His judgments are righteous.
What i personally believe without all the difficult terms is that Lutherans don't identify themselves as Calvinists nor Arminians. But that they float somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism. In one way embracing certain Calvinistic doctrines/teachings and on the other hand embracing certain Arminian doctrines/teachings. To me Lutheranism is more sound in teachings than Arminianism but that they floating somwhere between trying to soften some of the 5 points of Calvinism which can be hard to digest at times for many people.
Lutherans don't "embrace" Calvinistic stuff. Its the calvinists who try to claim Luther for some common views and the bondage of the will book, which is very un lucky. Also Luther came first
Hypothetical as in everybody could be saved if God chose to 'elect' them. A legitimate offer exists to everybody. Calvinism makes this offer 'hypothetical' because of the belief of absolute inability and the belief that God only chooses certain individuals for elections vs simply those who are in Christ (as the scripture teaches).
@@robertzeurunkl8401 I don't understand your point. We can only be in Christ because God loved us and sent his son to die for our transgressions. So yes, we can only be in Christ because of God, but I assume you mean we can only have faith because God forces certain individuals to. That part isn't scriptural.
@@robertzeurunkl8401 Since there is no scripture that says that the way you did, you didn't quote scripture. What scripture are you referring to specifically? Why would I want a scripture to go away to re-enforces God's provision for all to be saved?
“No man can come to me (Total Depravity) unless the Father (unconditional Election) sho sent me draws him (irresistible grace) and I will raise him up (“limited” or “particular” atonement) on the last day”(perseverance/preservation of the saints) - John 6:44.
@@DrJordanBCooper Thanks for the response... So in following the logical conclusion to those two answers... if everyone is not elect/chosen by God, and only those who are elect/chosen by God will be saved by the power of God, then God chooses who will be saved by unconditionally electing some and not others. Which also means that the non-elect never had a chance. This is the same as double predestination, even though you might not call it that.
@@Mygoalwogel Ryan Reeves is simply wrong to say that Luther was reluctant to talk about predestination and that he didn't, unlike Calvin, go in the direction of teaching reprobation. I imagine Reeves has been unduly influenced by confessional Lutheran understandings of Luther. See my replies below Dr Cooper's recent video "Lutheran Devotional Practices and Literature" in answer to Nick.S.C. who wrote: 'I have heard that Luther taught double predestination in "On The Bondage Of The Will." Is this true?' th-cam.com/video/u-AP9a16HHU/w-d-xo.html
@@janepatton8100 Fabulous! Most people who believe in unconditional election as Lutherans do don't want to believe in double predestination. They try to find ways around it. Your line of questioning revealed this very simply 👌 Thanks and God bless!
As a new conservative Anglican, I am still looking for any major difference between Lutheran doctrine and Anglican, so far, very minor differences, I see no reason, honestly, why conservative Lutherans and Anglicans shouldn't be in full Communion
I think from what I've seen that orthodox Lutherans would reject being in communion with the ACNA and GAFCON Anglicans (the orthodox ones) because Anglicans believe in receptionism (a view I agree with) , while Lutherans believe in the body and blood being in, with, and under the bread and win.
@@merecatholicity it's a tough one, cause it seems the articles are saying that the body and blood are only spiritually present for those who receive it with faith. It's possible it could be that it is present for all but only receive by those with faith. I will have to ask
@@Iffmeister I've done a pretty decent chunk of study, and I'd definitely encourage a deeper study. I'm confident they don't teach receptionism, even though that's how it seems.
To say God wills and wants all to be saved while at the same time affirming the only way one is saved ultimately is if God elects them, sounds to me to be problematic. You have God wanting all to be saved while only choosing to elect some. Why didn't God just do what He desired and save all?
As a Lutheran, this frustrates me to no end. We cannot say that God desires for all to be saved, then claim that he elects only some to salvation. We cannot say that God unconditionally elects people, then claim that the non-elect freely reject his grace. We cannot say that people can apostatize, then claim that the elect will inevitably persevere. And we wonder why people don't get Lutheranism.
@jamesbarksdale978 the problem is that you want to solve a mistery. That is unanswerable. Election is in view of Christ merits all by Grace. I'd recommend you to watch ask the pastor channel about this topic.
The 5 points of Calvinism are expressed precisely in the Canons of Dort, where they answer this way why the non-elect are not saved: “The fact that many who are called through the ministry of the gospel do not come and are not brought to conversion must not be blamed on the gospel, nor on Christ, who is offered through the gospel, nor on God, who calls them through the gospel and even bestows various gifts on them, but on the people themselves who are called. Some in self-assurance do not even entertain the Word of life; others do entertain it but do not take it to heart, and for that reason, after the fleeting joy of a temporary faith, they relapse; others choke the seed of the Word with the thorns of life’s cares and with the pleasures of the world and bring forth no fruits. This our Savior teaches in the parable of the sower (Matt. 13).” - Canons of Dort, Point 3/4, Article 9
If you believe that salvation can only come to those that have been chosen by God then that would mean that those who are unsaved are the results of not being chosen. That would also mean that they were chosen for destruction. You do believe in double election.
Everyone limits the Attonement, some in power others in scope All sins literally paid for (universalism) All sins are paid for ( for the elect only) All sins are paid for except disbelief It’s possible for sins to be forgiven
a big beef i have with calvinism is that it is so intellectually dishonest, much like catholicism. arguments rely on reading the doctrines into the text rather than just seeing what it says. a dead giveaway is when calvinists imply it's either between calvinism and arminianism or calvinism and universalism. no nuance allowed.
So the elect are on the Calvinist path and everyone else in the Arminian program and can decide for themselves? Yet your explanation of saved and unsaved sounds like man Calvinists with a very asymmetrical double predestination wherein is your fail for going to hell. Grace was available. Interesting.
Thank you, Jordan, for the quick explanation. Being totally in the Reformed camp, I am glad to see some common ground between us. I do find, however, that claiming universal atonement appears to contradict Jesus's words. He said he lays down his life for the sheep. And then he says, of the Pharisees, they are not his sheep. What I hear from your argument is that Christ atoned for those whom he directly said were not of his sheepfold. Of the Pharisees, he said, "you are of your father the devil and his works you will do." I think as John Owen pointed out, there is a problem in that, if universal atonement is true, there are many people in damnation now whose sins were actually atoned for. All Christians believe in limited atonement. Calvinists limit the extent. Arminians (and Lutherans, apparently) limit the power, because you make an atonement that doesn't actually save anyone but makes salvation theoretically possible under certain conditions. I also think the way you describe irresistible grace does not refute the concept. Contrarily, when you speak of one who hears the Gospel preached and rejects it, it is not the resistance of grace, but rather a demonstration of the fact that to those who are perishing, the Gospel is foolishness. Indeed, Paul writes in Roman that the natural man can not accept the things of God. Jesus said no man may come to him (presumably even those who take communion) unless the Father draws him. So what you see as resistance to saving grace, we see as the outworkings of the very things spoken of as marks of the natural man, still in bondage in his will to a sin nature, as you and I agree the natural mind is. But thank you for the civil and brotherly explanation of the Lutheran position, which is a refreshing moment compared to the often disjointed and illogical typical Baptist posts (Tassi, Allen, Flowers, Geisler, et al).
Jeremy Thompson by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, Rev 5:9 Note that it says “ransomed people FROM every tribe, language, people and nation” not ransomed EVERYONE in every tribe, language, people and nation. In the context of the time it was written, 1 Jn 2:2 makes more sense by understanding “the whole world as meaning the gentiles as well as the Jews. Remember that most of the Scriptures they used on a daily basis were Old Testament scriptures written by Jews, for Jews. There were New Testament books available, but even most of them were written by Jews. They had to understand that they, the gentiles, are not second hand citizens, or an afterthought. And the Jews would have to understand the same thing. We often overlook this as a rational understanding of the background, because the church has been predominantly gentile for almost 2000 years, so it’s easy for us to miss that meaning. For more on 1 Jn 2:2 see John Samson’s blog here: www.reformationtheology.com/2005/10/understanding_1_john_22_by_pas.php
The natural man always resists the gospel and hates the light. The Father chooses some. “In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will!” Ephesians 1:11 The Son died for the elect and was raised from the dead. “I lay down my life for the sheep....You do not believe because you are not my sheep. John 10:15, 26 The Holy Spirit, in time, regenerates the elect and they receive the gift of faith. “We were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions-it is by grace you have been saved!” Ephesians 2:3-5 Jesus says: “Assuredly I say to you, the one who believes in me has everlasting life.” John 6:47 Belief equals everlasting life. A person cannot stop believing and bearing fruit because everlasting life never ends by its very definition. “Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus!” Philippians 1:6 No contradictions with the correct Biblical theology. Lutheran view splits the very nature of the one God and the work of the three persons. Lutheran view contradicts the first two Lutheran points with its last three which you admit not having an answer. There is no answer to a contradiction.
@@catrandy7957 'The Living God, who is the Savior of all men (hypothetical universal atonement), especially of those who believe (the elect)'(1 Tim 4:10, NKJV) 'For as by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience, many will be made righteous'. (Rom 5:19). The term 'many' in the Scriptures does not always mean the elect. In this sense, the first part applies to all of Adam's fallen race. Likewise Christ dying for the sins of 'many' does not mean it was only the elect He gave Himself for. It is through faith alone (given by God) that the atonement becomes effectual and election proven and made sure. I'm a 4 point Calvinist if the P in TULIP is rendered 'preservation' rather than perseverance of the saints. Make that 3 if not. Perseverance points too much to performance which can never be a ground of assurance. The only assurance is found in resting on Christ's Finished Work. Also, firmly Free Grace and reject Lordship Salvation doctrine (Romanism lite) in both it's Calvinist and Arminian versions.
@@catrandy7957 We have to recognize when scripture is speaking on: God's secret will (election) and God's revealed will (all men). No confessional nor conservative Christian believes everyone will go to heaven in the end. However, this does not mean Christ has to be held back from the nations in his redemptive work. You can purchase a jar full of junk food but you do not have to eat it all.
So its God’s will that all be saved, yet all are not saved, so God's will is thwarted? God tries to help sinners go to Christ, but its all up to the sinner. Jesus is therefore a Way-Maker, but not a Savior.
So, if the Elect will inevitably persevere, but people who are genuinely saved can and do apostatize, then who are the ones who apostatize? Are there them non-elect who are for a time truly saved?
I think your question is misdirected for this reason. It pre-supposes the truly saved can or would apostatize. There is no statement of such in scripture. 1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." Jesus said in John6:23 "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of those he has given me and I shall raise them up at the last day" (in the Greek, raise "it" up at the last day). John 6:37 "All those whom the Father has given me will come to me and I will never drive them away." And we see in Romans 8 the Golden Chain of Redemption. Those who were are predestined are the same who in the end are glorified, start to finish. So, in the Reformed soteriology, there is no such thing as a truly saved person, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who ejects the Holly Spirit. No one is truly saved for a time and then lost. Matt 7:22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' But Christ will reject these, saying, "I never knew you." There are a great many who profess a false profession. They believe they are saved, often because of good works that they do, or they design a god in their minds that is not the God of scripture. I'm sure you can think of ways people make idols in their hearts. Some people have faith in their faith. They do not have saving faith in Christ, however. These are just some verses that will show there are no non-elect who either are truly saved or who ultimately reject Christ after having been saved.
@@blchamblisscscp8476 That's not something I believe, that is based on Lutheran beliefs. I phrased it that way to show the contradiction. First they claim that only the elect are saved, the elect WILL make it to Heaven, then they say that the Bible claims that people who are saved can and do apostatize. But if elect ARE saved, and the elect WILL make it to Heaven, and ONLY the elect are saved, then who is it that apostatizes? Assuming they meant that only the elect are FINALLY saved, you would have to have either elect who don't make it to Heaven, or non-elect who are saved, even if temporarily that don't make it to Heaven. But if you have non-elect who are temporarily saved, and ALL of them would have to apostatize since only the elect are finally saved, then you have two distinct groups of Christians. You have elect who WILL all make it to Heaven, and you have non-elect who NONE make it to Heaven! And both groups would have to be saved since they talk about falling away as proof against the Reformed view of the Perseverance of the saints. Lutherans like to talk bout Christ dying for everyone, and that no one is excluded, however, in their own theology, they believe the SAME thing that Reformed believe, that only the elect make it to Heaven. The difference is that the Reformed have a logical system that explains it without contradictions, the Lutherans have Happy talking points that ignore their contradictions.
〈〈CatRandy〉〉 you just said it, the reformed use a “logical system” as in human logic. We just go by what scripture says and no further. God says we won’t understand all of His thoughts. So using any human logic to full in gaps that scripture doesn’t explain more is in error.
Jeremy Thompson if you were consistent in that you would have to reject most doctrines of God and the Trinity which were worked out in the first several hundred years of the church. You can pick up from the Bible that there is One God, and that there are Three Persons, but much of the doctrines of God and the Trinity go way beyond “what the scripture says and no further.”
@@j.l.glover4037What do you mean? When a Lutheran asks that, I assume you are asking something like "Can one be Reformed and reject Zwingli's sacramental theology?" But of course, the Reformed position is quite far from Zwingli's and what is found in the Westminster Confession and Three Forms of Unity is much closer to the Book of Concord's position. The actual differences are more nuanced than I usually see represented in youtube comments. I think because there are many calvinistic Baptists out there, people confuse the Baptist position for the Reformed position, but they are quire far apart.
Both Lutherans and Calvinists believe that the saints will persevere and those that aren't elect won't persevere. The difference between a Lutheran and a Calvinist lies in the identification and definitions of the 'saints' and the 'elect'. Therefore there is no practical difference between Calvinists and Lutherans because the conclusions are the same but the premises are different. For example, a Lutheran says that a saint can lose their salvation while the Calvinists says that 'they were never a saint because they were never elect.' In both views the person is no longer a saint and/or not elect! So the outcome is agreed upon but the language is in disagreement. Which is a distinction without a difference.
While I absolutely believe God causes/ordains/determines some things. I don’t believe He causes everything to happen. In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, "People built places to sacrifice their children (in fire) to foreign gods, and He (God) says, "I did NOT COMMAND this, nor did it enter my mind." My contention is with people like John Piper who says, every single thing that happens on planet earth is caused by God. He gives the example of tiny dust particles in a beam of light. Piper says God controls the very movement of each tiny particle. Or James White who has said, "If a man brutally rapes a young girl, God caused it. If not, then it was a meaningless, random act." Jeff Durbin says, God is not partially sovereign, He is not half-sovereign, He is sovereignly sovereign. Meaning, like Piper and White, every single thing that happens is caused by God. If you follow that logic through, you have God saying to Adam and Eve, "Do not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil..." and then He causes them to do that very thing. You have God saying, "Have no other gods before me." AND then He makes countless billions worship Allah, Buddha, or one of the three hundred million Hindu gods. Again, if you carry this through, you have God, who is LOVE, who is Holy and Righteous, causing, murder, rape, child molestation, drugs, alcohol, prostitution, human trafficking, not to mention, the belief in atheism. Allowing something to happen, UNTIL it is dealt with on Judgment Day, is NOT the same as causing it to happen.
@@MB777-qr2xv You have a clear grasp of the problem both logically and biblically. You're on the right track. The solution lies in God's middle knowledge.
@@TheGreaser9273 I absolutely believe God knows EVERYTHING. Things that will happen, things that could happen, things that could HAVE happened. In other words, God not only knows what will happen but also everything that would happen under all circumstances.
God can decree that Christ dies for all while all do not receive the benefits of such. This in no way lessens Christ's atoning work so long as it is in accordance with God's decree.
Former Lutheran here, now Reformed. The internal call of the Holy Spirit is irresistible to his elect. The external call of the gospel is always resisted by those that are not elect. The Lutheran view on predestination makes mysteries out of plain teaching.
*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. *Luke 11:13* Jesus is emphatic that the Father gives the Holy Spirit to anyone who asks. *John 3:16* God loved the world. *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. *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. *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.
@@MarkCox11 That very question outs you as someone who never was a Lutheran, regardless of your OP. You don't even know the Small Catechism for children.
You cannot avoid taking a position and say you are neither a calvinist or arminian. You either believe that Christ died for everyone or he died for his elect only. There is no third choice. You either believe that you will never come to God on your own or that you can come to God on your own. There is no third choice. You rather believe that you were personally chosen by God before the world was made unto salvation or you don't
The problem is you're still assuming those are the only two categories. But both sides are wrong because you have to ignore passages of scripture to make either work. The truth is more complicated, but that makes it so great to talk about and discuss.
You say that salvation is open to everyone, elect as well as non-elect, and yet the Formula of Concord XI.5 says: “5] 4. The predestination or eternal election of God, however, extends only over the godly, beloved children of God, being a cause of their salvation, which He also provides, as well as disposes what belongs thereto. Upon this [predestination of God] our salvation is founded so firmly that the gates of hell cannot overcome it. John 10: 28; Matt. 16: 18.” If the predestination of God is the cause of the salvation of the elect, then who or what is the cause of the salvation of the non-elect? According to this, if God were the cause of their salvation, they would be elect, not non-elect.
The key to understanding Lutheran doctrine on predestination is that it isn't logical. There's a contradiction at the heart of their beliefs in that they believe everyone is saved through God predestining them to be saved, but the damned aren't predestined to be damned but are alone responsible for their fate. Lutherans believe in universal grace and that the Holy Spirit is always active in the means of grace (i.e. the Gospel and sacraments) so that if a person isn't saved that's down to him resisting the Holy Spirit whose trying to convince him about Christ being his Saviour. However they don't believe that people are saved by choosing to believe what the Holy Spirit is trying to convince them of, because that would make them the cause of their own salvation instead of God's election and predestination. Lutherans try and hold together the two conflicting ideas in that God alone is responsible for regenerating and saving them but man alone is responsible for bringing damnation on himself. Lutherans recognise the illogicality involved but think that God is so mysterious that He can somehow surmount the logical difficulties. There appears to be no way of convincing them of their error because once a person accepts the notion that truth is compatible with logical contradiction (or paradox as some categorise it as) there's no way of proving to them that they're in error.
Edward here’s the bottom line. No matter how much they talk about salvation being for everyone, no matter how much they say in there writings that they are being persecuted by the Reformed believers around them, Reformed believe that only the elect are saved, and so do the Lutherans. “Only the elect, whose names are written in the book of life [Revelation 21: 27], are saved. FORMULA OF CONCORD, Solid Declaration XI. 25 pg 605."
@@catrandy7957 That's a good point but there's going to be disagreement over who the members of the elect are though. I share with Lutherans the belief that Christ died for everyone in the world not just the elect, so I see the doctrine of limited atonement as an obstacle to correctly understanding the Gospel which is a universal declaration of forgiveness for all. Those who are damned even though they are predestined to be so are still objectively forgiven their sins through Christ's atonement on the cross. Therefore I view the Gospel as pertaining to all, and that one can be sure that Christ has atoned for one's sin's without having to worry about whether one is a member of the elect or not. If one has faith and trust in Christ as one's Saviour one may safely conclude that one is a member of the elect although one should never be complacent as the idea of "once saved always saved" is unbiblical.
@@Edward-ng8oo you say: "the idea of "once saved always saved" is unbiblical.", however, the Formula of Concord says: "But the word of God leads us to Christ, who is the Book of Life, in whom all are written and elected that are to be saved in eternity, as it is written Eph 1:4 He hath chosen us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world. The certainty of the salvation of the elect was written down before time began. You also wrote: "Those who are damned even though they are predestined to be so..." That would constitute double predestination.
@@catrandy7957 I don't know whether you're acquainted with the timeline of the documents contained in the Book of Concord. The Formula of Concord is the last document in the book and it was written several decades after Luther's death. I agree with all the documents in the Book of Concord which were in existence during Luther's lifetime, but I don't agree with the denial of predestination to hell in the Formula of Concord. I'm in agreement with Luther who subscribed to double predestination and taught this in his book The Bondage of the Will. So I differ in belief from confessional Lutherans who fully subscribe to all the teachings in the Book of Concord. I don't agree that the Holy Spirit is always active through the Gospel, but rather hold that the Holy Spirit irresistibly converts mainly the elect, although there are others who are converted who are not of the elect, and who fall from grace like the seeds scattered by the sower on the rock. The quote from the Formula you give doesn't actually teach once saved always saved. It merely says that the Word leads people to Christ in whom are written all those who are members of the elect, and that their salvation has been determined before the creation of the world. It's not denying that there are others who fall from grace and who were never members of the elect (at least that’s how I understand it). Lutherans in fact make a point of saying that the Bible teaches that one can fall from the faith - see for instance Dr Cooper's TH-cam video "Can a True Christian Fall away From the Faith?"
Are the regenerated believers who fall away from the faith doing so because God didn’t elect them, and they really had no chance of being saved in the first place? Or does God make his election based on if the person believes or not (not that believing in itself is meritorious but that God decided on His own that he would choose to save those who believe because that’s the condition He set on His own)? I think it’s clear that Lutherans don’t have a clear answer on this.
Mikael Nyman OK. Now how do you reconcile that with the Lutheran view of atonement and specifically universal objective justification? It seems to me what Lutherans are saying is that even the regenerated Christians who fall away only do so because God didn’t elect them, which would put them right on par with the Calvinists. In that view you are explaining, if election precedes faith, then the Christians who fall away never really had a chance to be saved in the first place. It was all a charade and would be similar to John Calvin’s teaching of evanescent, or temporary, faith where God deceives people into thinking they are saved and then rips that faith away. Yet, the Lutheran view of atonement says otherwise. Do you see the confusion and contradiction?
Mikael Nyman But you are just saying that with no justification. You are making two contradictory statements with two contradictory doctrines and just accepting it. Again, this is why Lutherans aren’t taken seriously in these discussions. I’m asking how do you justify your view of election being outside of a person’s faith and universal objective justification. I’m yet to get a legitimate answer. Would you or other Lutherans just accept contradictory doctrines from other believers without challenging them?
Mikael Nyman It’s a contradiction. I’m telling you this from an unbiased point of view. Creeds and confessions were still written by fallible men. OK, answer this. Lutherans believe in universal objective justification, correct? Under objective justification, Christ at the cross objectively justified every single person who’s ever lived. That grace and truth still must be subjectively received. Who determines whether or not a person accepts God’s grace or rejects it? God or man?
@Mikael Nyman I can't agree with you that the Lutheran position isn't contradictory - see my main comment below the video. Also, Luther in his book "The Bondage of the Will" wasn't in agreement with the Formula of Concord on predestination. Luther agreed with double predestination in that book. The documents in the Book of Concord that were extant when Luther was alive don't endorse a rejection of predestination to hell. It's only the Formula which was written after Luther's death which denies double predestination.
@Mikael Nyman Human reason can be understood in a couple of different ways. Either in terms of common sense or logical argument. In the first sense Luther for instance said that it should be confined only to this earthly life as it's impossible for natural reason to accept Scriptural truths like the incarnation. However, with regards to logic Luther was ruthlessly logical in his argumentation and would have rejected the Lutheran belief in single predestination as logically incoherent and contradictory. Your perception that the Lutheran position isn't inherently contradictory is a faulty perception on your part. You're not grasping the reality but rather papering over it.
This man totally contradicts himself by his own words. On one hand he says he believes in unconditional election, then he says he believes in conditional election, saying God is waiting for man to choose to be saved and He wants everyone saved. Complete self-contradiction.
From a Lutheran perspective, how do you reconcile Unconditional Election with man's freewill to choose God? You are correct there is alot of paradox in Lutheranism. In my denomination Primitive Baptist we don't have paradoxical soteriology. God only loves the elect, Jesus died for the sheep only (John 10:11, 26-29) and the P in TULIP is preservation not perserverance. Regeneration always precedes faith so whether someone is born retarded or they are aborted or live in a place like North Korea with no preacher man the elect are saved because the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world. There is no gospel means for eternal salvation, preaching the Gospel is for discipleship of God's elect which saves them from corruption in this evil world, its a temporal salvation in this life but has no consequence of eternal salvation of the soul which was done on the cross, the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
I don't think saying Calvinists say the reason people aren't saved is because of God is entirely accurate, at least not for all Calvinists. Infralapsarians at least would want to emphasize that God decrees to pass over those who aren't saved, but the reason for their condemnation is still their sin, so from one perspective it is God but from another it is man. Probably the difference is moreso that for Lutherans there isn't that sense in which God is the cause of the non-elects condemnation, that the offer is equally extended to all?
Sam Lenhardt But even those who are in sin in Calvinism are that way because God decreed it and those people cannot do otherwise. That’s compatibilism. Making it seem more palatable doesn’t change the logical conclusion.
@@jeremiahb9718 again yes and no, God did decree to permit them to sin, but the cause of their sin is their own willful decisions. And the decree of God doesn't make their decisions less meaningful, that's straight from the Westminster Confession. Calvinists want to maintain both causes at the same time, in a somewhat mysterious way, not flatten out everything to being caused by God in a way that makes other causes irrelevant.
Sam Lenhardt So what I said is true, but you just don’t like how it was said. Got it. 👍🏻 Typical of Calvinists. This why I actually appreciate the high and hyper-Calvinists. They are honest about their beliefs and aren’t trying to put makeup on their doctrines just to be palatable for man.
@@jeremiahb9718 no, what you said was untrue by omission. It's like if I said Lutherans believe grace is resistable so it's really up to people to save themselves by not resisting grace. The first part is true but the conclusion is not because it ignores other things Lutherans also believe. If you want to have a fair understanding of what reformed theology teaches on this subject read WCF chapter 3. But saying I'm trying to "make things palatable" when I'm literally explaining the confessional position is not really a good way to argue.
Sam Lenhardt Yes it is true. I know what compatibilism is. I and many others just don’t fall into the word game trap and see Calvinism for what it really is. And why do you Calvinists and the Lutherans constantly appeal to creeds and confessions and traditions of men like the Catholics? 🤔
Calvinist position on irresistible grace is not accurately represent here. And, second, you affirmed limited atonement when you spoke about unconditional election, but deny in your explanation of limited atonement. It proves that you do not have accurate understanding of limited atonement.
Aleksandar Trajkovski Everyone limits the Attonement, some in power others in scope All sins literally paid for (universalism) All sins are paid for ( for the elect only) All sins are paid for except disbelief It’s possible for sins to be forgiven
Have you ever thought of doing a video on the Gnostic origins of Calvinism? John Calvin got most of his theology from St. Augustine, and Augustine was a Manichean gnostic before he became a Christian. If you compare the five points of Calvinism with a list of the beliefs of Manicheaism you will find that they are very similar. That's a main reason I reject Calvinism - it is a foreign implant from the first big heresy the Christian church had to deal with!
Just out of curiosity, how do you deal with Absolute Inability? I'm not seeing anywhere biblically where we are born blind. If Cain couldn't have done as God said he could, it seems cruel to say that he could.
I don't think a Lutheran would agree with that take nor with the shoddy scholarship needed to uphold it. Luther was an Augustinian monk after all, and much of Luther's own ideas were in line with that tradition. I know the neo-Pelagians really hate Augustine and historic Christianity, but as much as Calvin referenced the church fathers as support to show that he wasn't introducing new ideas, he also showed that it is scriptural. I think it would be worth working through something like the Canon of Orange and its many scripture references, a document the church had consensus on over 1000 years before Calvin.
What Lutherans view as mystery and paradox with respect to their views on why men are saved and lost, I see as logical contradictions. If the only reason a person is saved is down to God electing them to be saved, then logically the reason why they're damned is because they've not been elected to salvation. Likewise, if the reason why people are damned is because they've resisted God's grace, then logically the reason why they're saved is because they've chosen to accept God's grace. My conviction is that the truth can't possibly be a combination of the two positions as Lutherans believe. Only one or the other position can possibly be true. When Lutherans say in response that Scripture teaches that salvation is due exclusively to God, but damnation is due exclusively to man, they don't realize that they're believing something which can't possibly be true. Instead of insisting that their interpretation of Scripture is correct they should realize that their interpretation is faulty. As for me I hold that Scripture teaches the first position namely that salvation and damnation are down to God.
@@jeremiahb9718 I should make it clear that I'm not a Calvinist. I don't agree with limited atonement or Reformed teaching on the Lord's Supper. My personal beliefs are Lutheran except on the subject of predestination. I don't subscribe to the Formula of Concord's rejection of double predestination. I don't believe this was the original and authentic Lutheran position. It certainly wasn't Luther's position as can be seen from his book The Bondage of the Will.
@@jeremiahb9718 I can understand the extreme reluctance and outright refusal on the part of confessional Lutherans to admit that their theology on predestination is wrong, especially when it has been believed for so long a time and by so many people. Also in doing so they'd have to admit that the framers of the Formula of Concord got it wrong, and that must be a massive stumbling block to them, as they see single predestination as one of the hallmarks of Lutheranism in comparison to Calvinism. However the fact remains that their belief in single predestination to heaven and denial of predestination to hell is logically contradictory and therefore simply wrong. It can't possibly be true, and no amount of dismissing the contradictions involved by framing them in terms of paradox or mystery will change that fact. Some Lutherans even seem happy to accept that their theology on predestination is logically contradictory but that this isn't a bar to believing it to be true, which of course is ridiculous. I think they must be getting heartedly sick of people telling them that their predestination doctrine is faulty, but then people aren't going to stop doing this anytime soon, because the fact remains it is. It's just a constant source of irritation to outsiders who see the illogicality and feel compelled to point it out, because if they don't they're sort of complicit in it. One feels duty bound to try and remedy the situation because people (i.e.Lutherans) are being deceived. That's how I feel about it.
Edward Thank you! That’s exactly what I’ve been saying. Divine mysteries exist, but they can’t claim “mystery” to cover up contradictions. A divine mystery is not a contradiction.
So basically Lutheranism is a mix of reformed and arminian theology... Not that complicated. By the way, you still don't have a clear view on the reformed perspective. You were off on a few things. God bless!!!
What you are suggesting is incoherent. We can't deny Calvinism and not end up with a flavor of Arminianism unless we say we agnostic about the matter. If there are two people A and B, where A is saved and B is not, why did God elect A and not B? If you say it had nothing to do with B himself, then you must say God passed over B and now you are a Calvinist. If it had anything to do with B (3ither God knew they would reject the Gospel, his grace, or something else) then you are in the Arminian camp. Wasnt Richard C. H. Lenski a legit Lutheran? Didnt he endorse a flavour of Arminianism?
*Ezekiel 18:23; 33:11* God wants all wicked to repent and live. *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. *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 8:13* Jesus asserts that some really do *joyfully believe* the gospel for a while, and actually *fall away* through trials and temptations. *Luke 11:13* Jesus is emphatic that the Father gives the Holy Spirit to anyone who asks. *Romans 11:32* Who does God have mercy for? Everyone whom he consigned to disobedience! *1 Corinthians 8:11* It is possible to destroy the saving faith of a brother for whom Christ died. *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. *1 John 2:2* Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, not only for the church.
@@Mygoalwogel What is your point? That Christ died for all and that it is possible to fall away? But my point here is not about that. Is about the coherence of the Lutheran position as expressed by the author of the video.
@@ΚύριοςἸησοῦς It's more important to be Biblical according the Holy Spirit than to be coherent according to the flesh. The doctrine of the Trinity appears to be illogical, yet Presbyterians do not deny it. There is one God. Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Jesus is not the Father is not the Spirit. Now lest I cause anyone to fail to distinguish mystery from fallacy, I'll add the heretical analogy There is one Indigo. The Flower is Indigo. The Color is Indigo. The Dye is Indigo. The color is not the flower is not the dye. In summary, *mystery* means we accept apparent contradiction WHILE being aware of possible loopholes YET rejecting the KNOWN loopholes that do not satisfy orthodoxy.
@@ΚύριοςἸησοῦς It seems to me that there are three main ideas in the Formula of Concord concerning election. "Upon the predestination of God our salvation is founded so firmly that the gates of hell cannot overcome it. John 10:28; Matt. 16:18." "That some perish not God or His election, but their wickedness, is responsible. [2 Pet. 2:1ff ; Luke 11:49. 52; Heb. 12:25f.]" "Thus far a Christian should occupy himself [in meditation] with the article concerning the eternal election of God, as it has been revealed in God’s Word, which presents to us Christ as the Book of Life, which He opens and reveals to us by the preaching of the holy Gospel, as it is written Rom. 8:30: Whom He did predestinate, them He also called. In Him we are to seek the eternal election of the Father, who has determined in His eternal divine counsel that He would save no one except those who know His Son Christ and truly believe on Him. Other thoughts are to be [entirely] banished [from the minds of the godly], as they proceed not from God, but from the suggestion of the Evil Foe, whereby he attempts to weaken or entirely to remove from us the glorious consolation which we have in this salutary doctrine, namely, that we know [assuredly] that out of pure grace, without any merit of our own, we have been elected in Christ to eternal life, and that no one can pluck us out of His hand; as He has not only promised this gracious election with mere words, but has also certified it with an oath and sealed it with the holy Sacraments, which we can [ought to] call to mind in our most severe temptations, and take comfort in them, and therewith quench the fiery darts of the devil." There is no contradiction. Merely, as with the Trinity doctrine, a refusal to preach or accept loopholes beyond the bounds of Biblical orthodoxy.
I love y’all….but its RIDICULOUS to me that you say you’re a “Christian” but believe in 5 points of Calvinism. I’m trying hard not to be disrespectful because I acknowledge that some of what is said is true…but the Pharisees made the same mistake of idolizing a system with Jesus..THE CHRIST…right in front of them! It’s the same nonsense in some seminaries…they’ll have Romans as mandatory but leave out the gospel…WHAT?!?!? Paul is clearly one to admire for all the things he contributed to our faith…but he is NOT to be idolized or prayed to…his literature was inspired by God. Jesus first….everything else a distant second. 🙏🏾
@@jamesbarksdale978 Arrogance? No. Confidence, yes. I know the consequences Of being a false prophet or a liar... What I said is true. If you reject clear and plain Scriptures, that are right in front of your eyes, You are rejecting the Word of God.. People filled with the Holy Spirit dont do that.
@@jamesbarksdale978 Are you saying you repented of the heresy of free will? Also known as Arminianisn? The heresy originated in its modern form by Jacob Arminius??
No no no. Man can choose good and evil. God wants us all to pray to him alone and choose to do good. It's not difficult at all. The Bible given by Moses is very clear that you can choose good and all the prophets preached the word of God. Turn from sin and he will forgive you. No Jesus no Sacrifices Deuteronomy 15-19
I was once a firm believer in the 5 points of Calvinism but by the grace of God I was blended the Book of Concord and now I am a firm Lutheran. Thank you for this and all your videos. God's peace be with you.
The part I can't seem to reconcile between Westminster and Concord are the views on baptism. Lutherans believe that baptism regenerates all people and at the moment it is administered. Yet the Reformed view on the efficacy baptism is not tied to the moment it is administered. Would this not more appropriately explain those who are baptized as an infant and come to the faith much later in life? I would greatly appreciate an explanation for this. God bless.
@@ihiohoh2708 God works faith in humans by His Word ."Faith cones by hearing and hearing by the word of God." Faith is given by God alone through the means He provides and declares in His word. Faith is not a decision. Baptism is the means of grace Jesus teaches, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." ( Mt. 28:19) And Peter says, "baptism now saves us," (1 Peter 3:21). God gives faith and baptism births us into His family.
@@lc-mschristian5717 Thank you for the response. Are you saying those who are regenerated at baptism as a baby are later given faith through the preaching of the Word? I can sort of understand that. I’d never deny the efficacy of baptism, I’m not Baptist. It’s just a bit hard to wrap my head around the idea of someone being regenerated as a baby and then not showing faith until say 45 for example.
@@ihiohoh2708 I'm saying God gives faith through the word even in the womb as John the Baptist or as infants before or at Baptism. Baptism can be denied by the person but hopefully is brought up in the word and Sacraments ever increasing their faith. If it is denied that is the person's fault, if it increases that is God's work.
Unless converted from heathens, all Christians were only baptized as infants and grew up in the grace of their baptism. Only in the 1500s was this practice even challenged.
God's peace be with you.
@@lc-mschristian5717 I converted later. I wasn’t baptized as an infant. I agree 100% baptism saves and infant baptism is biblical. You’ve given me some things to think about. Other than the differences of sacraments the only other thing that I struggle with in Lutheranism is the iconography. I pray often for God to give me discernment of where I should be. God bless you for after a 3 year old comment being so quick to answer my reply.
5:32, 6:23 - unconditional election
6:36, 7:23 - limited atonement
7:05 - different Calvinist views
8:21, 8:32, 9:01 - irresistible grace
8:41 - implications of universal grace
9:44, 10:32 - perseverance of the saints
10:41 - areas of agreement
10:55, 11:18 - perseverance is a gift
11:46 - arminians and Calvinists, why are some saved and not others?
12:25, 12:38 - a Lutheran take
This Catholic thanks you for making an enlightening video on both these perspectives.
I love listening to cooper. Check out the Catholic OCD podcast. It's new but tries to cover deeper topics like this
come to the light. embrace lutheranism and free yourself from the yoke of catholic degeneracy.
@@sinizzl
Ave Maria
Total Depravity 2:28
Unconditional Election 4:52
Limited Atonement 6:34
Irresistible Grace 8:18
Perseverance of the Saints 9:39
As a Catholic, it sounds like we are in lock step with each other on this. I agree with everything you said in this video!
Thats not a good thing
This is why I stopped being a candidate of Catholicism. This is biblical with no Rosary or asking for prayer from the deceased.
I know this is 2 years old, but I have to say that as a Lutheran, I’ve been listening to lots of Catholic theology from Catholics themselves, and found that we agree way more than disagree. Praying that we could one day be in communion again 🙏
@@cristianperez9786 Is it a bad thing that calvinists agree with Catholics on the divinity of Christ?
@@cristianperez9786…amen.
Excellent video. In chapter 103 of Augustine's "Enchiridion," he disagrees with the Lutheran view, as Dr. Cooper expresses it at the 7:34 point, that "the Father desires the salvation of all." It would be interesting to see a video that takes inventory of the major points of difference and agreement between Augustine and Luther (and Calvin too, for that matter).
A lutheran would say ask Him. Ask God.
who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1 Timothy 2:4 ESV
This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
1 Timothy 2:3-6 ESV
Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live.”
Ezekiel 18:31-32
Augustin was the father of Calvinism way more than Lutheranism
@@BibleLovingLutheran Now, of course, there is a response to that text made through the centuries. Gill: By all men whom God would have to be saved, we are not to understand every individual, of mankind, since it is not the will of God that all men, in this large sense, should be saved; for it is his will that some men should be damned, and that very justly, for their sins and transgressions; ungodly men, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation (Jude 1:4); and to whom it will be said, go, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.
Also, since you undoubtedly hold that there is only 1 WILL of God, you have a problem as Gill points out,
"Moreover, if it was the will of God that every individual of mankind should be saved, then every one would be saved; for who hath resisted his will? or can do it? Does he not do according to His will in the armies of the heavens, and among the inhabitants of the earth? (Rom. 9:19; Dan. 4:35; Eph. 1:11)."
Hence, if God wills something that can be thwarted from where does our confidence, perseverance, and assurance of prayer being answered come from?
Reformed Baptist here. I felt like you were fair in your presentation of the five points, given the brevity of the treatment. Much appreciated. Came to hear your take on it and your own presentation of your (Lutheran) position, rather than a reformed summary of the Lutheran take. Thanks!
Ok. I truly don’t mean disrespect, just genuine curiosity:
How can you Calvinists ever be sure of grace and salvation? That is after all the promise of Jesus we are to have Faith in so it seems like the thing you would want to be most certain of, really the only question that matters.
It seems very nihilistic to hope in what to me sounds like God playing with a Plinko board to determine salvation and damnation. Is Faith in Jesus who gave his life that all who believe in him may be saved like a free space on a Bingo card? I just don’t understand.
@@nemoexnuqual3643 Reformed (not Baptist) here. I don't exactly understand where you are coming from in your question or what the issue really, but that is the subject of Westminster Confession chapter 18, so that might give you an idea of how we approach the question of assurance.
@@oracleoftroy with double predestination how can anyone have assurance. At that point you have stripped free will which means God is basically playing the sims and you can only hope that your number comes up in Gods bingo roller.
If your every move is scripted why are some punished and some rewarded?
The Lutheran idea that if you surrender free will and follow God who has done all the work then the glory is to God but by choosing to idolize your sin and not repent you have only yourself to blame if condemned makes sense to me. Then there is a loving God who defaults to desiring that no man be condemned but then making condemnation just for those “stiff necked.”
@@nemoexnuqual3643 The Reformed and Lutherans have pretty much the same view on predestinstion and the bondage of the will to sin, even more so historically, so I don't see why that would be a problem. Double predestination is not equal ultimacy.
We certainly reject "every move is scripted" nonsense. It sounds like you've listened to a lot of anti-calvinists define Calvinism, but have you read our confessions? Westminster Confession chapter 9 lays out the Reformed affirmation of free will. Chapters 3 discusses how it interacts with the decree of God, in which it teaches that God establishes the free will of man and the liberty and contingency of second causes by what he ordains. Chapter 5 talks about providence, in which second causes are able to play out freely and contingently, not just necessarily. Contingent events and "everything is scripted" don't go together.
But even if they weren't the case, I'm still not sure what the issue is. Are you implying that if God didn't allow contingent behavior and micromanaged every last event in the universe, we would have less cause of assurance than if man had a role in saving themselves? A huge part of my assurance is because I didn't do the saving, as I am the sinner who willfully sinned and so put me in a place of needing saving. If my salvation was up to me, I would be condemned. It is because God is mighty to save that I can be assured of my salvation. I trust God far more than I trust myself to save me.
What ultimately allowed you reject sin and surrender to God is regeneration by the Holy Spirit. This is 100% a work of God in you and only God. So the unbeliever is simply not given this saving grace because if he was given it… he would believe and be saved. Us calvinists don’t necessarily reject free will. We are free because we act in accordance to our desires… but our desires are not free but actually bound by sin. So us turning to God is paradoxically an act of God’s sovereignty through election because he has changed our desires through regeneration and a free act by us because we acted according to our desire. Which is exactly what it means to be free. Hope this helps.
How can god freely choose everyone that is elected, who then have the ability to reject it but everyone who is elected will be saved in the end through the perseverance God gave them?
This seems like an inherent contradiction in Lutherans. You cannot simultaneously reject God’s grace to be saved as an elected person but will inevitably be saved through the perseverance that God will choose to give them anyways. If God makes the perseverance for them to stay in the Church so they can inevitably be saved, that’s just irresistible grace with extra steps.
Its an affirmation of what the bible teaches. Before you say you can't we should look at what the bible says instead of coming to our own conclusions.
@@SonOfTheLionThis is a perfect example of directions Calvinists vs non-Calvinists go when confronting a paradox:
The Calvinist inevitably appeals to logical restraints and then to established dogma (the deductive approach).
Meanwhile, the non-Calvinist appeals to the texts (even if recognizing one’s limitation at being able to reconcile them), taking the Inductive route.
I just find it fascinating- this reality repeats over and over on topic after topic!
as a reformed Baptist I actually find the Lutheran view as very appealing biblically on this issue. I have started reading a book showing the differences between reformed and Lutheran. Very convincing exegesis
And I just poured my coffee.
Great timing.
How can you simultaneously believe that it's God's desire for all to be saved and that Jesus died for ALL people AND in unconditional election? Calvinists believe that the elect are predestined. Wouldn't that mean that Jesus only died for them by necessity?
Great explanation. Been researching this and i keep landing in the camp as you explain it. Im okay with a little mystery as i will never fully comprehend God's ways.
How can you agree with the positive aspect of unconditional election and not the negative?
He’ll probably just say it’s a mystery
@@thomasthellamas9886 That would be because it is a mystery.
@@TheMendenhallen I agree, the only way you can hold this position is an appeal to mystery
I was raised as a Calvinist, but I would really like to become a Lutheran. The problem is that in my city there aren’t Lutheran churches. I really enjoy this video and I completely agree with it. God bless you. Sorry for my English, is a work in progress.
You could go to an Anglican Church in North America (ACNA); though Reformed, Anglicanism is a broader tradition.
I'm an Anglican-Lutheran hybrid.
God bless you!
@@allisvanity...9161problem with Anglicans is even the breakaways still have liberal tendencies like female pastors. Anglican in general is not bad but you get into difficulties with Communion and other things. Here we have a similar problem (Lutheran church is liberal) so the closest is Catholic.
You can be a Lutheran even without a Lutheran Church in your town. Just like me
@@Dilley_G45 LCMS and WELS isn't liberal, but ELCA is. I would wager there are more conservative Lutheran Churches than not but idk
move.
Irresistible Grace doesn’t mean God’s grace can’t be resisted, it means God’s grace can only be resisted as much as God allows.
God can overcome our human resistance whenever He so chooses.
Good way to cash that out
But that’s not any different than Arminianism. Arminians believe God has the power to override our will if He wanted to. The difference is we believe He doesn’t.
@@dakotasmith1344 So God could save all men?
@@thomasthellamas9886 Forcibly yes. If God is all powerful, then He can forcibly do anything.
The difference between Calvinists and everybody else is that Calvinists believe that God will force people to be saved (irresistible grace) whereas everyone else thinks God won’t forced people to be saved (resistible grace).
@@dakotasmith1344 So you believe God loves all men, in that he wants to save all men, but simply doesn’t?
Thanks so much for this video!
I would sort of disagree, so I know that you might be saying not all of us say this but I sort of lean more on the Lutheran approach and I feel like most people might accidentally misinterpret it because of how it looks but limited atonement just means it only saves the elect. We know that it can save everyone in the world but obviously not everyone is saved, so I think in terms of universalism not being true limited atonement if interpreted correctly can be found in scripture.
Also, when we say irresistible grace, we mean those who have been elected, God will use his irresistible grace on them, otherwise they wouldn’t really turn because we would just resist it. So his irresistible grace only applies to the elect. Most people resist because God doesn’t use irresistible grace on them and just common, resistible grace on them. Hope this clears up these 2 points. Much love everyone in and not in Christ. God bless.
This is just inconsistent. How can you say He has positively elected some for salvation and then say that His grace is resistible?
God's offer of saving grace can be rejected by humanity choosing to remain in sin. If they are saved, it is purely grace, if they aren't, they damned themselves by choosing their own sin. Hope this helps!
@@quinnhunt6124 So you reject the "i" in TULIP?
@@TKK0812 correct, I am Lutheran
@@quinnhunt6124 And that's my issue. What keeps God's elect from NOT receiving His gracious offer to be reconciled if His grace is resistible?
@@TKK0812 God's decree of election is not what saves us, but rather our justification is by faith in hearing the gospel. God mediates the word to us and makes it available to via the preached and written word. His will is for all to be saved, but because of man's sinful desires they will reject his word. Those who are elect are those who hear his word and believe and have faith in the gospel, and that is credited purely towards God's grace
Martin Luther and John Calvin did not differ in doctrine. Luther wrote the Bondage of the Will against Freedom of the will by Erasmus.
“With reference to the elect we might distinguish between three classes. First, there are those who are satisfied with God’s will, as it is, and do not murmur against God, but rather believe that they are elected. They do not want to be damned. Secondly, there are those who submit to God’s will and are satisfied with it in their hearts. At least they desire to be satisfied, if God does not wish to save, but reject them. Thirdly, there are those who really are ready to be condemned if God should will this. These are cleansed most of all of their own will and carnal wisdom. And these experience the truth of the: Song of Solomon 8:6: “Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as death.” Such love is always joined with cross and tribulation, for without it the soul becomes lax, and does not seek after God, nor thirst after God, who is the Fountain of Life.”
― Martin Luther, Commentary on Romans
The differences here, although somewhat significant, seem to be mostly linguistic and related to emphasis.
He mentioned those who stay in course to be saved is through God’s grace of perseverance he gave them to stay and will be inevitably be saved. This just sounds like irresistible grace with extra steps.
If it is God's will that all will be saved, and all are not saved, doesn't that mean that God is not able to fulfill his will, or that contradictions exist within him?
Calvinists actually give the same answer for why some aren’t saved as Lutherans. Because man certainly does reject. Although this position makes more sense in the 4 point view.
I have one question: Will a saved man who is not one with the gift of perseverance always fall away?
I may not even be asking the question in the best way
God bless
I see why you'd say that the answer is the same, but even in an infralapsarian view, the ultimate reason why saving grace is not given to some fallen creatures is in God's decree. Yes, that decree is based upon a fallen mass of humanity who has, due to original sin, rejected him, but within that mass, God chose to pass over some.
How can you say they are saved if their not to persevere ?! I would say they never had true saving faith that took root in fertile ground
For those keeping score, it would seem, from a Calvinist perspective:
- Full Calvinists are 5-pointers: (TULIP)
- Amyraldians are 4-pointers: (TU_IP)
- Lutherans are 2.5-pointers: (TU__p)
- Provisionists are 1.5-pointers: (t___P)
- Arminians are 1-pointers: (T____)
Who can speak into Anglicans?
@chaddonaI4331 No. Lutherans don't believe in P and for U in calvinism is always with ordenation for reprobation. There is no room for supra or infra in Lutheranism. The only thing in common with calvinism is T.
Have a question for you brother.
Do the believers that you consider to be "regenerate" who are not part of the "elect" have any chance of making it to heaven?
Thanks for your answer 👍
Be blessed
A believer is part of the elect and is destined for heaven. Not sure if you typed your question correctly. Or did I misunderstand the question?
@@SugoiEnglish1 Jorden doesn’t think that all believers, ie all who are saved/justified, are elect. Those non elect believers will fall away
This led me more confused and with more questions than before. 🤷🏻♂️
Fides Quaerens Intellectum Paradoxes or contradictions? And Lutherans wonder why they get left out of the mainstream discussions. 🤔 Y’all won’t take any real stances and take this half-pregnant approach.
Jeremiah B because we don’t go further than scripture. Scripture clearly says we won’t understand all while here. But calvinists just like to let their human reasoning take over and fill in what scripture does not say.
Jeremy Thompson I reject Calvinism, but I also see the obvious inconsistencies and contradictions in Lutheranism. Are you saying that God laid out the Bible is such a way to be the author of confusion even amongst His children? I also think Lutherans are stuck in the Augustinian branch of church history just like Calvinists and are blind to other interpretations of Scripture passages that exist that don’t end up in a ton of contradictions.
Jeremiah B where is the contradiction?! That’s why I love Lutheranism, there is no contradiction and we don’t make up things to cover for things that aren’t biblical.
Jeremy Thompson See all of my other comments. I don’t feel like going through all of it again. But what Lutherans call paradoxes are not paradoxes. Of course you are a Lutheran, so you would have a biased view of your beliefs. No one will admit problems within the beliefs they hold to. People on the outside can see clear contradictions, especially between the Lutheran doctrines of universal objective justification and the individual view election to salvation.
I believe total depravity means that we are totally dead in sin before we are born again. Paul says we are dead to sin and through Christ we have life. So we are dead, dead dead, totally dead until God regenerates us.
Is this an essential or non-essential issue?
"All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned." - Martin Luther. From this Luther’s quote, how do you arrive at the conclusion that God’s election/predestination only works for “the positive”?
th-cam.com/video/tirB0ODem24/w-d-xo.html
Mygoalwogel refers you to a video by Ryan Reeves but Reeves is simply wrong to say that Luther was reluctant to talk about predestination, and that he didn't, unlike Calvin, go in the direction of teaching reprobation. I quoted from Luther’s Bondage of the Will in my replies below Dr Cooper's recent video "Lutheran Devotional Practices and Literature" and showed that Luther held to double predestination. My replies can be found in answer to Nick.S.C. who wrote: 'I have heard that Luther taught double predestination in "On The Bondage Of The Will." Is this true?'
th-cam.com/video/u-AP9a16HHU/w-d-xo.html
Yes. How?
Brilliant. Thank you.
Curious if Lutherans believe that those who were saved in the Old Testament were saved based on the merits of Christ ?
Since God does actively elect some to salvation, and that is His Sovereign choice, doesn't that mean He also chose not to elect the others? I don't think you can affirm predestination logically if it is not double. God chose to elect some. He also chose not to elect some. He has the right to do that, and His choice was before the foundation of the world. If He chose to elect All mankind their would be no cry of injustice, also if He chose not to elect any their would be no cry of injustice. If one affirms the doctrine of election, they affirm that all the ones the Father has chosen were completely dependent on His choice for their salvation. Sovereign election is an active work of God, and He chose who He willed to elect. He also passively chose not to elect some according to His own will, leaving them in their sin. The call of the Gosple is a universal call to all mankind and those who come to the Lord Jesus were brought to Him by the Father being placed in Him from the foundation of the world.
Romans 5 :18-19
Paul makes it explicit that the gift is not like the offense. Through the offense, we fell into many. Through the gift, all offenses are justified. It is plainly given to all mankind as Paul says
The natural man always resists the gospel and hates the light.
The Father chooses to give eternal life to some.
“In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will!”
Ephesians 1:11
The Son died for the elect and was raised from the dead.
“I lay down my life for the sheep....You do not believe because you are not my sheep.
John 10:15, 26
The Holy Spirit, in time, regenerates the elect and they receive the gift of faith.
“We were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions-it is by grace you have been saved!”
Ephesians 2:3-5
Jesus says: “Assuredly I say to you, the one who believes in me has everlasting life.”
John 6:47
Belief equals everlasting life. A person cannot stop believing and bearing fruit because everlasting life never ends by its very definition.
“Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus!”
Philippians 1:6
No contradictions with the correct Biblical theology.
Lutheran view splits the very nature of the one God and the work of the three persons. This is an infinite serious problem.
Lutheran view contradicts the first two Lutheran points with its last three for which you admit not having an answer. There is no answer to a contradiction.
God does not contradict himself.
The non-elect go to hell no matter if you call it single predestination or if the Son dies for them. Plus why would Jesus die for people in hell? He doesn’t. Jesus came to effectively die and save the elect as he says:
“And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day!”
John 6:39
Funny, Jesus says that it's faith in Christ which produces regeneration. John 5:40. Thank you so much for fixing His mistakes.
@@bobtaylor170 I don't see how that verse says what you claim it says. That is, I see how you can hold your position and be fine with that verse, but as one that rejects your position, I also have no trouble reading the verse as written.
12:15 - _"Some are saved because they have chosen to accept Christ, they have chosen to be Christians, and other are not saved because they have chosen to reject God's grace."_
The problem I have with this is that none of those things "save". What saves is faith - BELIEF. You BELIEVE God, and it is accounted to you as righteousness, just as it was with Abraham. When you BELIEVE God, when you BELIEVE Jesus when he says, _"I am able to save to the uttermost, them that come to me by faith (ie, those that believe me)...",_ that is what saves you. But one thing that is never involved in belief is "choice".
So, I see that Dr. Cooper was careful with his words here. You *can* "choose to 'accept Christ' (mental ascent), you *can* choose "become a Christian", you *can* choose to get baptised. But you cannot choose to believe. And not just believe God, but believe anything at all. None of us believe anything at all because we laid out both sides, and all the evidence, examined it, and then CHOSE to believe one side or the other. Belief (faith) just does not work that way. We hear, and we either believe or not. But we certainly do not choose either way.
If you believe because you CHOSE to believe..., if belief is a CHOICE that you can make, then may I suggest a simple exercise? For just the next five minutes, chose NOT to believe. It's highly unlikely that you are going to die in the next five minutes, so it should be safe. You can choose to believe again at the end of the exercise. Can you do it? Of course not.
We don't have any control over what we believe. We may have control of what evidences we choose to pile up on one side or the other, but even then, by that point, you already believe or not, and you are just bolstering the belief (or unbelief) that already exists in your heart.
But if our faith is not something that we chose to do, then where does it come from? That is whole point of the Gospel, and I'll let you take it from there.
Doesn’t the devil believe in God?
I don't think you can argue this. Believe means to trust. When I trust I am making a choice to place my faith in something or someone. It's all the same.
@@jamesbarksdale978 you are not saved by faith alone.
If you agree with the positive aspect of unconditional election (election unto salvation), but disagree with the negative aspect (skip them and leave them in their sin), where exactly do you go, then? What other outcome is there? If man is unable to do anything to effect his own salvation, except for grace, then if that grace is *not* extended to another man, he has no other possible outcome other than to perish. Because, again, he cannot do anything to effect his own salvation apart from the Grace of God. What third path is there for the Lutheran (or the reprobate) to take?
Ooops. I should have been more careful with the wording there. I am not calling Lutherans "reprobates", or even suggesting that they are together in the same class. My bad.
Only that they both face the same dilemma.
God saves... man condemns. Leave the tension there and say amen, Thy will be done.
@@jeffhein7275 God does condemn?
@@hgbitner8486 God has saved man through the vicarious suffering and death on the cross for sin and is not willing that any would perish but that all would come to repentance. That free gift is available to the world. If anyone will not receive God's forgiveness then it is on that person... and they have condemned themselves. God is blameless and His judgments are righteous.
Yes, and the fact they can resist grace proves His righteous judgment
What i personally believe without all the difficult terms is that Lutherans don't identify themselves as Calvinists nor Arminians. But that they float somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism. In one way embracing certain Calvinistic doctrines/teachings and on the other hand embracing certain Arminian doctrines/teachings. To me Lutheranism is more sound in teachings than Arminianism but that they floating somwhere between trying to soften some of the 5 points of Calvinism which can be hard to digest at times for many people.
Lutherans don't "embrace" Calvinistic stuff. Its the calvinists who try to claim Luther for some common views and the bondage of the will book, which is very un lucky. Also Luther came first
Where can I find the book you mentioned?
Was it my book on Reformed-Lutheran differences? It's called The Great Divide: A Lutheran Evaluation of Reformed Theology, and can be found on Amazon.
Irresistible grace - you make sense, which is rather depressing, since I am praying for God to save my adult son.
Excellent as always.
7:08 - Hypothetical Universalists? In Calvinism? How does that work?
Hypothetical as in everybody could be saved if God chose to 'elect' them. A legitimate offer exists to everybody. Calvinism makes this offer 'hypothetical' because of the belief of absolute inability and the belief that God only chooses certain individuals for elections vs simply those who are in Christ (as the scripture teaches).
@@huntsman528 But they are only in Christ because of God.
@@robertzeurunkl8401 I don't understand your point. We can only be in Christ because God loved us and sent his son to die for our transgressions. So yes, we can only be in Christ because of God, but I assume you mean we can only have faith because God forces certain individuals to. That part isn't scriptural.
@@huntsman528 I said it because I am quoting scripture, word for word. Make of that what you will but you can't make it go away.
@@robertzeurunkl8401 Since there is no scripture that says that the way you did, you didn't quote scripture. What scripture are you referring to specifically?
Why would I want a scripture to go away to re-enforces God's provision for all to be saved?
It sounds like if you got into the nitty gritty, you affirm what a Calvinist would affirm. You just repackage some of the doctrine in different terms.
“No man can come to me (Total Depravity) unless the Father (unconditional Election) sho sent me draws him (irresistible grace) and I will raise him up (“limited” or “particular” atonement) on the last day”(perseverance/preservation of the saints) - John 6:44.
Two questions...
1. Is everyone elect?
2. Is there anyone who will be saved who's not elect?
No to both questions.
@@DrJordanBCooper
Thanks for the response...
So in following the logical conclusion to those two answers... if everyone is not elect/chosen by God, and only those who are elect/chosen by God will be saved by the power of God, then God chooses who will be saved by unconditionally electing some and not others.
Which also means that the non-elect never had a chance.
This is the same as double predestination, even though you might not call it that.
@@janepatton8100 th-cam.com/video/tirB0ODem24/w-d-xo.html
@@Mygoalwogel
Ryan Reeves is simply wrong to say that Luther was reluctant to talk about predestination and that he didn't, unlike Calvin, go in the direction of teaching reprobation. I imagine Reeves has been unduly influenced by confessional Lutheran understandings of Luther. See my replies below Dr Cooper's recent video "Lutheran Devotional Practices and Literature" in answer to Nick.S.C. who wrote: 'I have heard that Luther taught double predestination in "On The Bondage Of The Will." Is this true?'
th-cam.com/video/u-AP9a16HHU/w-d-xo.html
@@janepatton8100 Fabulous!
Most people who believe in unconditional election as Lutherans do don't want to believe in double predestination. They try to find ways around it. Your line of questioning revealed this very simply 👌
Thanks and God bless!
The more I question Calvinism, I've come to be a Lutheran in this respect (as your video lets me know). Well, if you're OSAS.
As a new conservative Anglican, I am still looking for any major difference between Lutheran doctrine and Anglican, so far, very minor differences, I see no reason, honestly, why conservative Lutherans and Anglicans shouldn't be in full Communion
I think from what I've seen that orthodox Lutherans would reject being in communion with the ACNA and GAFCON Anglicans (the orthodox ones) because Anglicans believe in receptionism (a view I agree with) , while Lutherans believe in the body and blood being in, with, and under the bread and win.
@@Iffmeister There are Anglo-Catholics who absoluitely believe "the body and blood being, in, with, and under the bread and wine"; I am one of them.
@@Iffmeister Anglicans do not believe in receptionism. This is a misunderstanding of the 39 Articles.
@@merecatholicity it's a tough one, cause it seems the articles are saying that the body and blood are only spiritually present for those who receive it with faith.
It's possible it could be that it is present for all but only receive by those with faith. I will have to ask
@@Iffmeister I've done a pretty decent chunk of study, and I'd definitely encourage a deeper study. I'm confident they don't teach receptionism, even though that's how it seems.
To say God wills and wants all to be saved while at the same time affirming the only way one is saved ultimately is if God elects them, sounds to me to be problematic. You have God wanting all to be saved while only choosing to elect some. Why didn't God just do what He desired and save all?
As a Lutheran, this frustrates me to no end.
We cannot say that God desires for all to be saved, then claim that he elects only some to salvation.
We cannot say that God unconditionally elects people, then claim that the non-elect freely reject his grace.
We cannot say that people can apostatize, then claim that the elect will inevitably persevere.
And we wonder why people don't get Lutheranism.
@jamesbarksdale978 the problem is that you want to solve a mistery. That is unanswerable. Election is in view of Christ merits all by Grace. I'd recommend you to watch ask the pastor channel about this topic.
The 5 points of Calvinism are expressed precisely in the Canons of Dort, where they answer this way why the non-elect are not saved:
“The fact that many who are called through the ministry of the gospel do not come and are not brought to conversion must not be blamed on the gospel, nor on Christ, who is offered through the gospel, nor on God, who calls them through the gospel and even bestows various gifts on them, but on the people themselves who are called. Some in self-assurance do not even entertain the Word of life; others do entertain it but do not take it to heart, and for that reason, after the fleeting joy of a temporary faith, they relapse; others choke the seed of the Word with the thorns of life’s cares and with the pleasures of the world and bring forth no fruits. This our Savior teaches in the parable of the sower (Matt. 13).” - Canons of Dort, Point 3/4, Article 9
If you believe that salvation can only come to those that have been chosen by God then that would mean that those who are unsaved are the results of not being chosen. That would also mean that they were chosen for destruction.
You do believe in double election.
Everyone limits the Attonement, some in power others in scope
All sins literally paid for (universalism)
All sins are paid for ( for the elect only)
All sins are paid for except disbelief
It’s possible for sins to be forgiven
I would say that those who do not persevere were not genuinely saved in the first place.
a big beef i have with calvinism is that it is so intellectually dishonest, much like catholicism. arguments rely on reading the doctrines into the text rather than just seeing what it says. a dead giveaway is when calvinists imply it's either between calvinism and arminianism or calvinism and universalism. no nuance allowed.
Anyone can be saved if they want to. God isn’t influencing people to “be saved” or “not be saved”. It’s our choice!
So the elect are on the Calvinist path and everyone else in the Arminian program and can decide for themselves?
Yet your explanation of saved and unsaved sounds like man Calvinists with a very asymmetrical double predestination wherein is your fail for going to hell. Grace was available.
Interesting.
Thank you, Jordan, for the quick explanation. Being totally in the Reformed camp, I am glad to see some common ground between us. I do find, however, that claiming universal atonement appears to contradict Jesus's words. He said he lays down his life for the sheep. And then he says, of the Pharisees, they are not his sheep. What I hear from your argument is that Christ atoned for those whom he directly said were not of his sheepfold. Of the Pharisees, he said, "you are of your father the devil and his works you will do." I think as John Owen pointed out, there is a problem in that, if universal atonement is true, there are many people in damnation now whose sins were actually atoned for. All Christians believe in limited atonement. Calvinists limit the extent. Arminians (and Lutherans, apparently) limit the power, because you make an atonement that doesn't actually save anyone but makes salvation theoretically possible under certain conditions. I also think the way you describe irresistible grace does not refute the concept. Contrarily, when you speak of one who hears the Gospel preached and rejects it, it is not the resistance of grace, but rather a demonstration of the fact that to those who are perishing, the Gospel is foolishness. Indeed, Paul writes in Roman that the natural man can not accept the things of God. Jesus said no man may come to him (presumably even those who take communion) unless the Father draws him. So what you see as resistance to saving grace, we see as the outworkings of the very things spoken of as marks of the natural man, still in bondage in his will to a sin nature, as you and I agree the natural mind is. But thank you for the civil and brotherly explanation of the Lutheran position, which is a refreshing moment compared to the often disjointed and illogical typical Baptist posts (Tassi, Allen, Flowers, Geisler, et al).
“..and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
- 1 John 2:2
Jeremy Thompson by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,
Rev 5:9
Note that it says “ransomed people FROM every tribe, language, people and nation” not ransomed EVERYONE in every tribe, language, people and nation.
In the context of the time it was written, 1 Jn 2:2 makes more sense by understanding “the whole world as meaning the gentiles as well as the Jews. Remember that most of the Scriptures they used on a daily basis were Old Testament scriptures written by Jews, for Jews. There were New Testament books available, but even most of them were written by Jews. They had to understand that they, the gentiles, are not second hand citizens, or an afterthought. And the Jews would have to understand the same thing.
We often overlook this as a rational understanding of the background, because the church has been predominantly gentile for almost 2000 years, so it’s easy for us to miss that meaning.
For more on 1 Jn 2:2 see John Samson’s blog here:
www.reformationtheology.com/2005/10/understanding_1_john_22_by_pas.php
The natural man always resists the gospel and hates the light.
The Father chooses some.
“In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will!”
Ephesians 1:11
The Son died for the elect and was raised from the dead.
“I lay down my life for the sheep....You do not believe because you are not my sheep.
John 10:15, 26
The Holy Spirit, in time, regenerates the elect and they receive the gift of faith.
“We were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions-it is by grace you have been saved!”
Ephesians 2:3-5
Jesus says: “Assuredly I say to you, the one who believes in me has everlasting life.”
John 6:47
Belief equals everlasting life. A person cannot stop believing and bearing fruit because everlasting life never ends by its very definition.
“Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus!”
Philippians 1:6
No contradictions with the correct Biblical theology.
Lutheran view splits the very nature of the one God and the work of the three persons.
Lutheran view contradicts the first two Lutheran points with its last three which you admit not having an answer. There is no answer to a contradiction.
@@catrandy7957
'The Living God, who is the Savior of all men (hypothetical universal atonement), especially of those who believe (the elect)'(1 Tim 4:10, NKJV)
'For as by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience, many will be made righteous'. (Rom 5:19). The term 'many' in the Scriptures does not always mean the elect. In this sense, the first part applies to all of Adam's fallen race. Likewise Christ dying for the sins of 'many' does not mean it was only the elect He gave Himself for. It is through faith alone (given by God) that the atonement becomes effectual and election proven and made sure.
I'm a 4 point Calvinist if the P in TULIP is rendered 'preservation' rather than perseverance of the saints. Make that 3 if not. Perseverance points too much to performance which can never be a ground of assurance. The only assurance is found in resting on Christ's Finished Work. Also, firmly Free Grace and reject Lordship Salvation doctrine (Romanism lite) in both it's Calvinist and Arminian versions.
@@catrandy7957 We have to recognize when scripture is speaking on: God's secret will (election) and God's revealed will (all men). No confessional nor conservative Christian believes everyone will go to heaven in the end. However, this does not mean Christ has to be held back from the nations in his redemptive work. You can purchase a jar full of junk food but you do not have to eat it all.
I'm tossed like a salad, Lutheran/Calvin, Calvin, Lutheran any 'neutral sources',?
What Every Christian Ought to Know by Adrian Rogers
Basic Christianity by John Stott
Not neutral, but good. 😀
So its God’s will that all be saved, yet all are not saved, so God's will is thwarted? God tries to help sinners go to Christ, but its all up to the sinner. Jesus is therefore a Way-Maker, but not a Savior.
For all of you people who hate the doctrines behind TULIP, admit you hate the Word of God.
Looks like the Lutheran stance on Gods election and free will is a paradox.
So, if the Elect will inevitably persevere, but people who are genuinely saved can and do apostatize, then who are the ones who apostatize? Are there them non-elect who are for a time truly saved?
I think your question is misdirected for this reason. It pre-supposes the truly saved can or would apostatize. There is no statement of such in scripture. 1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." Jesus said in John6:23 "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of those he has given me and I shall raise them up at the last day" (in the Greek, raise "it" up at the last day). John 6:37 "All those whom the Father has given me will come to me and I will never drive them away." And we see in Romans 8 the Golden Chain of Redemption. Those who were are predestined are the same who in the end are glorified, start to finish. So, in the Reformed soteriology, there is no such thing as a truly saved person, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who ejects the Holly Spirit. No one is truly saved for a time and then lost. Matt 7:22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' But Christ will reject these, saying, "I never knew you." There are a great many who profess a false profession. They believe they are saved, often because of good works that they do, or they design a god in their minds that is not the God of scripture. I'm sure you can think of ways people make idols in their hearts. Some people have faith in their faith. They do not have saving faith in Christ, however. These are just some verses that will show there are no non-elect who either are truly saved or who ultimately reject Christ after having been saved.
@@blchamblisscscp8476 That's not something I believe, that is based on Lutheran beliefs. I phrased it that way to show the contradiction. First they claim that only the elect are saved, the elect WILL make it to Heaven, then they say that the Bible claims that people who are saved can and do apostatize. But if elect ARE saved, and the elect WILL make it to Heaven, and ONLY the elect are saved, then who is it that apostatizes? Assuming they meant that only the elect are FINALLY saved, you would have to have either elect who don't make it to Heaven, or non-elect who are saved, even if temporarily that don't make it to Heaven.
But if you have non-elect who are temporarily saved, and ALL of them would have to apostatize since only the elect are finally saved, then you have two distinct groups of Christians. You have elect who WILL all make it to Heaven, and you have non-elect who NONE make it to Heaven! And both groups would have to be saved since they talk about falling away as proof against the Reformed view of the Perseverance of the saints.
Lutherans like to talk bout Christ dying for everyone, and that no one is excluded, however, in their own theology, they believe the SAME thing that Reformed believe, that only the elect make it to Heaven. The difference is that the Reformed have a logical system that explains it without contradictions, the Lutherans have Happy talking points that ignore their contradictions.
@@catrandy7957 i think I see what you're saying.
〈〈CatRandy〉〉 you just said it, the reformed use a “logical system” as in human logic. We just go by what scripture says and no further. God says we won’t understand all of His thoughts. So using any human logic to full in gaps that scripture doesn’t explain more is in error.
Jeremy Thompson if you were consistent in that you would have to reject most doctrines of God and the Trinity which were worked out in the first several hundred years of the church. You can pick up from the Bible that there is One God, and that there are Three Persons, but much of the doctrines of God and the Trinity go way beyond “what the scripture says and no further.”
Can someone believe in Reformed soteriology, and Lutheran sacramental theology?
Anglican?
@@Mygoalwogel good point
@@j.l.glover4037What do you mean? When a Lutheran asks that, I assume you are asking something like "Can one be Reformed and reject Zwingli's sacramental theology?" But of course, the Reformed position is quite far from Zwingli's and what is found in the Westminster Confession and Three Forms of Unity is much closer to the Book of Concord's position. The actual differences are more nuanced than I usually see represented in youtube comments.
I think because there are many calvinistic Baptists out there, people confuse the Baptist position for the Reformed position, but they are quire far apart.
Both Lutherans and Calvinists believe that the saints will persevere and those that aren't elect won't persevere. The difference between a Lutheran and a Calvinist lies in the identification and definitions of the 'saints' and the 'elect'. Therefore there is no practical difference between Calvinists and Lutherans because the conclusions are the same but the premises are different. For example, a Lutheran says that a saint can lose their salvation while the Calvinists says that 'they were never a saint because they were never elect.' In both views the person is no longer a saint and/or not elect! So the outcome is agreed upon but the language is in disagreement. Which is a distinction without a difference.
While I absolutely believe God causes/ordains/determines some things. I don’t believe He causes everything to happen. In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, "People built places to sacrifice their children (in fire) to foreign gods, and He (God) says, "I did NOT COMMAND this, nor did it enter my mind."
My contention is with people like John Piper who says, every single thing that happens on planet earth is caused by God. He gives the example of tiny dust particles in a beam of light. Piper says God controls the very movement of each tiny particle. Or James White who has said, "If a man brutally rapes a young girl, God caused it. If not, then it was a meaningless, random act." Jeff Durbin says, God is not partially sovereign, He is not half-sovereign, He is sovereignly sovereign. Meaning, like Piper and White, every single thing that happens is caused by God. If you follow that logic through, you have God saying to Adam and Eve, "Do not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil..." and then He causes them to do that very thing. You have God saying, "Have no other gods before me." AND then He makes countless billions worship Allah, Buddha, or one of the three hundred million Hindu gods. Again, if you carry this through, you have God, who is LOVE, who is Holy and Righteous, causing, murder, rape, child molestation, drugs, alcohol, prostitution, human trafficking, not to mention, the belief in atheism. Allowing something to happen, UNTIL it is dealt with on Judgment Day, is NOT the same as causing it to happen.
@@MB777-qr2xv You have a clear grasp of the problem both logically and biblically. You're on the right track. The solution lies in God's middle knowledge.
@@TheGreaser9273 I absolutely believe God knows EVERYTHING. Things that will happen, things that could happen, things that could HAVE happened. In other words, God not only knows what will happen but also everything that would happen under all circumstances.
But again, too many verses call for us to choose, for me to believe God gives us no choice and simply causes/determines EVERYTHING.
Lutheran is Calvinism
Thanks for the comparison
God can decree that Christ dies for all while all do not receive the benefits of such. This in no way lessens Christ's atoning work so long as it is in accordance with God's decree.
I find this utterly fascinating yet in the grand scheme of things highly irrelevant
Former Lutheran here, now Reformed. The internal call of the Holy Spirit is irresistible to his elect. The external call of the gospel is always resisted by those that are not elect. The Lutheran view on predestination makes mysteries out of plain teaching.
*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.
*Luke 11:13* Jesus is emphatic that the Father gives the Holy Spirit to anyone who asks.
*John 3:16* God loved the world.
*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.
*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.
*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.
@@Mygoalwogel thanks for the reply! which part of your totally depraved, dead to sin heart chose a perfect and holy God?
@@MarkCox11 That very question outs you as someone who never was a Lutheran, regardless of your OP. You don't even know the Small Catechism for children.
@@Mygoalwogel Fantastic! settles it for me
@@MarkCox11 Settles what? That you lied about being former Lutheran? That you disbelieve the list of verses in my first reply?
You cannot avoid taking a position and say you are neither a calvinist or arminian. You either believe that Christ died for everyone or he died for his elect only. There is no third choice. You either believe that you will never come to God on your own or that you can come to God on your own. There is no third choice. You rather believe that you were personally chosen by God before the world was made unto salvation or you don't
Are the Roman Catholics Calvinist or Arminian?
@@j.g.4942 Roman Catholic beliefs are blasphemous and anti Christian and anti Biblical. Its a false Christianity. Study church history.
The problem is you're still assuming those are the only two categories. But both sides are wrong because you have to ignore passages of scripture to make either work. The truth is more complicated, but that makes it so great to talk about and discuss.
@@gabesternberg555 no. There are two choices.
Arminianism
Biblical Doctrine
Whats your choice?
@@gabesternberg555 For whom did Christ die? There are only two answers possible.
He has not even listened to the Biblical exegesis on the other side of his view.
You say that salvation is open to everyone, elect as well as non-elect, and yet the Formula of Concord XI.5 says:
“5] 4. The predestination or eternal election of God, however, extends only over the godly, beloved children of God, being a cause of their salvation, which He also provides, as well as disposes what belongs thereto. Upon this [predestination of God] our salvation is founded so firmly that the gates of hell cannot overcome it. John 10: 28; Matt. 16: 18.”
If the predestination of God is the cause of the salvation of the elect, then who or what is the cause of the salvation of the non-elect? According to this, if God were the cause of their salvation, they would be elect, not non-elect.
The key to understanding Lutheran doctrine on predestination is that it isn't logical. There's a contradiction at the heart of their beliefs in that they believe everyone is saved through God predestining them to be saved, but the damned aren't predestined to be damned but are alone responsible for their fate.
Lutherans believe in universal grace and that the Holy Spirit is always active in the means of grace (i.e. the Gospel and sacraments) so that if a person isn't saved that's down to him resisting the Holy Spirit whose trying to convince him about Christ being his Saviour. However they don't believe that people are saved by choosing to believe what the Holy Spirit is trying to convince them of, because that would make them the cause of their own salvation instead of God's election and predestination.
Lutherans try and hold together the two conflicting ideas in that God alone is responsible for regenerating and saving them but man alone is responsible for bringing damnation on himself. Lutherans recognise the illogicality involved but think that God is so mysterious that He can somehow surmount the logical difficulties. There appears to be no way of convincing them of their error because once a person accepts the notion that truth is compatible with logical contradiction (or paradox as some categorise it as) there's no way of proving to them that they're in error.
Edward here’s the bottom line. No matter how much they talk about salvation being for everyone, no matter how much they say in there writings that they are being persecuted by the Reformed believers around them, Reformed believe that only the elect are saved, and so do the Lutherans.
“Only the elect, whose names are written in the book of life [Revelation 21: 27], are saved.
FORMULA OF CONCORD, Solid Declaration XI. 25 pg 605."
@@catrandy7957 That's a good point but there's going to be disagreement over who the members of the elect are though. I share with Lutherans the belief that Christ died for everyone in the world not just the elect, so I see the doctrine of limited atonement as an obstacle to correctly understanding the Gospel which is a universal declaration of forgiveness for all. Those who are damned even though they are predestined to be so are still objectively forgiven their sins through Christ's atonement on the cross. Therefore I view the Gospel as pertaining to all, and that one can be sure that Christ has atoned for one's sin's without having to worry about whether one is a member of the elect or not. If one has faith and trust in Christ as one's Saviour one may safely conclude that one is a member of the elect although one should never be complacent as the idea of "once saved always saved" is unbiblical.
@@Edward-ng8oo you say: "the idea of "once saved always saved" is unbiblical.", however, the Formula of Concord says: "But the word of God leads us to Christ, who is the Book of Life, in whom all are written and elected that are to be saved in eternity, as it is written Eph 1:4 He hath chosen us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world. The certainty of the salvation of the elect was written down before time began.
You also wrote: "Those who are damned even though they are predestined to be so..."
That would constitute double predestination.
@@catrandy7957 I don't know whether you're acquainted with the timeline of the documents contained in the Book of Concord. The Formula of Concord is the last document in the book and it was written several decades after Luther's death. I agree with all the documents in the Book of Concord which were in existence during Luther's lifetime, but I don't agree with the denial of predestination to hell in the Formula of Concord. I'm in agreement with Luther who subscribed to double predestination and taught this in his book The Bondage of the Will.
So I differ in belief from confessional Lutherans who fully subscribe to all the teachings in the Book of Concord. I don't agree that the Holy Spirit is always active through the Gospel, but rather hold that the Holy Spirit irresistibly converts mainly the elect, although there are others who are converted who are not of the elect, and who fall from grace like the seeds scattered by the sower on the rock.
The quote from the Formula you give doesn't actually teach once saved always saved. It merely says that the Word leads people to Christ in whom are written all those who are members of the elect, and that their salvation has been determined before the creation of the world. It's not denying that there are others who fall from grace and who were never members of the elect (at least that’s how I understand it). Lutherans in fact make a point of saying that the Bible teaches that one can fall from the faith - see for instance Dr Cooper's TH-cam video "Can a True Christian Fall away From the Faith?"
Are the regenerated believers who fall away from the faith doing so because God didn’t elect them, and they really had no chance of being saved in the first place? Or does God make his election based on if the person believes or not (not that believing in itself is meritorious but that God decided on His own that he would choose to save those who believe because that’s the condition He set on His own)? I think it’s clear that Lutherans don’t have a clear answer on this.
Mikael Nyman OK. Now how do you reconcile that with the Lutheran view of atonement and specifically universal objective justification? It seems to me what Lutherans are saying is that even the regenerated Christians who fall away only do so because God didn’t elect them, which would put them right on par with the Calvinists. In that view you are explaining, if election precedes faith, then the Christians who fall away never really had a chance to be saved in the first place. It was all a charade and would be similar to John Calvin’s teaching of evanescent, or temporary, faith where God deceives people into thinking they are saved and then rips that faith away. Yet, the Lutheran view of atonement says otherwise. Do you see the confusion and contradiction?
Mikael Nyman But you are just saying that with no justification. You are making two contradictory statements with two contradictory doctrines and just accepting it. Again, this is why Lutherans aren’t taken seriously in these discussions. I’m asking how do you justify your view of election being outside of a person’s faith and universal objective justification. I’m yet to get a legitimate answer. Would you or other Lutherans just accept contradictory doctrines from other believers without challenging them?
Mikael Nyman It’s a contradiction. I’m telling you this from an unbiased point of view. Creeds and confessions were still written by fallible men. OK, answer this. Lutherans believe in universal objective justification, correct? Under objective justification, Christ at the cross objectively justified every single person who’s ever lived. That grace and truth still must be subjectively received. Who determines whether or not a person accepts God’s grace or rejects it? God or man?
@Mikael Nyman I can't agree with you that the Lutheran position isn't contradictory - see my main comment below the video. Also, Luther in his book "The Bondage of the Will" wasn't in agreement with the Formula of Concord on predestination. Luther agreed with double predestination in that book. The documents in the Book of Concord that were extant when Luther was alive don't endorse a rejection of predestination to hell. It's only the Formula which was written after Luther's death which denies double predestination.
@Mikael Nyman Human reason can be understood in a couple of different ways. Either in terms of common sense or logical argument. In the first sense Luther for instance said that it should be confined only to this earthly life as it's impossible for natural reason to accept Scriptural truths like the incarnation. However, with regards to logic Luther was ruthlessly logical in his argumentation and would have rejected the Lutheran belief in single predestination as logically incoherent and contradictory. Your perception that the Lutheran position isn't inherently contradictory is a faulty perception on your part. You're not grasping the reality but rather papering over it.
This man totally contradicts himself by his own words. On one hand he says he believes in unconditional election, then he says he believes in conditional election, saying God is waiting for man to choose to be saved and He wants everyone saved. Complete self-contradiction.
Really close to Arminianism
No... No it's not.
From a Lutheran perspective, how do you reconcile Unconditional Election with man's freewill to choose God? You are correct there is alot of paradox in Lutheranism. In my denomination Primitive Baptist we don't have paradoxical soteriology. God only loves the elect, Jesus died for the sheep only (John 10:11, 26-29) and the P in TULIP is preservation not perserverance. Regeneration always precedes faith so whether someone is born retarded or they are aborted or live in a place like North Korea with no preacher man the elect are saved because the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world. There is no gospel means for eternal salvation, preaching the Gospel is for discipleship of God's elect which saves them from corruption in this evil world, its a temporal salvation in this life but has no consequence of eternal salvation of the soul which was done on the cross, the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
I don't think saying Calvinists say the reason people aren't saved is because of God is entirely accurate, at least not for all Calvinists. Infralapsarians at least would want to emphasize that God decrees to pass over those who aren't saved, but the reason for their condemnation is still their sin, so from one perspective it is God but from another it is man. Probably the difference is moreso that for Lutherans there isn't that sense in which God is the cause of the non-elects condemnation, that the offer is equally extended to all?
Sam Lenhardt But even those who are in sin in Calvinism are that way because God decreed it and those people cannot do otherwise. That’s compatibilism. Making it seem more palatable doesn’t change the logical conclusion.
@@jeremiahb9718 again yes and no, God did decree to permit them to sin, but the cause of their sin is their own willful decisions. And the decree of God doesn't make their decisions less meaningful, that's straight from the Westminster Confession. Calvinists want to maintain both causes at the same time, in a somewhat mysterious way, not flatten out everything to being caused by God in a way that makes other causes irrelevant.
Sam Lenhardt So what I said is true, but you just don’t like how it was said. Got it. 👍🏻 Typical of Calvinists. This why I actually appreciate the high and hyper-Calvinists. They are honest about their beliefs and aren’t trying to put makeup on their doctrines just to be palatable for man.
@@jeremiahb9718 no, what you said was untrue by omission. It's like if I said Lutherans believe grace is resistable so it's really up to people to save themselves by not resisting grace. The first part is true but the conclusion is not because it ignores other things Lutherans also believe. If you want to have a fair understanding of what reformed theology teaches on this subject read WCF chapter 3. But saying I'm trying to "make things palatable" when I'm literally explaining the confessional position is not really a good way to argue.
Sam Lenhardt Yes it is true. I know what compatibilism is. I and many others just don’t fall into the word game trap and see Calvinism for what it really is. And why do you Calvinists and the Lutherans constantly appeal to creeds and confessions and traditions of men like the Catholics? 🤔
Calvinist position on irresistible grace is not accurately represent here. And, second, you affirmed limited atonement when you spoke about unconditional election, but deny in your explanation of limited atonement. It proves that you do not have accurate understanding of limited atonement.
Aleksandar Trajkovski
Everyone limits the Attonement, some in power others in scope
All sins literally paid for (universalism)
All sins are paid for ( for the elect only)
All sins are paid for except disbelief
It’s possible for sins to be forgiven
You aren’t accurately representing Jordan Cooper. Affirming unconditional election IS NOT affirming limited atonement in Lutheran view.
Have you ever thought of doing a video on the Gnostic origins of Calvinism? John Calvin got most of his theology from St. Augustine, and Augustine was a Manichean gnostic before he became a Christian. If you compare the five points of Calvinism with a list of the beliefs of Manicheaism you will find that they are very similar. That's a main reason I reject Calvinism - it is a foreign implant from the first big heresy the Christian church had to deal with!
Just out of curiosity, how do you deal with Absolute Inability? I'm not seeing anywhere biblically where we are born blind. If Cain couldn't have done as God said he could, it seems cruel to say that he could.
I don't think a Lutheran would agree with that take nor with the shoddy scholarship needed to uphold it. Luther was an Augustinian monk after all, and much of Luther's own ideas were in line with that tradition. I know the neo-Pelagians really hate Augustine and historic Christianity, but as much as Calvin referenced the church fathers as support to show that he wasn't introducing new ideas, he also showed that it is scriptural.
I think it would be worth working through something like the Canon of Orange and its many scripture references, a document the church had consensus on over 1000 years before Calvin.
@@oracleoftroyYou can proof text any one, but that doesn't make you right. E g., everyone proof texts the Bible. Who is the correct interpreter?
P is a great way to practice gaslighting skills lol
What Lutherans view as mystery and paradox with respect to their views on why men are saved and lost, I see as logical contradictions. If the only reason a person is saved is down to God electing them to be saved, then logically the reason why they're damned is because they've not been elected to salvation. Likewise, if the reason why people are damned is because they've resisted God's grace, then logically the reason why they're saved is because they've chosen to accept God's grace. My conviction is that the truth can't possibly be a combination of the two positions as Lutherans believe. Only one or the other position can possibly be true.
When Lutherans say in response that Scripture teaches that salvation is due exclusively to God, but damnation is due exclusively to man, they don't realize that they're believing something which can't possibly be true. Instead of insisting that their interpretation of Scripture is correct they should realize that their interpretation is faulty. As for me I hold that Scripture teaches the first position namely that salvation and damnation are down to God.
Edward Amen. Lutherans are all over the place.
@@jeremiahb9718 I should make it clear that I'm not a Calvinist. I don't agree with limited atonement or Reformed teaching on the Lord's Supper. My personal beliefs are Lutheran except on the subject of predestination. I don't subscribe to the Formula of Concord's rejection of double predestination. I don't believe this was the original and authentic Lutheran position. It certainly wasn't Luther's position as can be seen from his book The Bondage of the Will.
@@jeremiahb9718 I can understand the extreme reluctance and outright refusal on the part of confessional Lutherans to admit that their theology on predestination is wrong, especially when it has been believed for so long a time and by so many people. Also in doing so they'd have to admit that the framers of the Formula of Concord got it wrong, and that must be a massive stumbling block to them, as they see single predestination as one of the hallmarks of Lutheranism in comparison to Calvinism. However the fact remains that their belief in single predestination to heaven and denial of predestination to hell is logically contradictory and therefore simply wrong. It can't possibly be true, and no amount of dismissing the contradictions involved by framing them in terms of paradox or mystery will change that fact. Some Lutherans even seem happy to accept that their theology on predestination is logically contradictory but that this isn't a bar to believing it to be true, which of course is ridiculous. I think they must be getting heartedly sick of people telling them that their predestination doctrine is faulty, but then people aren't going to stop doing this anytime soon, because the fact remains it is. It's just a constant source of irritation to outsiders who see the illogicality and feel compelled to point it out, because if they don't they're sort of complicit in it. One feels duty bound to try and remedy the situation because people (i.e.Lutherans) are being deceived. That's how I feel about it.
Edward Thank you! That’s exactly what I’ve been saying. Divine mysteries exist, but they can’t claim “mystery” to cover up contradictions. A divine mystery is not a contradiction.
@@catrandy7957How is the Holy Trinity not also a contradiction?
Nice
...are at least 80% wrong.
Wake up 30 min later and ditch the cereal and bring in the bacon and eggs.
Where is "trinity" in the Bible?
Frightening
So basically Lutheranism is a mix of reformed and arminian theology... Not that complicated.
By the way, you still don't have a clear view on the reformed perspective. You were off on a few things.
God bless!!!
jane Patton Lutherans precede Calvinists and Arminians.
What you are suggesting is incoherent. We can't deny Calvinism and not end up with a flavor of Arminianism unless we say we agnostic about the matter. If there are two people A and B, where A is saved and B is not, why did God elect A and not B?
If you say it had nothing to do with B himself, then you must say God passed over B and now you are a Calvinist.
If it had anything to do with B (3ither God knew they would reject the Gospel, his grace, or something else) then you are in the Arminian camp.
Wasnt Richard C. H. Lenski a legit Lutheran? Didnt he endorse a flavour of Arminianism?
*Ezekiel 18:23; 33:11* God wants all wicked to repent and live.
*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.
*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 8:13* Jesus asserts that some really do *joyfully believe* the gospel for a while, and actually *fall away* through trials and temptations.
*Luke 11:13* Jesus is emphatic that the Father gives the Holy Spirit to anyone who asks.
*Romans 11:32* Who does God have mercy for? Everyone whom he consigned to disobedience!
*1 Corinthians 8:11* It is possible to destroy the saving faith of a brother for whom Christ died.
*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.
*1 John 2:2* Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, not only for the church.
@@Mygoalwogel What is your point? That Christ died for all and that it is possible to fall away? But my point here is not about that. Is about the coherence of the Lutheran position as expressed by the author of the video.
@@ΚύριοςἸησοῦς It's more important to be Biblical according the Holy Spirit than to be coherent according to the flesh.
The doctrine of the Trinity appears to be illogical, yet Presbyterians do not deny it.
There is one God.
Jesus is God.
The Father is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
Jesus is not the Father is not the Spirit.
Now lest I cause anyone to fail to distinguish mystery from fallacy, I'll add the heretical analogy
There is one Indigo.
The Flower is Indigo.
The Color is Indigo.
The Dye is Indigo.
The color is not the flower is not the dye.
In summary, *mystery* means we accept apparent contradiction WHILE being aware of possible loopholes YET rejecting the KNOWN loopholes that do not satisfy orthodoxy.
@@Mygoalwogel I understand your point, but my point is that the contradiction is not only apparent.
@@ΚύριοςἸησοῦς
It seems to me that there are three main ideas in the Formula of Concord concerning election.
"Upon the predestination of God our salvation is founded so firmly that the gates of hell cannot overcome it. John 10:28; Matt. 16:18."
"That some perish not God or His election, but their wickedness, is responsible. [2 Pet. 2:1ff ; Luke 11:49. 52; Heb. 12:25f.]"
"Thus far a Christian should occupy himself [in meditation] with the article concerning the eternal election of God, as it has been revealed in God’s Word, which presents to us Christ as the Book of Life, which He opens and reveals to us by the preaching of the holy Gospel, as it is written Rom. 8:30: Whom He did predestinate, them He also called. In Him we are to seek the eternal election of the Father, who has determined in His eternal divine counsel that He would save no one except those who know His Son Christ and truly believe on Him. Other thoughts are to be [entirely] banished [from the minds of the godly], as they proceed not from God, but from the suggestion of the Evil Foe, whereby he attempts to weaken or entirely to remove from us the glorious consolation which we have in this salutary doctrine, namely, that we know [assuredly] that out of pure grace, without any merit of our own, we have been elected in Christ to eternal life, and that no one can pluck us out of His hand; as He has not only promised this gracious election with mere words, but has also certified it with an oath and sealed it with the holy Sacraments, which we can [ought to] call to mind in our most severe temptations, and take comfort in them, and therewith quench the fiery darts of the devil."
There is no contradiction. Merely, as with the Trinity doctrine, a refusal to preach or accept loopholes beyond the bounds of Biblical orthodoxy.
I love y’all….but its RIDICULOUS to me that you say you’re a “Christian” but believe in 5 points of Calvinism.
I’m trying hard not to be disrespectful because I acknowledge that some of what is said is true…but the Pharisees made the same mistake of idolizing a system with Jesus..THE CHRIST…right in front of them!
It’s the same nonsense in some seminaries…they’ll have Romans as mandatory but leave out the gospel…WHAT?!?!?
Paul is clearly one to admire for all the things he contributed to our faith…but he is NOT to be idolized or prayed to…his literature was inspired by God.
Jesus first….everything else a distant second.
🙏🏾
Heretic
The Five Points of the Holy Bible....not Calvinism....
Reject any of those doctrines, thats a red flag about your salvation.
Wow. Rarely have I seen such arrogance.
@@jamesbarksdale978 Arrogance? No.
Confidence, yes. I know the consequences Of being a false prophet or a liar...
What I said is true.
If you reject clear and plain Scriptures, that are right in front of your eyes, You are rejecting the Word of God.. People filled with the Holy Spirit dont do that.
@@Rbl7132Thank God for your supernatural wisdom and insight! What would we ever do without you? Now we can all sleep in peace.
@@jamesbarksdale978 Are you saying you repented of the heresy of free will? Also known as Arminianisn? The heresy originated in its modern form by Jacob Arminius??
Sorry to say, this seems desperately discursive...and not a good representation of Calvinism. No real value in addressing a strawman.
No no no. Man can choose good and evil. God wants us all to pray to him alone and choose to do good. It's not difficult at all. The Bible given by Moses is very clear that you can choose good and all the prophets preached the word of God. Turn from sin and he will forgive you. No Jesus no Sacrifices Deuteronomy 15-19