Total depravity question

[I can eat 50 eggs]

My understanding (which may very well be incorrect) is that Lutherans hold a view of original sin, very much similiar to Calvins T in his TULIP (total Depravity)

Is this true, or could someone tell me the similarities and differences between the 2?

[KagomeShuko]

Sorry, I can't answer since I don't even know about that view. . .

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[ByzantineDixie]

Because I like to distinguish Lutherans from Calvinists whenever I can...let me tell you something that someone recently explained to me.

Clearly...with regard to spiritual things, man has no will, outside of God's grace, to seek God. None. In spiritual things we are completely depraved.

However...Luther taught and our confessions teach that man can do some good in the civil sense.

Nor, indeed, do we deny liberty to the human will. The human will has liberty in the choice of works and things which reason comprehends by itself. It can to a certain extent render civil righteousness or the righteousness of works; it can speak of God, offer to God a certain service by an outward work, obey magistrates, parents; in the choice of an outward work it can restrain the bands from murder, from adultery, from theft. Since there is left in human nature reason and judgment concerning objects subjected to the senses, choice between these things, the liberty and power to render civil righteousness, are also left. For Scripture calls this the righteousness of the flesh which the carnal nature, i.e., reason, renders by itself, without the Holy Ghost.

(Although I will qualify this by admitting the confessions teach civil righteousness is rare and righteous acts done outside of grace merit nothing. )

Accordingly...I would use this aspect of civil righteousness reasoning to deny agreement with Calvin's T in TULIP.

Thoughts?

Rose

[I can eat 50 eggs]

Here is my question, if you believe
with regard to spiritual things, man has no will, outside of God's grace, to seek God. None. In spiritual things we are completely depraved.


How do you keep from being a 5 point calvinist? To me it flows, if you have total depravity, the rest of calvins 5 points are a necessary extension of that concept of orignal sin.

[sculpturegirl]

What are the five points exactly?

[ByzantineDixie]

I am being a little lazy tonight...here is something from the WELS Question and Answer site...let's start here and if you have any additional questions...we can take them accordingly.

Three of the Five Points of Calvinism clearly distinguish Calvinism from Lutheranism and make them incompatible.


Lutherans agree with Calvinists that all people are born with total depravity (T), that is, that they are sinful by nature and unable to contribute to their own salvation. Lutherans also agree with Calvinists that salvation depends on the unconditional election of God (U). Lutherans, however, reject the Calvinist doctrine of a limited atonement (L),the belief that Christ died only for the sins of the elect. We reject the related Calvinistic belief that God has predestined some people to damnation. Lutherans reject the Calvinistic belief in irresistible grace (I) since Scripture teaches that sinners are responsible for their rejection of God's grace. Lutherans reject the perseverance of the saints (P) held by Calvin. We believe that God does indeed protect and preserve his believers, but not in the Calvinistic sense of "once saved, always saved" since it is possible to fall from faith. Another point that distinguishes Lutherans from Calvinists is their view of the sacraments. Calvinists do not believe that the sacraments are true means of grace. Although Calvinists speak of a "real presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper, they do not believe that Christ's true body and blood are received by all the communicants along with the bread and the wine.

Peace

Rose

[CrossWiseMag]

Lutherans confess the parts of TULIP that are stated in the Bible. They reject the parts of TULIP that are rejected by the Bible, even though that leads to apparent contradictions. You are right -- once you have the "T," it seems the "ULIP" must naturally flow from it. But some very specific statements in the Bible contradict other parts of the Calvinist view. And so even though it doesn't seem to "fit" logically, we accept the "T," but reject, for instance, the "L."

On the question of limited atonement, we stand with Scripture such as,

"Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

"He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself."

"And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

"For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,..."

Calvin had to do some pretty fancy footwork to make those words say anything close to "Limited Atonement."

[I can eat 50 eggs]

ok, you lose me between the U and the L, how can you U, but not L?

If you say, some people go to heaven, some go to hell. THe ones that go to heaven is not because of anything they could possibly do, but something God does, (this is what yall believe, right)

then how do you not believe in limited atonement, there's a logical disconnect there.

[pastel]

I've never heard of the Calvinist TULIP thingy...as I've never been a Calvinist, so that's probably why. As far as sin, we are all sinful, and need the atonement of the cross.

Yeah, I know, I read the Bible too much. ;) **joking**

[Protoevangel]

ok, you lose me between the U and the L, how can you U, but not L?

If you say, some people go to heaven, some go to hell. THe ones that go to heaven is not because of anything they could possibly do, but something God does, (this is what yall believe, right)

then how do you not believe in limited atonement, there's a logical disconnect there.


CrossWiseMag already answered that.


Lutherans confess the parts of TULIP that are stated in the Bible. They reject the parts of TULIP that are rejected by the Bible, even though that leads to apparent contradictions. You are right -- once you have the "T," it seems the "ULIP" must naturally flow from it. But some very specific statements in the Bible contradict other parts of the Calvinist view. And so even though it doesn't seem to "fit" logically, we accept the "T," but reject, for instance, the "L."

Lutherans are more interested in what Scripture actually says than we are in forcing it to fit our own understanding.

[I can eat 50 eggs]

so there is no logical way to be a T and U but not L?

Maybe it all stems from a faulty starting point of T.

[I can eat 50 eggs]

by the way, if you just say Yes, it's a mystery, like the Trinity or the 2 natures of Christ, I'm perfectly happy with that answer.

[pastel]

by the way, if you just say Yes, it's a mystery, like the Trinity or the 2 natures of Christ, I'm perfectly happy with that answer.

I think everyone went to bed. It's my beddy bye time too....nighters !!! :yawn:

[BBAS 64]

My understanding (which may very well be incorrect) is that Lutherans hold a view of original sin, very much similiar to Calvins T in his TULIP (total Depravity)

Is this true, or could someone tell me the similarities and differences between the 2?

Good Day, I can eat 50 eggs

Zechariah 1:3 says: "Therefore say to them, Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Return to Me," declares the LORD of hosts, "that I may return to you," says the LORD of hosts.'"

Luther.. "It is not in your power to turn to God. If you think that it is in your power to turn to God you have missed the whole Reformation and don't understand total depravity. It is not in your power to turn to God. You are a sinner, you're dead, you're eaten up with corruption. Every free choice of yours is evil and not good. So how can we turn to Him who is light, righteousness, holy and good?"

Bondage of the will:

Free-will is an empty term, whose reality is lost. And a lost liberty, according to my grammar, is no liberty at all.

Their views on this issue are exactly the same.

Peace to u,

Bill

[Protoevangel]

so there is no logical way to be a T and U but not L?

Maybe it all stems from a faulty starting point of T.

by the way, if you just say Yes, it's a mystery, like the Trinity or the 2 natures of Christ, I'm perfectly happy with that answer.

I don't think that anyone means to suggest that there is no possible logical way to hold to T and U but not L, just that we do not necessarily feel the need to make them fit. Scripture is our focus and love, not logic and human reason.

Total Depravity. All people are affected by sin in every area of thought and deed; no person apart from the regenerating grace of God can please God.

Unconditional Election. Since sinners are helpless in their depravity and unwilling to seek God, then the only way they could possibly be saved is for God to take the initiative to change and save them.

These may seem to, but do not necessarily need to lead to:

Limited Atonement. Christ died for some, not for all.

CrossWiseMag covered this also.On the question of limited atonement, we stand with Scripture such as,

"Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

"He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself."

"And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

"For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,..."We don’t feel the need to insert unnecessary limiters into those statements. The world means the world, for all means for all.

So, no, there is no need to see this as illogical. It follows Scripture, adding nothing, subtracting nothing. That is all Lutherans really care about.


Edit: I replaced a word that I realized made my post more quarrelsome than I intended.

[BBAS 64]

Because I like to distinguish Lutherans from Calvinists whenever I can...let me tell you something that someone recently explained to me.

Clearly...with regard to spiritual things, man has no will, outside of God's grace, to seek God. None. In spiritual things we are completely depraved.

However...Luther taught and our confessions teach that man can do some good in the civil sense.

[/font]

(Although I will qualify this by admitting the confessions teach civil righteousness is rare and righteous acts done outside of grace merit nothing. )

Accordingly...I would use this aspect of civil righteousness reasoning to deny agreement with Calvin's T in TULIP.

Thoughts?

Rose

Good Day, Rose

Total depravity does not exclude civil "good deeds": as righteousness is never used in that sence by Luther or Augustine or Calvin. You can use that if it gets you though the nite, but the distiction is some what unnessary.


Peace to u,

Bill

[Qoheleth]

by the way, if you just say Yes, it's a mystery, like the Trinity or the 2 natures of Christ, I'm perfectly happy with that answer.

The Lutheran Confessions believe this, that scripture teaches 1.)God desires/wants all men to be saved (also, all men will not be saved) 2.)Predestination/election only applies to the Believer/Christian 3.) scripture never, not once, teaches the predestination to reprobation/damnation


Q

[ByzantineDixie]

Good Day, Rose

Total depravity does not exclude civil "good deeds": as righteousness is never used in that sence by Luther or Augustine or Calvin. You can use that if it gets you though the nite, but the distiction is some what unnessary.


Peace to u,

Bill

Ah, Bill, ya can't blame a gal for tryin'. ;) -----R

[BBAS 64]

Ah, Bill, ya can't blame a gal for tryin'. ;) -----R

Nope! :hug: I can not!!:D

[pastel]

by the way, if you just say Yes, it's a mystery, like the Trinity or the 2 natures of Christ, I'm perfectly happy with that answer.

For some reason I cannot fathom God being that condescending towards us in that way. Maybe that is just me. :confused:

[Tertiumquid]

My understanding (which may very well be incorrect) is that Lutherans hold a view of original sin, very much similiar to Calvins T in his TULIP (total Depravity) Is this true, or could someone tell me the similarities and differences between the 2?

Hi There!

The “Calvinistic” doctrine of Total Depravity can be stated as such:


1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil.

2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.


3.Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.


5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only
Source: Westminster Confession of Faith



One can see the confession what is meant by “Total Depravity”. Total Depravity means that humans are unable to do anything “good” in its ultimate sense. By "ultimate sense", I mean, a spiritually dead sinner is unable to perform an action motivated by the love of God. Hence, a spiritually dead sinner who is in bondage to sin cannot "choose Christ" without God first setting the sinner free from his bondage to sin.

People though, are capable of doing “good” acts in a certain sense. The Canons of Dort say:

There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural understanding, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, and shows some regard for virtue and for good outward behavior. But so far is this understanding of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay further, this understanding, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and hinders in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.

Now, I do not know a lot about “Lutheranism”, but I do have a fairly good handle on “Luther.” Here are some quotes from Dr. Luther that I think agree with the above cited Reformed Confessions:

Free-will is plainly a divine term, and can be applicable to none but the divine Majesty only: for He alone " doth, (as the Psalm sings) what He will in Heaven and earth." Whereas, if it be ascribed unto men, it is not more properly ascribed, than the divinity of God Himself would be ascribed unto them: which would be the greatest of all sacrilege. Wherefore, it becomes Theologians to refrain from the use of this term altogether, whenever they wish to speak of human ability, and leave it to be applied to God only. And moreover, to take this same term out of the mouths and speech of men; and thus to assert, as it were, for their God, that which belongs to His own sacred and holy Name. . . .


But, if we do not like to leave out this term altogether, (which would be most safe, and also most religious) we may, nevertheless, with a good conscience teach, that it be used so far as to allow man a " Free-will," not in respect of those which are above him, but in respect only of those things which are below him: that is, he may be allowed to know, that he has, as to his goods and possessions, the right of using, acting, and omitting, according to his " Freewill ; " although, at the same time, that same " Free-will " is overruled by the Free-will of God alone, just as He pleases: but that, God-ward, or in things which pertain unto salvation or damnation, he has no " Free-will," but is a captive, slave, and servant, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.
Source: Bondage of the Will, (Translated by Henry Cole) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1931), 76-79.

“A man void of the Spirit of God, does not evil against his will as by violence, or as if he were taken by the neck and forced to it, in the same way as a thief or cut-throat is dragged to punishment against his will; but he does it spontaneously, and with a desirous willingness. And this willingness and desire of doing evil he cannot, by his own power, leave off, restrain, or change; but it goes on still desiring and craving. And even if he should be compelled by force to do any thing outwardly to the contrary, yet the craving will within remains averse to, and rises in indignation against that which forces or resists it. But it would not rise in indignation, if it were changed, and made willing to yield to a constraining power. This is what we mean by the necessity of immutability: — that the will cannot change itself, nor give itself another bent; but rather the more it is resisted, the more it is irritated to crave; as is manifest from its indignation. This would not be the case if it were free, or had a " Free-will." Ask experience, how hardened against all persuasion they are, whose inclinations are fixed upon any one thing. For if they yield at all they yield through force, or through something attended with greater advantage; they never yield willingly. And if their inclinations be not thus fixed, they let all things pass and go on just as they will.

But again, on the other hand, when God works in us, the will, being changed and sweetly breathed on by the Spirit of God, desires and acts, not from compulsion, but responsively, from pure willingness, inclination, and accord; so that it cannot be turned another way by any thing contrary, nor be compelled or overcome even by the gates of hell; but it still goes on to desire, crave after, and love that which is good; even as before, it desired, craved after, and loved that which was evil. This, again, experience proves. How invincible and unshaken are holy men, when, by violence and other oppressions, they are only compelled and irritated the more to crave after good! Even as fire, is rather fanned into flames than extinguished, by the wind. So that neither is there here any willingness, or " Free-will," to turn itself into another direction, or to desire any thing else, while the influence of the Spirit and grace of God remain in the man.

In a word, if we be under the god of this world, without the operation and Spirit of God, we are led captives by him at his will, as Paul saith. (2 Tim. ii. 26.) So that, we cannot will any thing but that which he wills. For he is that " strong man armed," who so keepeth his palace, that those whom he holds captive are kept in peace, that they might not cause any motion or feeling against him; otherwise, the kingdom of Satan, being divided against itself, could not stand; whereas, Christ affirms it does stand. And all this we do willingly and desiringly, according to the nature of will: for if it were forced, it would be no longer will. For compulsion is (so to speak) unwillingness. But if the " stronger than he "come and overcome him, and take us as His spoils, then, through the Spirit, we are His servants and captives (which is the royal liberty) that we may desire and do, willingly, what He wills.

Thus the human will is, as it were, a beast between the two. If God sit thereon, it wills and goes where God will: as the Psalm saith, " I am become as it were a beast before thee, and I am continually with thee." (Ps. lxxiii. 22-23.) If Satan sit thereon, it wills and goes as Satan will. Nor is it in the power of its own will to choose, to which rider it will run, nor which it will seek; but the riders themselves contend, which shall have and hold it.
SOURCE: Bondage of the Will, pp. 72-74.


Paul says, in II Timothy ii, " Instruct those that oppose the truth; peradventure God will give them repentance, that they acknowledge the truth, and return from the snares of the devil, by whom they are taken captive at his will." Where is the free will here when the captive is of the devil, not indeed unable to do anything, but able to do only what the devil wills? Is that freedom, to be captive at the devil's will, so that there is no help unless God grant repentance and improvement? So also says John viii, When the Jews said they were free, Christ said, " Verily I say unto you, all they who sin are servants or possessions of sin; if the son make you free, ye shall be free indeed." So St. Augustine changes the term " free will," in his work Against Julian, book ii, and calls it servum arbitrium, " a will in bondage."
Source: "An Argument in Defense of All the Articles of Dr. Martin Luther Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull," Works of Martin Luther, Vol. III, pp. 108. (Philadelphia 6 volume set)

This is my absolute opinion: he that will maintain that man's free-will is able to do or work anything in spiritual cases be they never so small, denies Christ. This I have always maintained in my writings, especially in those against Erasmus, one of the learnedest men in the whole world, and thereby will I remain, for I know it to be the truth, though all the world should be against it; yea, the decree of Divine Majesty must stand fast against the gates of hell.
Source: Table-Talk, #CCLXII (Hazlitt edition).


I wish that the word " free will " had never been invented. It is not in the Scriptures, and it were better to call it " self-will," which profiteth not. Or, if anyone wishes to retain it, he ought to apply it to the new-created man, so as to understand by it the man who is without sin. He is assuredly free, as was Adam in Paradise, and it is of him that the Scriptures speak when they touch upon our freedom ; but they who lie in sins are unfree and prisoners of the devil; yet because they can become free through grace, you can call them men of free will, just as you might call a man rich, although he is a beggar, because he can become rich. But it is neither right nor good thus to juggle with words in matters of such great seriousness.
Source:" An Argument in Defense of All the Articles of Dr. Martin Luther Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull," Works of Martin Luther, Vol. III, pp. 110 f.


Dear Christians, one and all rejoice, With exultation springing, And with united heart and voice. And holy rapture singing, Proclaim the wonders God hath done, How his right arm the victory won; Right dearly it hath cost him. Fast bound in Satan's chains I lay, Death brooded darkly o'er me; Sin was my torment night and day, Therein my mother bore me, Deeper and deeper still I fell, Life was become a living hell, So firmly sin possessed me. My good works could avail me naught, For they with sin were stained; Free-will against God's judgment fought, And dead to good remained.Grief drove me to despair, and I Had nothing left me but to die, To hell I fast was sinking. God saw, in his eternal grace, My sorrow out of measure; He thought upon his tenderness — To save was his good pleasure. He turned to me a Father's heart — Not small the cost — to heal my smart. He gave his best and dearest. He spake to his beloved Son: 'Tis time to take compassion; Then go, bright jewel of my crown, And bring to man salvation; From sin and sorrow set him free, Slay bitter death for him, that he May live with thee forever.
Source: Luther's Hymns (Phildadelphia, 1917), p. 75.

As far as I can understand Luther and the Westminster Confession, both seem to be saying the same thing about “Total Depravity.” I will not argue that Luther was a “Calvinist”. He was not, but both had the same concept of total depravity.

Regards,
James Swan

[Tertiumquid]

Here is the first of two great excerpts comparing Luther and Calvin:



The original split from the Roman Church was, in face of its refusal to reform, inevitable. The divisions within the Protestant ranks, however, were a different matter. In a sense, the antagonism between Lutheran and Zwinglian was only the recognition of a fact latent from the beginning, for two strands had been present in the Reformation all along. Zwingli always insisted that he had reached his understanding of the gospel independently of Luther and at about the same time. However that may be, his outlook was very different and, as leader of the early Swiss Reformation, he impressed his outlook upon his followers. He had been profoundly influenced by the humanists and owed less to the schoolmen than did Luther; and this clean break with the immediate past gave him a far more radical attitude than Luther could stomach. Relations between them were soon strained, but they met at Marburg in 1529 in an attempt to come to terms. They agreed on everything – except the Eucharist; and here both were immovable. In the end, despite their substantial agreement, the conference only served to magnify the differences and bring them into the foreground.


It is a great pity that Calvin and Luther never met, or that Calvin had not been born a few years earlier, before Luther had hardened his attitude. They were far closer to one another both theologically and in spirit than Luther and Zwingli had been. But their only real contact was through common friends. Calvin is delighted when he hears that Bucer has had a letter from Luther saying: 'Salute John Sturm and John Calvin, whose books I have read with particular pleasure', and Melanchthon tells him: 'Luther and Pomeranus have desired Calvin to be greeted; Calvin has acquired great favour in their eyes.' When some loving souls sought to stir up trouble between them by pointing out a passage in Calvin's book on the Lord's Supper where he criticizes Luther, the German Reformer said with unaccustomed gentleness: 'I hope that Calvin will one day think better of us; but in any case, it is well that even now he should have a proof of our good feeling towards him.' 'If we are not moved by such moderation, we are certainly made of stone,' says Calvin to Farel. 'For myself, I am profoundly moved by it.'

But the acquaintance made no progress into friendship; they passed only within hailing distance of each other. Four years later Calvin was still no further forward than asking Melanchthon to 'salute Doctor Martin respectfully in my name'. Luther's last years were clouded by trouble and overwork, his temper dangerous and uncertain. More and more he became inflamed against the Zurich theologians, the successors of Zwingli, who retaliated in like. Farel begged Calvin to use his moderating influence to calm down the men of Zurich. He replied that the real trouble now was Luther, whom Bullinger had borne with meekly and patiently for long. But nevertheless, he wrote to Bullinger soon after, enjoining moderation: 'I hear that Luther has at last broken out in fierce invective, not so much against you as against the whole of us.... But I do most seriously want to ask you to consider how eminent a man Luther is, and the excellent endowments he is gifted with, his strength of mind and resolute constancy, with what great skill and efficiency and power of doctrinal statement he has hitherto devoted his whole energy to overthrowing the reign of anti-Christ, and at the same time to diffusing far and near the doctrine of salvation. I have often been accustomed to declare that even though he were to call me a devil, I should none the less still hold him in such honour that I must acknowledge him to be an illustrious servant of God. But, while he is endued with rare and excellent virtues, he labours at the same time under serious faults. Would that he had rather studied to curb this restless, uneasy temperament which is so apt to boil over in every direction.... Besides, you will do yourselves no good by quarrelling, but will only afford some sport to the wicked, so that they may triumph, not so much over us as over the gospel.... Even should he have provoked us, we ought to decline the contest rather than increase the harm by the general shipwreck of the Church.'


Even more important, he wrote to Luther himself a most reverent letter, calling him 'my much respected father', and sending two or three of his smaller books. Melanchthon, to whom he entrusted the letter, refused to pass it on; Luther, he said, was too suspicious of the Swiss Reformers. But there was certainly nothing in it to arouse even Luther's wrath: on the contrary, it was conciliatory in the extreme: 'Would that I might fly to you,' it concluded, 'that I might even for a few hours enjoy the happiness of your company. For I would prefer, and it would be far better, not only upon this question, but also upon others, to talk to you personally. But seeing that is not granted to us on earth, I hope that it will shortly come to pass in the kingdom of God. Adieu, most renowned sir, most distinguished minister of Christ and my ever honoured father.'

But his chief contacts with the Lutheran Church were through Melanchthon and Bucer, both his close friends. Melanchthon was, in nearly all respects, a man after Calvin's own heart. A mighty scholar-professor of Greek at Wittenberg at the age of twenty-one – a humanist of wide sympathies and a Reformer who had the care of all the Churches at heart. His trouble was that, unlike Calvin, he never overcame his reserve and timidity. There was more than one complaint that he, who could write and talk so well of the Cross, had not learned to live under the Cross. And this was to be a hindrance, not only in leading to overmuch accommodation (for accommodation never yet brought about lasting union), but also in helping to prevent the important conference of all the Reformed Churches. But the friendship between him and Calvin served to bring about at least a closer understanding between the two Churches. They were to fall in the end before the obstinacy of the second generation of Lutheran theologians who, entrenching themselves firmly in Luther's theology, called Melanchthon a crypto-Calvinist and refused concessions, far less unity. After the Peace of Augsburg, when the Lutheran Church was granted the same rights as the Roman Church in Germany there was even less chance of agreement. In the future there was to be a shrewish bitterness between Lutheran and Reformed that, in earlier days, had been reserved for the common enemy, Rome.


In Switzerland, also, unity had to be fought for. There the situation was more confused than in Germany. The politically independent towns and cantons were free to choose their own religion. Part of the country clave still to the Roman Church, and even among the Reformed cities there was wide diversity; Zurich was dominated by Zwingli and afterwards by his disciple Bullinger, Berne tended to Lutheranism, and Basel, under the influence of Martin Bucer, tried to tread the slippery via media between Luther and Zwingli. What was worse, the diversities of doctrine, worship and organization were exacerbated by centuries-old feuds and jealousies between towns and families.


From the outset Calvin aimed at bringing the Swiss Churches to unity. As early as 1538 he was writing to Bullinger: 'Oh, if only a pure and sincere agreement could be reached among us at last! What then would prevent the assembling of a public synod, where individuals might propose whatever they may think to be best for the Churches? A way might be found out of going to work by common deliberation, and, if need be, that the cities and princes also should assist in this undertaking by mutual exhortation and counsel, and also confirm what is done by their authority. But in so great perplexity, the Lord is rather to be inquired of, that He Himself may open up the way.'

Little progress was made, and the Churches remained like so many stooks of corn in a harvest field before they are gathered into one rick, similar but separate. However, the leaders continued in friendliness, despite some provocation from Zurich against Bucer, generally distrusted as a mediator. Now, as later in regard to Luther, Calvin wrote to Bullinger and pleaded for moderation and a friendly spirit. When Bucer is at fault, he says, tell him so, and he will take it in the right way. But do it, not as if you were enemies, but with the love that there ought to be between fellow-ministers of Christ. And again he returns to the hope of unity: 'What, dear Bullinger, ought we rather to correspond about at this time than the preserving and confirming, by every means in our power, brotherly kindness among ourselves? We see, indeed, of how much importance it is, not only on our own account, but for the sake of the whole body of professing Christians everywhere, that all those on whom the Lord has laid any personal charge in the ordering of His Church should agree together in a sincere and cordial understanding.... Since, therefore, it is our duty carefully to cultivate friendly fellowship with all the ministers of Christ, so we must needs also endeavour by all the means we can to see that the Churches to which we faithfully minister the Word of the Lord may agree among themselves.'


Just as between Zwingli and Luther, so also between Zwingli's successors and Calvin and Bucer, it was the doctrine of the Lord's Supper that was the main point of disagreement. Bullinger was highly suspicious of Calvin as being more than half a Lutheran, and apparently nothing Calvin could say or do would make him change his mind – 'a preconceived opinion of me leads you to imagine and attribute to me what never occurred to my mind'. Besides, he was a friend of Bucer's, and that in itself was sufficient to damn him. The squalid bickerings went on and on alongside the whole-hearted agreements, marring what Calvin called 'the springtime of a reviving Church'. It was not until 1549 that his patience had its reward with the union of all the Swiss Reformed Churches when they subscribed to the Consensus of Zurich which he and Bullinger had drawn up. This was a solid achievement to offset the disagreement with the Lutherans: henceforth there was one Reformed Church in Switzerland.

Source: Portrait of Calvin by T. H. L. Parker (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954).


Regards,
James Swan

[Tertiumquid]

...And here is the second excerpt-


Something has already been said of the contrast that is often made between Luther and Calvin, and certainly the two Reformers as well as the great Churches that sprang from them are very different in temper and character. Philip Schaff, in his Creeds of Christendom, lists nine distinctions between the two. He notes that Lutheranism arose out of monarchical Germany, while the Reformed Church grew simultaneously in republican Switzerland and spread thence to France, Holland, England, and Scotland. He notes that Luther was always the dominating personality in Lutheranism, whereas the Reformed Church points with pride to a number of initiators, Calvin, Farel, Beza, Bullinger, Cranmer, Knox, et cetera.





Other differences are noted, some of a doctrinal kind, but surely Schaff is right in emphasizing the close affinity between these two men and the Churches that owe their existence to them. The controversy over the Lord's Supper has often been regarded as a radical breach between the two and although Luther's attitude toward Zwingli would seem to confirm this, nevertheless in a comparison of the writings of Luther and Calvin on the great doctrinal questions what strikes one with greater force than their disagreements is the amazing similarity of the two, even to the point of detail in many instances. For example, so far as the authors themselves are concerned, there would seem to be little reason for distinguishing between them by saying that the regnant principle of Luther's theology was justification by faith, while for Calvin it was the sovereignty of God. If there is any truth in such a distinction, it is largely a matter of emphasis and ought not to leave the impression that Luther did not speak of the sovereignty of God or that Calvin did not treat of justification by faith. Calvin has come in for more misrepresentation here than has Luther. The popular, and often misguided, conception of Calvinism, involving total depravity, election, predestination, et cetera, does not comprehend the center and core of Calvin's faith. For him, as for Luther, justification by faith is the heart of the Christian faith, and that is why the subject forms the center of the Institutes around which all the other doctrines are grouped. If the sovereignty of God is emphasized, as it obviously is, it is only because the sovereign God is also the God who justifies. In other particulars the harmony between the two Reformers is so close that it would be difficult to detect differences of any kind. They were at one in their scorn of the Roman Church; they were at one in their refusal to be led into subtleties and verbal casuistry; they were at one in their stand upon Scripture as the Word of God and the final authority for faith; they were at one in emphasizing the evangelical doctrines of the Gospel; and they even exhibit the same sense of humor on occasions, as when they both quote the answer of the man who was asked what God was doing before the creation of the world. " He was," we are told, " making hell for over-curious people! "






The one sharp difference which at the present time distinguishes Luther and Calvin more than any other doctrine is their differing conception of the relation of the Christian individual and the Christian Church on the one hand to the civil Government or the State on the other hand. The difference has been expressed in many ways. Schaff says:



" Luther and Melanchthon were chiefly bent upon the purification of doctrine, and established State churches controlled by princes, theologians, and pastors. Calvin and Knox carried the reform into the sphere of government, discipline, and worship, and labored to found a pure and free church of believers. Lutheran congregations in the old world are almost passive, and most of them enjoy not even the right of electing their pastors; while well-organized Reformed congregations have elders and deacons chosen from the people, and a much larger amount of lay agency, especially in the Sunday-School work. Luther first proclaimed the principle of the general priesthood, but in practice it was confined to the civil rulers, and carried out in a wrong way by making them the supreme bishops of the Church, and reducing the Church to a degrading dependence on the State. Luther and his followers carefully ab-tained from politics, and intrusted the secular princes friendly to the Reformation with the episcopal rights; Calvin and Knox upheld the sole headship of Christ, and endeavored to renovate the civil state on a theocratic basis. This led to serious conflicts and wars, but they resulted in a great advance of civil and religious liberty in Holland, England, and the United States. The essence of Calvinism is the sense of the absolute sovereignty of God and the absolute dependence of man; and this is the best school of moral self-government, which is true freedom. Those who feel most their dependence on God are most independent of men."




Others have gone farther than Schaff and suggested that the Lutheran passivity toward the State has, in effect, made possible the rise of present-day German political tyranny, and they note with point that dictatorship has never arisen on Reformed or Calvinistic soil. Karl Barth, in his letter to the French Protestants in December, 1939, suggests that the difficulty of understanding the apparent duplicity of modern Church life in Germany must be accounted for on the basis of " Martin Luther's error on the relation between the temporal and the spiritual order and power." This, therefore, is a point where there is radical and very important difference between Luther and Calvin, and that is why the long section on The Christian and the State is included as a separate section in the Compend. It will be observed that while Luther does on occasion make room for the right of rebellion, the total impression one derives from his discussion is that Christians are subject to the civil government whether it be right or wrong, just or tyrannical, since it is God's instrument for justice and judgment.






This is far too technical and delicate a subject to be expanded farther here, and it is all too easy to make unwarranted generalizations about the Lutheran or Reformed views of the State. If it is true, for example, that there is some connection between Luther and present-day Germany, one must not, on the other hand, overlook the courageous and at times defiant attitude of many German Lutheran Churchmen toward Nazi interference with the rights of the Church. It has been justly said that the only concerted rebuke against Nazism has come from the Lutheran Church. The stand of Pastor Niemoller in Germany and of Bishop Berggrav in Norway gives the lie to those who would roundly accuse the Lutheran Church of indifferentism in matters political. In any case, we see

here one of the points where the Reformation intersects the problems of our own day and age. That is why a compend of Luther's theology is no mere academic treatise but a tract for the times, and it is with the conviction of Luther's importance not only for his own age but for ours, that this Compend is presented. [/QUOTE]




Source: Hugh Kerr (ed.), A Compend Of Luther's Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966), xii-xv.






Regards,



James Swan

[ChiRho]

For example, so far as the authors themselves are concerned, there would seem to be little reason for distinguishing between them by saying that the regnant principle of Luther's theology was justification by faith, while for Calvin it was the sovereignty of God. If there is any truth in such a distinction, it is largely a matter of emphasis and ought not to leave the impression that Luther did not speak of the sovereignty of God or that Calvin did not treat of justification by faith. Calvin has come in for more misrepresentation here than has Luther. The popular, and often misguided, conception of Calvinism, involving total depravity, election, predestination, et cetera, does not comprehend the center and core of Calvin's faith. For him, as for Luther, justification by faith is the heart of the Christian faith, and that is why the subject forms the center of the Institutes around which all the other doctrines are grouped. If the sovereignty of God is emphasized, as it obviously is, it is only because the sovereign God is also the God who justifies.

James,

In the future, try to resist the urge to Reform Luther, especially in TCCL. Thanks. :mad:

I think that the difference is much larger and more important that Hugh T. Kerr, Reformed Theologian, makes out. It is to Lutherans atleast.

Lets see what Dr. Scaer says:

"A chance remark by Walter Kaiser, then at Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School and now at Gordon-Conwell Seminary, located the fundamental
difference between Reformed and Lutheran theologies not in how we
understood Christ (extra Calvinistium) and the sacraments (Fnitum non
capax infiniti), but in where each begins theology. The Reformed begin
with God and Lutherans with Christ- roots, trunk, branches and not just
the shapes of the leaves are different. Calvin defined God's existence
philosophically and then proceeded to the locus on Scriptures and the
Reformed confessions followed suit. Their concern is God's rule, which
is reflected in their doctrines of divine sovereignty, providence, and
election. Lutherans begin with Christ (or at least they should) and then
proceed to the Scriptures. This approach predetermined for Luther a
christological interpretation of the Bible and so Lutheran and Reformed
Weltanschauungen are worlds apart. Parallel doctrines may be identically
worded, but the similarity is superficial. For example, Calvin defines faith
as obedience and so even our doctrines of justification are different4
Zwingli and Luther came to a marvelous (now suspicious) agreement in
the Marburg Articles (October 1529). They parted company only over the
third part of the fifteenth article on the spiritual versus material
understandings of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper. However,
rapprochement evaporates when one discovers that the articles were
thoroughly Luther's and, perhaps for this reason, the Reformed have not
made them a platform to accommodate union with the Lutherans.' For
Zwingli, fourteen and two-thirds loaf was better than none."

and a little later...

"By placing theism and how God reveals Himself (revelation) in the
introduction (prolegomena) of the theological task, we run the risk of
defining a God before we examine the biblical data or know Christ. An
ill-defined theism can infect the entire theological system, as in the case
of Calvin and Reformed theology in general. It also raises the question,
as mentioned, of how was it possible for God, who is defined theistically,
to become man. Lutherans and the Reformed give different answers. The
classic versus open theism debate is arguably an extension of the
Reformed-Arminian debate over whether God or man is ultimately
responsible for one's salvation. In the current debate extreme forms of
monergism and synergism come into conflict with one another. God as
God as a topic is more characteristic of non-Lutheran Protestant theology
theologies, though it is not unknown in Lutheran dogmatics. By placing
Christology, that is the person of Jesus, before theology (theism), this
question does not have to be faced or, should we say, it is already
answered before it is asked."

You may view the entire paper here. (http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/939)

[Qoheleth]

For one, to read Calvin's "double predestination" back into Luther is an academic fallacy. The better way is to read Luther on his own terms-not trying to squeeze him into Calvin's mindset.

Calvin used reason and logic to pigeon-hole and define scripture, Luther on the other hand accepted the Word of God by faith without questioning the reason or logic behind it.

Q

[Tertiumquid]

James,

In the future, try to resist the urge to Reform Luther, especially in TCCL. Thanks. :mad:

I think that the difference is much larger and more important that Hugh T. Kerr, Reformed Theologian, makes out. It is to Lutherans atleast.

Lets see what Dr. Scaer says:

Hi ChiRho,

Thank you for the article, and your interest in this subject. I will definately read the article you provided closely. I do so enjoy research, and at some point I plan on writing on the differences and similarities between Calvin and Luther (perhaps this summer). Interestingly, I became aware of Hugh Kerr's book (A Compend Of Luther's Theology ) via positive comments about it in the Lutheran work, What Luther Says. The tenor and demeanor of the editor and compiler of What Luther Says seemed to suggest Hugh Kerr was a reliable source.

In a previous post within this thread, I said:

I will not argue that Luther was a “Calvinist”.

Perhaps you missed this comment. I have no desire to attribute beliefs or doctrines to Luther that he did not hold, promise. As I point my computer mouse at the little "face" thing in your comment, it says "mad". Please accept my sincerest apology for making you "mad". I don't have any desire to "reform" Luther, or make him into a Calvinist. Part of the joy of studying Luther from my perspective is I don't have to make Luther into something I want him to be. I can simply let Luther be Luther. Since i'm not a Lutheran, it really doesn't bother me when (or if) I disagree with him on something (this is not to suggest that Lutherans misinterpret Luther in order to agree with him).

The rules of this forum state:

Non-Lutherans are permitted to discuss issues and theology, as well as make fellowship posts in this forum. However, any attempt to denegrate or be dis-respectful towards Lutheran doctrine will be treated as trolling.

In my posting of anything in this forum, I have attempted to discuss Luther's theology, make friends, and show respect to Lutherans. If, by posting Dr. Kerr's comments is something I should not be doing, please accept my apology again.

Regards,
James Swan

[Qoheleth]

James,

I believe the issue and frustration with some of us here is, that many attempt to label Luther a Calvinist from his work "Bondage of the Will". This is a great error due to the fact that when this work ("Bondage..) is used to demonstrate Luther's, "Calvinism" and all the rest of Luther's Theology of the cross is put aside.

When all of Luther's works are given equal and adequate consideration and study, then one will have a true picture of Luthers entire theology.

[Tertiumquid]

James,I believe the issue and frustration with some of us here is, that many attempt to label Luther a Calvinist from his work "Bondage of the Will". This is a great error due to the fact that when this work ("Bondage..) is used to demonstrate Luther's, "Calvinism" and all the rest of Luther's Theology of the cross is put aside. When all of Luther's works are given equal and adequate consideration and study, then one will have a true picture of Luthers entire theology.

I agree. Luther was not a 5 point Calvinist. I only causually looked at some of the responses in this thread, because I knew people would go beyond the initial question of the "T" in TULIP and decide to wage war against the entirety of the system. It would take me hours to respond to all the comments and (sometimes) unjustified conclusions put forth.

On the other hand, do you think it's possible that Lutherans may over-react in their negativity towards Calvinists? It's as if, Lutherans think there are absolutely no similarities between the theology of Luther and some of the TULIP doctrines of Calvinism. This thread is an excellent example of a strong similarity between Martin Luther and Calvinism. Both Luther and Calvinism abhor the notion of free will. Boh teach unregenrate man's enslavement to sin. Both exhort their readers not to probe deeper than scriptures tell us about the will. Both teach that unless God does something, man will remain dead in sin. Both teach that faith is something God creates in us. Without it, man will remain dead in sin.

Now, as one moves through the other parts of TULIP, there are definately some differences, in part because Luther and Calvin approached theology differently: Calvin was an organized systematizer, Luther was an "occasional" writer: He wrote what a particular occassion demanded. Luther has a particular way of "doing" theology that Calvin did not share. For instance, Luther rejected the medieval use of the logical, “ergo” (therefore). He thought that theology is not systematic theological reasoning. It is not simply the matter of moving from one human conclusion to another. Theology is always a matter of “denote” expressed by his use of “nevertheless.” On the other hand, Calvin was not the crass- aristotelian-logic-thumper that some make him out to be. One finds Calvin repeatedly appealing to the great mysteries of the faith that cannot be comprehended, very similar to what Luther would describe as probing the secret will of the "hidden God". To claim (as some Lutherans have to me) that Calvin relied on "reason" and subjected the Bible to it, simply shows me that they haven't read Calvin (I mean no disrespect here). Calvin repeatedly cautions his readers not to probe the secret councils of God.

I wonder sometimes why Luther believed that theology is not systematic theological reasoning. Luther arrived at his particular way of approaching scripture through the use of "reason". In other words, he used "reason" to reject "reason"! He "reasoned" his ways to his conclusions. I say this knowing full well that Luther must not be seen as rejecting human reason. He did teach that God had fashioned His human creatures so we could learn a great deal about Him through empirical ways of learning, but reason was always to play the role of a servant. Hence, when one reads strong statements by Luther against reason (say, in some anti-Luther work from the late 19th Century), one must keep in mind that Luther valued reason, but it must be the “handmaid” to theology. It must be the servant. It is not that Luther didn’t understand the use of “reason,” it is simply the fact that “reason” must be kept in its place in theological matters. I bet if I looked for it, I could find Calvin making similar statements.

I have read Bondage of the Will a few times now. Indeed, in affirming the "T" in TULIP, I could not recommend a better book. I've had interesting discussions with Lutherans about the book. One suggested to me that J.I. Packer's translation is slanted towards Reformed theology, but never substantiated his claim, other than saying something like, "My Seminary teacher told me so." Now there's some information I would really enjoy studying! I had another Lutheran tell me that Luther came dangerously close to double-predestination in the Bondage Of The Will. However, Luther later straightened himself out on it. I don't know, i've never done an in-depth look at Luther's later comments on say, Pharaoh, whom he discussed in-depth in Bondage of the Will. Perhaps someone here has done the work and can share it.

God Bless,

James Swan

[Qoheleth]

On the other hand, do you think it's possible that Lutherans may over-react in their negativity towards Calvinists?

Sure, Its possible. But for good reason.

It's as if, Lutherans think there are absolutely no similarities between the theology of Luther and some of the TULIP doctrines of Calvinism

For that matter, there are similarities between all the schools of theology.

Both exhort their readers not to probe deeper than scriptures tell us about the will

But Calvin did where Luther did not.

Both teach that faith is something God creates in us.

Actually enabled within us without our assistance. God does not usurp our will.

Calvin repeatedly appealing to the great mysteries of the faith that cannot be comprehended, very similar to what Luther would describe as probing the secret will of the "hidden God".

But Calvin then goes on to give a logical and philosophical answer to the question. Calvin most certainly did not stop at the secret will of the "Hidden God".

Calvin repeatedly cautions his readers not to probe the secret councils of God.


Yet again, Calvin built a great deal of his theology on just that, probing the secret councils of God.

[Protoevangel]

For that matter, there are similarities between all the schools of theology. Hehe! Good point, otherwise, there would be no basis for calling them both Theology! One would be Theology, and the other a gooses egg. :D

[BBAS 64]

Sure, Its possible. But for good reason.



For that matter, there are similarities between all the schools of theology.



But Calvin did where Luther did not.



Actually enabled within us without our assistance. God does not usurp our will.



But Calvin then goes on to give a logical and philosophical answer to the question. Calvin most certainly did not stop at the secret will of the "Hidden God".



Yet again, Calvin built a great deal of his theology on just that, probing the secret councils of God.

Good Day, Qoheleth

I have been reading this thread, and find it just wonderful. I do have 2 questions, if you would be so kind

You make a distiction between enable and create why, what basis?

You seem to imply that Calvin or Calvinist believe that usurps our wills, would you have a source that may have lead you to that conclusion?


Peace to u,

Bill

[Tertiumquid]

But Calvin then goes on to give a logical and philosophical answer to the question. Calvin most certainly did not stop at the secret will of the "Hidden God".

Hi Qoheleth,

I don't have a lot of time tonight to continue with this- perhaps tommorrow? Really, it comes down to this: In order to understand Luther's view of election/reprobation, one must be aware of his distinction between the hidden/revealed God. Probably the best overview i've read on the relationship between these issues is from Luther scholar Paul Althhaus' Theology of Martin Luther, chapter 20. Althaus explains that for Luther when describing the hidden God "(God) chooses some to be saved and rejects the others without an apparent reason for either choice. He gives faith to one through the working of His spirit; and He refuses to give faith to others so that they are bound in their unbelief" (page 274). Now in Luther's understanding of the revealed God, things are expressed much differently.

Now Luther's understanding on the hidden God sounds a lot like Calvin, but remember, as i've stated, Calvin approached theology differently. It is this I which to flesh out tommorrow (or this weekend):

-Luther's distinction on the hidden/revealed God in relation to election/reprobation

-Calvin's approach to election without this distinction, and his warnings to not probe the secret council of God.

God Bless,
James Swan

[Qoheleth]

You make a distiction between enable and create why, what basis?

You seem to imply that Calvin or Calvinist believe that usurps our wills, would you have a source that may have lead you to that conclusion?

Hello BBAS,

First, God creates the moment where faith (conversion) will be efficacious by Word and Sacrament. In this moment, the Holy Spirit effects a change in the mind, will and spirit of the person whereby this heart acknowledges sin, fears God's wrath, turns away from sin and accepts the promise of grace. Rejection is possible at any point. This is in-line with the Lutheran Confessions

All this has been accomplished by the grace of God without our helping it along, so to speak. We then are enabled to lay-hold of this offer. We are not made to or forced to accept this grace. In essence, God does not overcome our will or more forcefully put, "rape" our will.

The Lutheran Fathers desribed this scenario like this: The disciples meet behind locked doors; Christ appears in their midst. He neither broke down the door nor did he knock and seek admission. He just appeared. Infused faith and acceptance in a moment of time without being distinguished.

As to the second part of your question, I would answer because of the L and I, in TULIP.

Q

[Qoheleth]

Althaus explains that for Luther when describing the hidden God "(God) chooses some to be saved and rejects the others without an apparent reason for either choice. He gives faith to one through the working of His spirit; and He refuses to give faith to others so that they are bound in their unbelief" (page 274). Now in Luther's understanding of the revealed God, things are expressed much differently.

Now Luther's understanding on the hidden God sounds a lot like Calvin, but remember, as i've stated, Calvin approached theology differently. It is this I which to flesh out tommorrow (or this weekend):

-Luther's distinction on the hidden/revealed God in relation to election/reprobation


Well, this is it:

"This will is not to be searched out, but is to be reverently worshipped as the deepest, holiest mystery of the divine Majesty, which God has reserved for Himself and has forbidden us to know. Now when the Diatribe reasons: "Does the holy God mourn the death of His people which He Himself has worked in them?" (for this just seems too unreasonable to her), we answer as we have said before: we must speak differently of God or of the will of God that is preached to us, that is revealed to us, that is offered to us, with which we occupy ourselves, than of the Godwho is not preached, not revealed, who has not been offered, with whom we have nothing to do.

Therefore, inasmuch as God hides Himself and does not want to be known by us, He is none of our business.... We must not try to seek God out in His Majesty and in His Essence ... but insofar as He is clothed in His Word and has manifested Himself therein and offered Himself to us therein, we deal with Him. This Word is His glory and beauty with which the Psalmist, 21,6, celebrates Him as being clothed.... So we say that the holy God does not mourn the death of His people which He Himself works in them; rather, He mourns the death He finds in His people and of which He tries to rid them. For that is what the preached God does: He takes away sin and death and saves us. For "He sent forth His Word and healed them"(Ps. 107 20). But God, as He is hidden in His majesty, does not mourn, does not take death away, either, but works life and death and all things in all men. For here God has not limited Himself through His Word, but remains free over all things. God does many things without revealing them to us in His Word; He also willsmany things without telling us in His Word that He wills them. In this way He does not want the death of the sinner, namely, according to His Word; but Hewants it according to that unsearchable will.

But now we must look to the Word and let that unsearchable will be; for we must allow ourselves to be led by the Word, not by that unsearchable will.... It is enough for us just to know that in God there is a certain unsearchable will....

So you are right in saying: "If God does not want the death of the sinner, the blame must be laid on our will, if we are lost." Right, I say, if you are talking about the preached God, for He wants all men to be saved, since He comes to all with the Word of salvation; and it is the fault of the will that will not receive Him (Matt. 23:37).... But why the divine majesty does not take away this weakness of our will, or change everyone, since it’s not in the power of man anyway, or why God holds man accountable for this, since man can’t be without it—this we must not search out, and even if you would want to search it out diligently, you could never find it out, as Paul says, Rom. 9:20 "Who art thou, that repliest against God?"
(Martin Luther--De Servo Arbitrio)

Two points are clear, God does not refuse anyone and the preached Word is all that we are to concern ourselves with and not search any further.


Q

[Tetzel]

Here is my question, if you believe
[/color]


How do you keep from being a 5 point calvinist? To me it flows, if you have total depravity, the rest of calvins 5 points are a necessary extension of that concept of orignal sin.

Would you mind listing the points? I'm not well versed in this

[Tertiumquid]

Two points are clear, God does not refuse anyone and the preached Word is all that we are to concern ourselves with and not search any further.

Hi Qoheleth,

We agree that Luther must be interpreted correctly. I have no desire to make him a Calvinist, any more than you do. The quotes you offered are helpful, in that they express Luther’s desire not to search the mysteries of the hidden God. However, what does Luther say about this hidden God? What are those things which should not be probed? Luther lets us know it’s the deep mysteries of providence, election and reprobation. On the other hand, to only look at Luther’s understanding of the revealed God, does not give us an adequate picture of Luther’s paradox of the hidden/revealed God.

One of the standard works I utilize in interpreting Luther is The Theology Of Martin Luther by Paul Althaus. In discussing Luther’s concept of the hidden/revealed God, Althaus lays out what Luther meant by the “hidden/revealed God” on the subject of predestination. Althaus says,



“For Luther the assertion that God is God implicitly includes the fact that God alone works all in all together with the accompanying foreknowledge…. This determines not only man's outward but also his inner fate, his relationship to God in faith or unfaith, in obedience or disobedience. Here too man is completely in God's hands. Luther finds the biblical basis for this particularly in I Corinthians 12:6, "God works all in all." Luther expands the sense of this passage far beyond Paul's meaning in its original setting. It appears very frequently in Luther's thought.

The Bible in addition bears witness, and experience confirms the fact, that men actually relate themselves differently to the word of God. Some are open to faith; others remain closed to it. Accordingly, the Bible expects human history to end in a twofold way. Not all will be blessed; and many will be lost. Luther can, in the context of his assertion that God works all in all, find the ultimate cause in God himself, in his intention, and in his working. This decision is not made by man's supposedly free will, but only by God's willing and working. He chooses some to be saved and he rejects the others without an apparent reason for either choice. He gives faith to one through the working of His Spirit; and he refuses to give faith to others so that they are bound in their unbelief. Salvation and destruction thus result from God's previous decision and his corresponding twofold activity. God's choice is not based on the individual's condition; it establishes this condition. This means an unconditional, eternal predestination both to salvation and to damnation.

Luther does not reach this conclusion on the basis of philosophical speculation about God, but finds it in the Scripture. He experienced it in God's relationship to him personally; and the God whom he thus personally experienced is the very same God who speaks and is proclaimed in the Scripture. Paul especially testified to Luther that God makes this twofold decision and that he hardens those who are lost: "God has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills" (Rom. 9:18). Paul illustrates this with the picture of the potter making vessels of honor as well as dishonor out of the same clay (Rom. 9: 20 ff.). In addition, Paul quotes Malachi, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Rom. 9:13). And Paul specifically refers to God's treatment of Pharaoh (Rom. 9:17)

The position Scripture thus presented to Luther was also the inescapable result of his understanding of God. He even cites man's innate rational concept of God as an additional proof. It seems blasphemous even to think that God does not work man's decision to believe or not to believe, as though God could be surprised by man's choice and men might be saved or lost without God knowing it. Whoever so thinks denies that God is God and makes fun of Him as though he were a ridiculous idol." Whoever speaks seriously of God must necessarily teach his foreknowledge and his unconditional determination of all things.

Luther thus finds a twofold will of God in the Scripture. Together with statements about God's all-inclusive grace are other statements which express another willing and working of God which stands with his willing and working of salvation. Together with grace stands wrath, a wrath which rejects and which is no longer a part of love; and this is found not only in the Old but also in the New Testament. Luther did not draw a two-sided picture of God from his own imagination, but he saw it already present in Scripture. The God of the Bible is not unequivocally the God of the gospel. The God of the Bible is not only the God of all grace but is also the God who, if he wills, hardens and rejects. This God even treats a man equivocally: he offers his grace in the word and yet refuses to give his Spirit to bring about his conversion. He can even harden a man—in all this Luther does not go in substance beyond the difficult passages of Scripture which describe God as hardening a man's heart.

Luther, however, summarized the substance of such scriptural statements in the sharpest possible expressions. In The Bondage of the Will he teaches that God has a double will, even a double reality. The God revealed and preached in the gospel must be distinguished from the hidden God who is not preached, the God who works all things. God's word is not the same as "God himself." God, through his word, approaches man with the mercy which (according to Ezekiel 33) does not seek the death of the sinner but that he turn and live. But the hidden will of God, the will we must fear, "determines for itself which and what sort of men it chooses to enable to participate in this mercy offered through the proclamation." God "does not will the death of the sinner, that is, according to his word; he does, however, will it according to his inscrutable will." God revealed in his word mourns the sinner's death and seeks to save him from it. "God hidden in his majesty, on the other hand, does not mourn the sinner's death, or abrogate it, but works life and death in everything in all. For God has not limited himself to his word but retains his freedom over everything. . . . God does many things that he does not show us through his word. He also wills many things his word does not show us."


Source: The Theology of Martin Luther 274-276



Regards,
James Swan

[ChiRho]

Does Altaus' words end with the quotes?

If the latter half is your own thoughts then atleast mark them blue, so to avoid confusion.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[ChiRho]

I gotta go, I will be back later...probably tomorrow with all the snow that is coming.

This spot is reserved.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Tertiumquid]

Does Altaus' words end with the quotes?

If the latter half is your own thoughts then atleast mark them blue, so to avoid confusion.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

Hi ChiRho,

All my words are in blue. The quote from Althaus is in black. I wanted to provide more of the quote, but it takes a long time to scan- I'm hoping others have this excellent source as well.

God Bless,
James Swan

[Tertiumquid]

Note: Luther’s words will be in blue. My commentary will be in black.


Hi Qoheleth,


I just wanted to briefly comment on the Luther quote you provided from The Bondage of the Will. I think it’s helpful to look at the quote in a broader context. Luther has been pounding Erasmus on not understanding the distinction between law and gospel in the previous pages. Erasmus thinks that because God exhorts people to repent in passages from the Old Testament, that all men have an innate ability to do so- that all men have the power of free will to stop sinning, and to turn to God and be saved. Luther rightly points out that the passages Erasmus utilizes are commands, and not gospel, or because Erasmus assumes free will, passages of gospel become passages of law.


Luther says, “It is the mark of a wise reader to notice which words in the Scripture are law and which are grace, so that he may not have everything muddled, like the filthy Sophists and the sleepy-headed Diatribe!” (Bondage of the Will, p. 166 Packer/Johnson translation). “…the commandments are not given inappropriately or pointlessly; but in order that through them proud, blind man may learn the plague of his own impotence, should he try to do what is commanded” (Ibid., 160). “…by the words of the law man is admonished and taught, not what he can do, but what he ought to do; that is, that he may know his sin, not that he may believe that he has any strength…Gather together from the big concordances all the imperative words into one chaotic heap (not the words of promise, but the words of law and its demand)- and I shall at once declare that they always show, not what men can do, or do do, but what they should do!” (Ibid. 158).


Luther comes to Erasmus’ treatment of Ezekiel 18, where God says, “I desire not the death of a sinner, but that he should turn from his wicked way and live.” Luther interprets the verse to mean that God “is raising up and comforting the sinner as he lies under the torture of despair, in order that he might not break the bruised reed and quench the smoking flax, but create hope of pardon and salvation, so that he might rather be converted…and might live” (Ibid. 168). Luther though understands that many people are never convicted by their sin. Many people could care less that their sin that separates them from God. Many people never feel the conviction of the law. Why?

Luther goes on to the quote you provided, of which I provide a fuller context:

“As to why some are touched by the law and others not, so that some receive and others scorn the offer of grace, that is another question, which Ezekiel does not here discuss. He speaks of the published offer of God's mercy, not of the dreadful hidden will of God, Who, according to His own counsel, ordains such persons as He wills to receive and partake of the mercy preached and offered. This will is not to be inquired into, but to be reverently adored, as by far the most awesome secret of the Divine Majesty. He has kept it to Himself and forbidden us to know it; and it is much more worthy of reverence than an infinite number of Corycian caverns!”

Here Luther expounds on the Hidden God. Notice, Luther explains what the “secret will” of God is that we mustn’t probe: “(God) according to His own counsel, ordains such persons as He wills to receive and partake of the mercy preached and offered.” In other words, “why” those who experience no conviction from the law is a question that enters into the secret realm of God. This is the “dreadful” hidden will of God, where God “ordains” whom He will show mercy to.

Luther continues:

“When, now the Diatribe reasons thus: 'Does the righteous Lord deplore the death of His people which He Himself works in them? This seems too ridiculous'—-I reply, as I have already said: we must discuss God, or the will of God, preached, revealed, offered to us, and worshipped by us, in one way, and God not preached, nor revealed, nor offered to us, nor worshipped by us, in another way. Wherever God hides Himself, and wills to be unknown to us, there we have no concern. Here that sentiment: 'what is above us does not concern us', really holds good. Lest any should think that this distinction is my own, I am following Paul, who writes to the Thessalonians of Antichrist that 'he should exalt himself above all that is God preached and worshipped' (2 Thess. 2.4); clearly intimating that a man can be exalted above God as He is preached and worshipped, that is, above the word and worship of God, by which He is known to us and has dealings with us. But above God not worshipped and not preached, that is, God as He is in His own nature and Majesty, nothing can be exalted, but all things are under His powerful hand. Now, God in His own nature and majesty is to be left alone; in this regard, we have nothing to do with Him, nor does He wish us to deal with Him.”

I offer a strong “AMEN!” at this point. Most of the Reformed folks I know would join with me. None of us wants to probe God’s secret will. None of us tries to figure out on what basis or why God ordains his world the way he does. Why does the gospel saturate certain countries, but in other places it remains unknown? I don’t know. Why does God choose Israel and not some other ancient people? I don’t know. Why did God have me born in America and raised in a Christian home, rather than born in India in a Hindu home? I don’t know. Why was I convicted of my sin against a holy God, and my brother not? I don’t know.

Luther continues:

“We have to do with Him as clothed and displayed in His Word, by which He presents Himself to us. That is His glory and beauty, in which the Psalmist proclaims Him to be clothed (cf. Ps. 21.5). I say that the righteous God does not deplore the death of His people which He Himself works in them, but He deplores the death which He finds in His people and desires to remove from them. God preached works to the end that sin and death may be taken away, and we may be saved. 'He sent His word and healed them' (Ps. 107.20). But God hidden in Majesty neither deplores nor takes away death, but works life, and death, and all in all; nor has He set bounds to Himself by His Word, but has kept Himself free over all things.”

Excellent point. I love Luther’s words. The gospel is to be proclaimed! In my church, the gospel goes out every Sunday. The pastor offers salvation to all. First, my pastor will use the law as a means of convicting of sin, and then he preaches the free offer of the Gospel. Who knows whose heart God may be working in, convicting of sin? We don’t know. The Bible doesn’t tell us which individuals God will draw unto himself, as directed by his secret will. Luther then contrasts this with God’s hidden will: God works “life and death” and is “free over all things.” Who can comprehend this? Indeed, Luther reminds us throughout this section just what the mysteries of the hidden God are. Luther continues:

“The Diatribe is deceived by its own ignorance in that it makes no distinction between God preached and God hidden, that is, between the Word of God and God Himself. God does many things which He does not show us in His Word, and He wills many things which He does not in His Word show us that He wills. Thus, He does not will the death of a sinner—that is, in His Word; but He wills it by His inscrutable will. At present, however, we must keep in view His Word and leave alone His inscrutable will; for it is by His Word, and not by His inscrutable will, that we must be guided. In any case, who can direct himself according to a will that is inscrutable and incomprehensible ? It is enough simply to know that there is in God an inscrutable will; what, why, and within what limits It wills, it is wholly unlawful to inquire, or wish to know, or be concerned about, or touch upon; we may only fear and adore!”


I totally agree with Luther. We don’t have access to why God chooses one and not another. We only have Christ of the Scriptures, who offers Himself as savior to sinners. We have the free offer of the gospel. We have the free offer of forgiveness. Why does God in his hidden-ness not save everybody? Why is not every person who has ever lived been issued a long list of the ways they have sinned against the law of God? Why has not every person been endowed with a free-will like Adam? Why has not the gospel been preached to every particular person who has ever lived? I don’t know. These belong to the secret council of God.


“So it is right to say: 'If God does not desire our death, it must be laid to the charge of our own will if we perish'; this, I repeat, is right if you spoke of God preached. For He desires that all men should be saved, in that He comes to all by the word of salvation, and the fault is in the will which does not receive Him; as He says in Matt. 23: 'How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not!' (v. 37). But why the Majesty does not remove or change this fault of will in every man (for it is not in the power of man to do it), or why He lays this fault to the charge of the will, when man cannot avoid it, it is not lawful to ask; and though you should ask much, you would never find out; as Paul says in Rom. 11: 'Who art thou that repliest against God?' (Rom. 9.20).”


Luther finds the reason why men are not saved in the fault of their own sin. Luther realizes the will is enslaved to sin. He says that God lays the fault in the fallen will of man. He then comes to face the secret will again: why has not God freed the will of every man so he could repent and believe? But who are we to ask such a question?


At this point, I can only suggest the interested reader go back and re-read the section I quoted from Paul Althaus’ The Theology Of Martin Luther. My understanding of Luther is not that he was a 5-point Calvinist, but that he understood the same thing Calvinists understand in regard to man’s salvation: God is sovereign- God has a hidden will, and that is not to be probed. I strongly admire Luther’s paradox of the hidden/revealed God. I think that many Calvinists can learn from it. There are many similarities for both theologies. The question I think that should be discussed (and probably not on this forum), is did John Calvin probe the hidden will of God? Does Calvinism go too far? Who is being true to the revealed will of God in the Scriptures? In regard to Luther, such questions worthy of discussion are: What mysteries did Luther attribute to the hidden God? What did Luther understand about those mysteries? Did Luther attribute things to God’s hidden will, that perhaps are things Scripture explicitly talks about? These are questions I ponder.


I appreciate your comments Qoheleth, as well as other Lutherans participating in this thread.


God Bless,

James Swan

[BBAS 64]

Hi ChiRho,

All my words are in blue. The quote from Althaus is in black. I wanted to provide more of the quote, but it takes a long time to scan- I'm hoping others have this excellent source as well.

God Bless,
James Swan

Good Day, James

I do not have the source, but it is on my list at CBD.com

Peace to u,

Bill

[BBAS 64]

Hello BBAS,

First, God creates the moment where faith (conversion) will be efficacious by Word and Sacrament. In this moment, the Holy Spirit effects a change in the mind, will and spirit of the person whereby this heart acknowledges sin, fears God's wrath, turns away from sin and accepts the promise of grace. Rejection is possible at any point. This is in-line with the Lutheran Confessions

All this has been accomplished by the grace of God without our helping it along, so to speak. We then are enabled to lay-hold of this offer. We are not made to or forced to accept this grace. In essence, God does not overcome our will or more forcefully put, "rape" our will.

Good Day, Q

Thanks for your post, do not know of any Calvinist who has ever said that God "overcome our will or more forcefully put, "rape" our will". From the reformed prospective he " the Holy Spirit effects a change in the mind, will and spirit of the person whereby this heart acknowledges sin" as you have rightly presented here.

To paraphase : we come not cause we are compelled, but out of a response to the change that God effects on our nature " mind and will" we can do no other".

The Lutheran Fathers desribed this scenario like this: The disciples meet behind locked doors; Christ appears in their midst. He neither broke down the door nor did he knock and seek admission. He just appeared. Infused faith and acceptance in a moment of time without being distinguished.

Very intresting do you have a source, from Luther? I must say I do not know how he entered the room , but to say these are not possibilites given the text is pure conjucture.

As to the second part of your question, I would answer because of the L and I, in TULIP.

Q

I do not understand how the I or the L speak of the issue I asked about.

You seem to imply that Calvin or Calvinist believe that usurps our wills, would you have a source that may have lead you to that conclusion?

Luther:
"If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright

Calvin:

"The will is not destroyed but rather repaired by grace."

Peace to u,

Bill