What do the Lutheran confessions say about election

[Till]

Hello there,

I am trying to understand what the Lutheran confessions - specifically the Epitome of the Formula of Concord are teaching regarding election. I specifically struggle to understand the relation between

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.

and


7] 6. 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.

and

12] 11. However, that many are called and few chosen, Matt. 22, 14, does not mean that God is not willing to save everybody; but the reason is that they either do not at all hear God's Word, but wilfully despise it, stop their ears and harden their hearts, and in this manner foreclose the ordinary way to the Holy Ghost, so that He cannot perform His work in them, or, when they have heard it, make light of it again and do not heed it, for which [that they perish] not God or His election, but their wickedness, is responsible. [2 Pet. 2, 1ff ; Luke 11, 49. 52; Heb. 12, 25f.]


Is this saying that all who came to faith are elected? And in the second logical step that all human beings are elected as they all could come to faith if only they would a) hear the word and b) believe it?


I guess what I am trying to understand is: in what sense is the Lutheran understanding of election different from the Calvinist understanding. Now I am not talking about double predestination and limited atonement. Only about election.

Many thanks for your thoughts.

[DaRev]

Hello there,

I am trying to understand what the Lutheran confessions - specifically the Epitome of the Formula of Concord are teaching regarding election. I specifically struggle to understand the relation between

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.

and


7] 6. 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.

and

12] 11. However, that many are called and few chosen, Matt. 22, 14, does not mean that God is not willing to save everybody; but the reason is that they either do not at all hear God's Word, but wilfully despise it, stop their ears and harden their hearts, and in this manner foreclose the ordinary way to the Holy Ghost, so that He cannot perform His work in them, or, when they have heard it, make light of it again and do not heed it, for which [that they perish] not God or His election, but their wickedness, is responsible. [2 Pet. 2, 1ff ; Luke 11, 49. 52; Heb. 12, 25f.]


Is this saying that all who came to faith are elected? And in the second logical step that all human beings are elected as they all could come to faith if only they would a) hear the word and b) believe it?


I guess what I am trying to understand is: in what sense is the Lutheran understanding of election different from the Calvinist understanding. Now I am not talking about double predestination and limited atonement. Only about election.

Many thanks for your thoughts.




Election is a difficult doctrine to fully grasp. Basically, our salvation is wholly the work of God, our damnation is wholly our work. God is not the cause of one's damnation.

[BabyLutheran]

Bear with me being a newbie here, but is the doctrine basically that God moves to us because we are unable to move to Him because of our sinfulness, tries to save us, but we can willfully reject or accept Him?

In other words, He knows who is going to accept or reject him, but doesn't actually force a predetermined choice on us?

It's too deep for me I think. Maybe I will just worship Him knowing that He saved me and not worry about the theology of it.

[seajoy]

BL,

We cannot accept Jesus. The Holy Spirit places the faith in our hearts. Someone who is dead in their sins cannot come to God. He comes to us, and gives us faith.

Rejection of Him is totally the sinner's own fault.

To God be all the Glory, that He has saved even me! :clap:

[BabyLutheran]

I can understand that, but does God come to each of us with that faith, knowing that most of us will willfully reject Him, or does he knowingly leave some people out? That is worrisome if so!

And on the positive side, He is sort of accepting himself for us it sounds like.

It's so hard to ask it the right way....does anyone understand what I am asking?

I am getting a headache, I haven't had to think this hard in a long time....lol

[IowaLutheran]

Bear with me being a newbie here, but is the doctrine basically that God moves to us because we are unable to move to Him because of our sinfulness, tries to save us, but we can willfully reject or accept Him?

In other words, He knows who is going to accept or reject him, but doesn't actually force a predetermined choice on us?

It's too deep for me I think. Maybe I will just worship Him knowing that He saved me and not worry about the theology of it.

I think you're getting it. God's foreknowledge and the idea of predestination are two different things. God knows all, and knows some will reject him and will be apart from him. That does not mean he set us all up like robots under his control, with some programmed to be with him and some not.

[BabyLutheran]

My hang up is the free will thing:

Sounds like we have free will to reject, but not to accept. I will have to get my arms around it some more. This is a very interesting topic.

[DaRev]

My hang up is the free will thing:

Sounds like we have free will to reject, but not to accept. I will have to get my arms around it some more. This is a very interesting topic.

This is called "bound will". We do not have free will in spiritual matters because of our sin. Our will is bound to sin.

[DaRev]

Bear with me being a newbie here, but is the doctrine basically that God moves to us because we are unable to move to Him because of our sinfulness, tries to save us, but we can willfully reject or accept Him?

In other words, He knows who is going to accept or reject him, but doesn't actually force a predetermined choice on us?

It's too deep for me I think. Maybe I will just worship Him knowing that He saved me and not worry about the theology of it.

Read this post: http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=40376615&postcount=225

It may help you understand a bit better.

[BabyLutheran]

thanks, Rev

[RevCowboy]

Luther said that we have 3 kinds of will. Now before I list them, I should mention that for Luther having a will meant doing something. We tend to have this existential dilemma where doing nothing is doing something in a way. So for example. In On The Bondage of the Will, Luther gives the example of a man riding a horse. It is not an exercise of will to stay on the horse, rather it is doing nothing. Instead the only way to exercise your will would be to fall off. For Luther will was active. So here is the list:

1. We are not free to choose God.
2. We are free to reject God
3. We are free to do what we want to our neighbour

Number three means we are free in everything else we do, except our justification. Number one and two are only in regards to our justification.

Now back to my horse example. Desiderius Erasmus has written to Luther giving an example of man being someone between two horses, God and the Devil. Man's role in justification was to choose which horse to get on. Luther's response to Erasmus was, On the Bondage of the Will, he changed the horse example around to say that humankind started on the horse. It was not free to choose God and get on, because God has already chose humankind. Rather the only option to exercise our will was to fall off, hence original Sin. And since we have made that choice, our will is bound by that choice in regards to justification. We are still not free to choose God, but instead we continually choose to reject God. Our Free Will is Bound by Sin. So God's solution was Christ, who in essence got off the horse as well and came to live with us in the mud so that we may once again be reunited with God.

You can also see God's dilemma in all of this. God, being a loving God has to give us the freedom to reject Him while at the same time starting us off on the horse, or starting us off being the fullness of communion with Him. So in essence God did know that we would reject Him and that people will reject Him in this life and eternity, but God has to give us the option to it because it is the only loving thing to do, and the alternative, or lack of will, would be unloving.

[BabyLutheran]

So would it be correct to say , all of us are on the horse from day 1, we just choose to fall off? God is with us from birth, we just reject him.

This would be a good reason why infant baptism is correct to perform. Our will and assent is not required to be baptized because we have nothing to do with choosing to be saved.

[RevCowboy]

So would it be correct to say , all of us are on the horse from day 1, we just choose to fall off? God is with us from birth, we just reject him.

This would be a good reason why infant baptism is correct to perform. Our will and assent is not required to be baptized because we have nothing to do with choosing to be saved.

Yes. We choose to fall off because we are creatures of action and will and choosing to fall off is the only choice we can make.

And yes this is exactly why we Baptize infants. Plus, like we remind most parents, the most selfish person in the home of a family with a newborn is the infant (surprisingly most fathers think it is them when we ask who the most selfish person in the family). Whether babies intend to be selfish or not they are. If they are hungry, they don't care if mom or dad is sleeping, or burning supper or trying to get to work. The consequences of our sinful and selfishness is the same, whether we intend it or not, we end messing up the lives others because we put ourselves first. You don't have to teach kids to be selfish, you have to teach them to share.

So it makes the most sense to Baptize a baby with this free gift of grace at the time of their lives when they are perhaps the most selfish, the most undeserving and cannot have possibly done anything to earn God's love.

[BabyLutheran]

I am feeling kind of strange. It's actually starting to make sense to me. I am very afraid...lol!

[DaRev]

I am feeling kind of strange. It's actually starting to make sense to me. I am very afraid...lol!

Feels great, doesn't it? :thumbsup: :amen:

[MagnusEmboden]

I think you're getting it. God's foreknowledge and the idea of predestination are two different things. God knows all, and knows some will reject him and will be apart from him. That does not mean he set us all up like robots under his control, with some programmed to be with him and some not.
I disagree with this, but then I am prone to Calvinistic hang overs.

I do not believe it is consistent to speak of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal and unchanging Person knowing something other than what He wills.

It just doesn't make sense.

But then, this really is the crux of the biscuit.

Calvinists resolve this in favor of God's sovereignty.

Arminians resolve it in favor of human freedom.

My understanding was that Lutherans just don't even attempt to resolve it.

Luther said this was a doctrine for the comfort of Christians, not for arguing.

Having witnessed the latter, I am all for giving the former a good long try.

:sorry:

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

None of us choose God and salvation. He alone as chosen us for everlasting life.

And none of the damned have been chosen to reprobation by God. They alone have sealed their fate.

How then, are some saved and others not, when God loves all and desires all to be saved? Because God has chosen to work through the means of grace. These means of grace can be resisted, though often and thankfully they overpower the foul heart of the sinner, and are limited by time and space in who they reach.

But the flip side is that the means of grace provide with chosen with a blessed assurance that they are God's children. We can point to our baptism and say 'there, there is God's election made real in human history. He has adopted me into his family, and I never have to look at my weak faith and my paltry good works to wonder if he has elected me to eternal salvation.'

[MagnusEmboden]

I remember when Universal Grace first started making sense to me.

I was reading Klemet Preus' book "The Fire and the Staff" (which I heartily recommend , btw).

It was like I had been all alone in a stuffy dark room and suddenly all the windows had been thrown open and the door thrown wide and light and fresh air and other people were suddenly all around me.

I don't think I could ever be a Calvinist again.

Oprah would say I had my "Uh huh" moment.

[MagnusEmboden]

It comes down to this, as I have come to understand it:

The atonement and the sin for which the atonement was made are book ends, exactly equal in efficiency and scope.

Just as Adam's sin effects everyone and everyone is dead in trespasses and sins as result, so also is the atonement for all, for every one.

How this works; why some are saved and some are not is not something it is given us to know and I would gently suggest that the desire to know what we cannot know is pride and cause for boasting and therefore sinful.

[Qoheleth]

though often and thankfully they overpower the foul heart of the sinner

But I wonder, where do we find our Lord (OT or NT) ever overpowering or forcing a persons heart. I see drawing, coaxing, asking, but not "overpowering"

or maybe thats not what you meant


Q

[IowaLutheran]

I disagree with this, but then I am prone to Calvinistic hang overs.

I do not believe it is consistent to speak of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal and unchanging Person knowing something other than what He wills.

It just doesn't make sense.

But then, this really is the crux of the biscuit.

Calvinists resolve this in favor of God's sovereignty.

Arminians resolve it in favor of human freedom.

My understanding was that Lutherans just don't even attempt to resolve it.

Luther said this was a doctrine for the comfort of Christians, not for arguing.

Having witnessed the latter, I am all for giving the former a good long try.

:sorry:

This article helps with the foreknowledge/predestination distinction as well as confirms it is for the comfort of Christians.:wave:

http://www.orlutheran.com/html/trelect.html

[MagnusEmboden]

This article helps with the foreknowledge/predestination distinction as well as confirms it is for the comfort of Christians.:wave:

http://www.orlutheran.com/html/trelect.html
I agree with all that and certainly I understand that there is a difference between knowledge and will, they are two different things.

What I am saying is that it makes no sense to say of God that He knows things that He does not also will.

We can say this of human beings but I don't think we can say it of God, being God.

Saying it of God makes Him contingent and dependent upon something external to Himself.

On the other hand, saying positively that God wills, for example, the sin that sinners sin is problematic for a lot of reasons not least of which is that it goes beyond Scripture.

But I would say that the former position is more deadly to a proper view of God than the latter since the latter at least has the advantage of portraying a God Who remains consistent with Who He has revealed Himself to be even if it does represent a dangerous and uncharitable dilation on His nature.

If all you were doing is pointing out that God's foreknowledge and His predestinating the salvation of sinners are two different things, we have no quarrel. But if you are saying that God absolutely does not ordain things He knows will come to pass, then I think you are in a different box than the Calvinist but it is one no less speculative and unscriptural than his.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

But I wonder, where do we find our Lord (OT or NT) ever overpowering or forcing a persons heart. I see drawing, coaxing, asking, but not "overpowering"

or maybe thats not what you meant


Q
I'd say every time the Holy Spirit is mentioned. He is, after all, the presence of the power of God.

I'm not supposing some irresistible grace, as the Calvinists do.

But the human sinner, left to his own devices, will flee from the gospel and the love of God not until they stop and choose to turn around to embrace their pursuer (free will), but until God catches up with them and takes hold of their lives (resistible election). It is a process, and it is loving, and it is not always successful, but it is entirely the work of our gracious and merciful Lord through the preaching of the word and the application of the sacraments.

[IowaLutheran]

I agree with all that and certainly I understand that there is a difference between knowledge and will, they are two different things.

What I am saying is that it makes no sense to say of God that He knows things that He does not also will.

We can say this of human beings but I don't think we can say it of God, being God.

Saying it of God makes Him contingent and dependent upon something external to Himself.

On the other hand, saying positively that God wills, for example, the sin that sinners sin is problematic for a lot of reasons not least of which is that it goes beyond Scripture.

But I would say that the former position is more deadly to a proper view of God than the latter since the latter at least has the advantage of portraying a God Who remains consistent with Who He has revealed Himself to be even if it does represent a dangerous and uncharitable dilation on His nature.

If all you were doing is pointing out that God's foreknowledge and His predestinating the salvation of sinners are two different things, we have no quarrel. But if you are saying that God absolutely does not ordain things He knows will come to pass, then I think you are in a different box than the Calvinist but it is one no less speculative and unscriptural than his.

I think it comes down to what you mean by "ordain."

I would say he "ordains" some things that he knows will come to pass in that God allows those things to take place, which is distinct from God deliberately willing it to happen.

[MagnusEmboden]

I think it comes down to what you mean by "ordain."

I would say he "ordains" some things that he knows will come to pass in that God allows those things to take place, which is distinct from God deliberately willing it to happen.

Ordain does not simply mean "cause", it is more closely related to "declare" but certainly carries the idea of "bringing about". So, to be consistent monergists, when we say that God predestines the elect (and we Lutherans do say this) then we are saying that God brings about their salvation, from first to last.

That being said, I have difficulty with the idea of God allowing things He does not also ordain. It means that there is something going on in His created order over which He has little or no control. He allows sinners to sin. I am not saying He wants them to, but He allows them to, okay...but this creates a certain theological disconnect within God between what He wills and what He allows. And this is a disconnect that, no matter what we do, we cannot really countenance since it makes God contingent.

And again, it is best not to go too far with all this. I am deeply reluctant to employ logic to describe the purposes and working of the God Luther described as "absconditus".

I am not saying the Calvinists are right. I am just saying that they are more logically consistent than any effort to divide God's will and His knowledge can be since any such effort is bound to end up with a God Who either voluntarily limits Himself or is limited by things He has made and over which He is Lord.

It is best of all to place our hands over our mouths about such things, to find comfort in election, to continue in our vocations.

Isn't it really un-Lutheran to try to explain these things? As much as I agree fundamentally with the link you gave, it seems to be an example of a Lutheran borrowing from the Calvinist plan to describe things we really don't need to worry about.

If they (the Calvinists) don't like our way of doing things (and believe me, they don't), who cares? We're not boasting.

[stumpjumper]

That being said, I have difficulty with the idea of God allowing things He does not also ordain. It means that there is something going on in His created order over which He has little or no control. He allows sinners to sin. I am not saying He wants them to, but He allows them to, okay...but this creates a certain theological disconnect within God between what He wills and what He allows. And this is a disconnect that, no matter what we do, we cannot really countenance since it makes God contingent.

A lot of theodicies to the Problem of Evil address this by saying that God allows a class of actions/evils to exist for a greater good or unknown purpose.

You can certainly find this in an Iranean "soul making" theodicy in that God wills us to have a certain amount of freedom or volition but that God works through our volitional freedom to bring about His will.

Sometimes, many times, we resist God's will for our lives and God allows that even though the fault is ours because the greater good is that we can authentically accept that God has chosen us even if that acceptance is simply the absence of rejecting God's grace.

I've always seen strict Arminianists as positing a God who plays a cosmic game of hide and seek while strict Calvinists posit God as a puppet master.

I like the road of paradox.

[IowaLutheran]

Ordain does not simply mean "cause", it is more closely related to "declare" but certainly carries the idea of "bringing about". So, to be consistent monergists, when we say that God predestines the elect (and we Lutherans do say this) then we are saying that God brings about their salvation, from first to last.

That being said, I have difficulty with the idea of God allowing things He does not also ordain. It means that there is something going on in His created order over which He has little or no control. He allows sinners to sin. I am not saying He wants them to, but He allows them to, okay...but this creates a certain theological disconnect within God between what He wills and what He allows. And this is a disconnect that, no matter what we do, we cannot really countenance since it makes God contingent.

And again, it is best not to go too far with all this. I am deeply reluctant to employ logic to describe the purposes and working of the God Luther described as "absconditus".

I am not saying the Calvinists are right. I am just saying that they are more logically consistent than any effort to divide God's will and His knowledge can be since any such effort is bound to end up with a God Who either voluntarily limits Himself or is limited by things He has made and over which He is Lord.

It is best of all to place our hands over our mouths about such things, to find comfort in election, to continue in our vocations.

Isn't it really un-Lutheran to try to explain these things? As much as I agree fundamentally with the link you gave, it seems to be an example of a Lutheran borrowing from the Calvinist plan to describe things we really don't need to worry about.

If they (the Calvinists) don't like our way of doing things (and believe me, they don't), who cares? We're not boasting.

I think we're basically in agreement. I definitely agree that ultimately, it is a mystery beyond our capacity to explain.

My only reason for considering this issue and coming up with a theory is because the question of theodicy is so perplexing for me and most Christians. If someone asks me about it when, God willing, I am ordained (there's that word again - thanks for the definition!) I want to be able to have a reasonably-well thought out answer.

Ultimately, perhaps the better way to deal with theodicy is not to speculate on the how or why God wills things to happen, and instead, focus on what we know. What we know is that God's Word became incarnate as a man, and accordingly, God experienced fear, pain, suffering, and death (communcatio idiomatum). Accordingly, when we suffer, we know God is present with us.

[DaRev]

This whole issue is known as the "Crux Theologorum", the "cross of the theologian" because it is impossible to explain and so we don't try to explain.

[BabyLutheran]

So in plain English, just be glad you are one of the saved, try to help others find Christ, and let God sort out the big picture?

[IowaLutheran]

So in plain English, just be glad you are one of the saved, try to help others find Christ, and let God sort out the big picture?
I think you're catching on.:thumbsup:

[Qoheleth]

But the human sinner, left to his own devices, will flee from the gospel and the love of God not until they stop and choose to turn around to embrace their pursuer (free will), but until God catches up with them and takes hold of their lives (resistible election). It is a process, and it is loving, and it is not always successful, but it is entirely the work of our gracious and merciful Lord through the preaching of the word and the application of the sacraments.


Is resistible grace and conditional election what your describing?


Q

[Qoheleth]

He allows sinners to sin. I am not saying He wants them to, but He allows them to, okay...but this creates a certain theological disconnect within God between what He wills and what He allows. And this is a disconnect that, no matter what we do, we cannot really countenance since it makes God contingent.


Yet isnt it true that one of the most omnipotent and forceful displays of sovereignty and power is the restraint of the same?

That is to say, an all powerful monarch that can do whatever they please, demonstrates their sovereignty, by Not exercising this power which humbles the subject who knows that the king allowed the act (whatever that may be) and didnt take action.


Does that make sense?

Q

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Is resistible grace and conditional election what your describing?


Q

I am certainly confessing resistible grace.

However, election remains unconditional. It is not based on foreknowledge or the assent of the sinner, but purely upon the gracious adoption of God. Our Father pursues us until he overcomes us with his loving embrace; it is not certain that his gospel will fill our hearts, but neither is it dependent on the sinner stopping and turning around to face God.

What child chooses its parents?

[MagnusEmboden]

Yet isnt it true that one of the most omnipotent and forceful displays of sovereignty and power is the restraint of the same?

That is to say, an all powerful monarch that can do whatever they please, demonstrates their sovereignty by Not exercising this power which humbles the subject who knows that the king allowed the act (whatever that may be) and didnt take action.


Does that make sense?

Q

It makes perfect sense, but I am not sure the bible teaches it.

So, what I am saying is that we can't go beyond what the Bible teaches. We shouldn't anyway.

[DaRev]

It makes perfect sense, but I am not sure the bible teaches it.

Sure it does. It's called the Incarnation.

[RevCowboy]

Sure it does. It's called the Incarnation.

Nuts you beat me to it...:thumbsup:

[MagnusEmboden]

Point taken.

[LilLamb219]

But I wonder, where do we find our Lord (OT or NT) ever overpowering or forcing a persons heart. I see drawing, coaxing, asking, but not "overpowering"

or maybe thats not what you meant


Q

God opened Lydia's heart.
Acts 16:14 (New International Version)

14One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.

[Qoheleth]

God opened Lydia's heart.
Acts 16:14 (New International Version)

14One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.


I was thinking more that God does not force faith (salvation) on someone. We know that Lydia was already a God fearing women. Our Lord drew her even closer to faith in Him by enabling her to understand Paul's message. Even with this knowledge she still may have resisted, I believe.


Q

[DaRev]

Salvation was won and given to everyone. God doesn't force us to keep it, though. We are free to reject it.

[Qoheleth]

Salvation was won and given to everyone. God doesn't force us to keep it, though. We are free to reject it.

I am speaking of the appropriation (Romans 10:17 & John 1:12) of this salvation by individuals (the "whosoever" of John 3:16) through faith, that is those who do not reject.


Q

[Edial]

Salvation was won and given to everyone. God doesn't force us to keep it, though. We are free to reject it.
Are you saying everyone already has salvation?

[DaRev]

Are you saying everyone already has salvation?

Everyone's salvation was won by Christ's work on the cross. His atoning sacrifice was for the whole world. But there are those who will reject this free gift.

(This weeks sermon is up, Ed.)

[Edial]

Everyone's salvation was won by Christ's work on the cross. His atoning sacrifice was for the whole world. But there are those who will reject this free gift.

(This weeks sermon is up, Ed.)
I just listened to your sermon. I liked it.
I like your sermons. They are usually to the point, short and easy to retain.
You were talking about infant baptism in a context of salvation.
However, you did not touch on the aspect of faith.
Maybe in another sermon.

In this thread you are mentioning His atoning sacrifice that is for the whole world. That is true.
You also mentioned however, that salvation was given to us and we have a choice of rejecting it.
I am still not clear.
Are you saying that the entire world has salvation and unless they reject it they would go to heaven?

Thanks,
Ed

[DaRev]

I just listened to your sermon. I liked it.
I like your sermons. They are usually to the point, short and easy to retain.
You were talking about infant baptism in a context of salvation.
However, you did not touch on the aspect of faith.
Maybe in another sermon.

In this thread you are mentioning His atoning sacrifice that is for the whole world. That is true.
You also mentioned however, that salvation was given to us and we have a choice of rejecting it.
I am still not clear.
Are you saying that the entire world has salvation and unless they reject it they would go to heaven?

Thanks,
Ed

What is required is belief, which is also given as a gift. Those who acknowledge the gift of salvation do so by faith (belief). Those who reject the gift of salvation do so because they do not believe. They have also rejected the gift of faith. They go hand in hand. God gives us all salvation and the ability to believe it.

As for the sermon, I did make the connection with the Third Article and the work of the Spirit, although you are correct that the word "faith" was not used, it was indeed implied with the work of the Spirit in bringing us to baptism.

[Edial]

...God gives us all salvation and the ability to believe it.
What do you mean by "ability to believe"? (In this post you equated believe with faith).
Are you saying that all have faith?
But, how can it be when faith is not inborn?
One of the methods of getting faith is hearing the gospel.

Also, we know that Christ paid for the sin of the world. That inlcudes all sins. OK.
Assuming that all of the humanity's sins are paid for, how could one get to heaven while still having the sinful nature (the generator of sins)?
Or, on other words, how could everyone in the world have salvation while still not being born again?

Thanks,
Ed

[DaRev]

What do you mean by "ability to believe"? (In this post you equated believe with faith).
Are you saying that all have faith?
But, how can it be when faith is not inborn?
One of the methods of getting faith is hearing the gospel.

Also, we know that Christ paid for the sin of the world. That inlcudes all sins. OK.
Assuming that all of the humanity's sins are paid for, how could one get to heaven while still having the sinful nature (the generator of sins)?
Or, on other words, how could everyone in the world have salvation while still not being born again?

Thanks,
Ed

Faith is the gift given through the means of grace. Indeed faith comes by hearing the Gospel, which is preached, which is united with the water in baptism, and is united with the elements in the Lord's Supper. It's like the analogy I used of the boy who gets a bicycle for his birthday. There is a point where he owns the bicycle, but doesn't know it until it's presented to him.
Christ bought and paid for our salvation on the cross and from the empty tomb. The presentation of this gift is through the hearing the message of Christ. Salvation belongs to us, but we don't benefit from it until we know about it as per Romans 10.

[Qoheleth]

It's like the analogy I used of the boy who gets a bicycle for his birthday. There is a point where he owns the bicycle, but doesn't know it until it's presented to him.

It seems though that just because something is offered does not actually make it a gift. The object must be received in order truly to be a gift. If the intended gift is not received, it remains an offer and not a gift. Also, this proposal assumes reception of the gift. Naturally, such reception is not a work, for someone who accepts a gift plays no part in the initiative that produces the gift.


Q

[LutherNut]

Is not "accepting" considered a work? Methinks it is.

Salvation isn't merely "offered", it is given. As Christ said on the cross, "It is finished." To say it has to be "accepted" suggests that there is something yet to be done.

[DaRev]

Is not "accepting" considered a work? Methinks it is.

Salvation isn't merely "offered", it is given. As Christ said on the cross, "It is finished." To say it has to be "accepted" suggests that there is something yet to be done.

Das ist am meisten sicher wahr! :thumbsup:

[seajoy]

It seems though that just because something is offered does not actually make it a gift. The object must be received in order truly to be a gift. If the intended gift is not received, it remains an offer and not a gift. Also, this proposal assumes reception of the gift. Naturally, such reception is not a work, for someone who accepts a gift plays no part in the initiative that produces the gift.


Q

When something has been paid for, and it's intended to be a gift.....it already IS a gift.

[Qoheleth]

Is not "accepting" considered a work? Methinks it is.

Salvation isn't merely "offered", it is given. As Christ said on the cross, "It is finished." To say it has to be "accepted" suggests that there is something yet to be done.



I understand your position but who said and where and why is reception (aka - "accepting") or choice considered a work?

I Believe John 1:12 comes to mind “...as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.”


Q

[DaRev]

I understand your position but who said and where and why is reception (aka - "accepting") or choice considered a work?

I Believe John 1:12 comes to mind “...as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.”


Q


"Receiving" is passive. "Choosing" and "accepting" are active. We do nothing toward our salvation. We do not choose it because our sinful nature prevents us from doing so. We don't have to accept it because God has already given it to us. We already "own" it. There is nothing to accept.

[Qoheleth]

"Receiving" is passive. "Choosing" and "accepting" are active. We do nothing toward our salvation. We do not choose it because our sinful nature prevents us from doing so. We don't have to accept it because God has already given it to us. We already "own" it. There is nothing to accept.

In receiving you mean believing, correct? Faith is required for salvation...yes? In John 1:11 His own rejected Him, In John 1:12 others did not reject Him, but received Him. Is this non-rejection ("...those who received Him") not an action a passive choice, if you will ? Can we and do we and are we told to love God? Is this passive?

Also, If choosing is not the cause of my salvation and has no merit attached to it whatsoever, but is in fact a grace/gift enabling the action, isnt being able to say yes the same as being able to take our next breath, that is by grace?


Q

[DaRev]

In receiving you mean believing, correct? Faith is required for salvation...yes? In John 1:11 His own rejected Him, In John 1:12 others did not reject Him, but received Him. Is this non-rejection ("...those who received Him") not an action a passive choice, if you will ? Can we and do we and are we told to love God? Is this passive?

Also, If choosing is not the cause of my salvation and has no merit attached to it whatsoever, but is in fact a grace/gift enabling the action, isnt being able to say yes the same as being able to take our next breath, that is by grace?


Q

We've gone over all this before. What's your point? Are you arguing for the sake of arguing... again?

[seajoy]

We've gone over all this before. What's your point? Are you arguing for the sake of arguing... again?
I was wondering if, after circling, he is coming in for a landing. :doh:

[Qoheleth]

We've gone over all this before. What's your point? Are you arguing for the sake of arguing... again?

No, not at all. Im asking for sake of discussion and clarification. There are finer points of faith that are well, finer, or more precise. Thats all, no argument.


Q

[Edial]

DaRev ... it would be better if we start using verses.

The basic search shows that accepting the gospel is expected from us.

So, receiving or accepting is the same thing.

One does accept the gospel ...

AC 2:40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

AC 8:14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.

AC 22:17 "When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance 18 and saw the Lord speaking. `Quick!' he said to me. `Leave Jerusalem immediately, because they will not accept your testimony about me.'

RO 10:16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news.

RO 11:15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

2CO 8:12 For if the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what he does not have.

2CO 11:4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

GAL 1:9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

1TH 2:13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

JAS 1:21 Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.

... and I do not agree that Q is just arguing.

He does make some good points.

Thanks,
Ed

[MagnusEmboden]

What is required is belief, which is also given as a gift. Those who acknowledge the gift of salvation do so by faith (belief). Those who reject the gift of salvation do so because they do not believe. They have also rejected the gift of faith. They go hand in hand. God gives us all salvation and the ability to believe it.

By "us all" you mean the baptized, right? Because surely the unregenerate have no such ability. Paul's letter to the Romans is very clear.

And doesn't He give us (the baptized) not only the "ability" to believe but the belief itself? I know you believe that, you said so.

:)

I am not at all sure "faith" is something one decides to use, Luther certainly believed it to be an active thing, it does what it does and if you have it, if you are given it; you are a believer.

[LilLamb219]

A gift is still a gift and the receiver is the recipient whether he acknowledges it or not. Think of an infant. A gift given by a grandparent might not even be known by the infant, but it is still his...the infant might not benefit from the use of the gift until he/she is aware of it, but the gift was his when it was GIVEN.

[MagnusEmboden]

I did not choose to be born, I did not choose my family, my country, my nature; and I did not choose my Savior, praised be He.

He chose me.

When I say things like this in Bible-study, I get called a Crypto-Calvinist.

[filosofer]

I did not choose to be born, I did not choose my family, my country, my nature; and I did not choose my Savior, praised be He.

He chose me.

When I say things like this in Bible-study, I get called a Crypto-Calvinist.

And whoever labels you for your statement does not understand what Calvinists teach. Nor do they understand the Lutheran stance on one-sided predestination (technically, Biblical predestination is one-sided. Calvin introduced the idea of double predestination).

[DaRev]

By "us all" you mean the baptized, right? Because surely the unregenerate have no such ability. Paul's letter to the Romans is very clear.

The "unregenerate" are so by their own choice. While baptism is necessary it is not absolutely necessary. Christ died for all humanity, not just a select few, not just for the baptized, but for all. For even baptism is a result of God's work in us.

And doesn't He give us (the baptized) not only the "ability" to believe but the belief itself? I know you believe that, you said so.

Das ist am meisten sicher wahr.

I am not at all sure "faith" is something one decides to use, Luther certainly believed it to be an active thing, it does what it does and if you have it, if you are given it; you are a believer.

It's true that faith isn't something we "decide" to use, but it is something we can "decide" not to use.

[MagnusEmboden]

Thanks for the clarification...it's helped me quite a bit...

My pastor used to say that theology is a business of fine distinctions.

[Edial]

I am not clear what was said in the last few posts.

I just showed a bunch of verses that the gospel and the gift need to be accepted.

Are we saying that "acceptance" is not a proper term?

Am I missing something?

[LilLamb219]

By acceptance if you mean receive then you're correct but if you mean something YOU have to do to acquire, then you're off.

[MagnusEmboden]

The analogy pertains though doesn't it?We receive redemption the same way we receive Baptism, our families etc. They are given us. But to say that we "accept" them would indicate a movement of the will which is, it seems, a work. I tend to think that redemption, the benefit of the atonement and so on are all things applied to us. We do not "accept" them in the sense that we must act or choose.All of these things are subsequent to, not causative of, the Work of God the Holy Spirit in us, planting faith and working our sanctification.

[Qoheleth]

But to say that we "accept" them would indicate a movement of the will which is, it seems, a work.

I understand why you say this, but I would ask again, where in Scripture or the Confessions do we find that "accepting", being a movement of the will as you say, is a work and even more specifically a meritorious work or the cause of our salvation?

Also, If choosing is not the cause of my salvation and has no merit attached to it whatsoever, but is in fact a grace/gift enabling the action, isnt being able to say yes the same as being able to take our next breath, that is by grace?

When and why and how is faith given (what happens) to appropriate the 'benefit' of salvation?


Q

[DaRev]

I understand why you say this, but I would ask again, where in Scripture or the Confessions do we find that "accepting", being a movement of the will as you say, is a work and even more specifically a meritorious work or the cause of our salvation?

Also, If choosing is not the cause of my salvation and has no merit attached to it whatsoever, but is in fact a grace/gift enabling the action, isnt being able to say yes the same as being able to take our next breath, that is by grace?

When and why and how is faith given (what happens) to appropriate the 'benefit' of salvation?


Q

Is taking a breath a spiritual matter?

[DaSeminarian]

I understand why you say this, but I would ask again, where in Scripture or the Confessions do we find that "accepting", being a movement of the will as you say, is a work and even more specifically a meritorious work or the cause of our salvation?

Also, If choosing is not the cause of my salvation and has no merit attached to it whatsoever, but is in fact a grace/gift enabling the action, isnt being able to say yes the same as being able to take our next breath, that is by grace?

When and why and how is faith given (what happens) to appropriate the 'benefit' of salvation?


Q


What puzzles me is that when you were a Lutheran you gave the same answers we are giving you now. Why then do you question it when you know the answers? Just because you have changed your base for worship shouldn't mean that you understand the Lutheran position any less. This is why I think you are baiting us when you come here. :scratch:

[DaRev]

What puzzles me is that when you were a Lutheran you gave the same answers we are giving you now. Why then do you question it when you know the answers? Just because you have changed your base for worship shouldn't mean that you understand the Lutheran position any less. This is why I think you are baiting us when you come here. :scratch:

I'm not convinced he understood it then, otherwise he wouldn't have jumped in the river.

[Edial]

By acceptance if you mean receive then you're correct but if you mean something YOU have to do to acquire, then you're off.
Of course accept means receive. How can accept mean something that we do to acquire?
Elsewhere in this thread it was mentioned that accept is something active and receive is somthing that is passive.
I never heard such an explanation and presented that accept is, well, accept.

Someone gives us a gift and we accept or reject.

Maybe I'm lost in semantics that were presented here, but I do not see a difference between accept and receive, at least in the context of the Scriptures.

Thanks,
Ed

[DaRev]

Scripture clearly teaches us that our salvation is not at all dependent on anything we do. It was bought and paid for, for us, by Christ. It is ours, paid for by Him. We own it. We don't need to "accept" something that we already own in order to own it. It's really a simple concept.

[Edial]

What puzzles me is that when you were a Lutheran you gave the same answers we are giving you now. Why then do you question it when you know the answers? Just because you have changed your base for worship shouldn't mean that you understand the Lutheran position any less. This is why I think you are baiting us when you come here. :scratch:
Why is it a bait? ... he is a guest who asks good questions, which we welcome.

I don't get it.

[Edial]

Scripture clearly teaches us that our salvation is not at all dependent on anything we do. It was bought and paid for, for us, by Christ. It is ours, paid for by Him. We own it. We don't need to "accept" something that we already own in order to own it. It's really a simple concept.
But, but I showed verses ... they are plain and clearly stated.

[Edial]

I think I see the problem here.

Most of us are lifelong Lutherans that were born in a church and were baptized.
So, such of us could reflect on our baptism.

Yet there are billions of people throughout the history that were not.
They grew up and are hearing the gospel for the first time.
They were illuminated and understand what is in front of them.
So, Peter was asking them to accept the gospel that can save them.
In other places the Bible is telling them not to harden their hearts.
And elsewhere we see that they are asked to turn from their gods.

Why is this a debate?

I don't get it.

[DaRev]

But, but I showed verses ... they are plain and clearly stated.

And what does "accept" mean in the context of Scripture as a whole? THAT is what is being lost here.

EDIT: Look at those verses in a version other than NIV. Look at the NKJV or the NASB. You'll see a difference in interpretation. (Yet another reason not to rely on NIV.)

[Edial]

And what does "accept" mean in the context of Scripture as a whole? THAT is what is being lost here.

EDIT: Look at those verses in a version other than NIV. Look at the NKJV or the NASB. You'll see a difference in interpretation. (Yet another reason not to rely on NIV.)
I looked in Greek.
Some words mean "welcome", some "obey", some "take", some "receive".

Accepting is a flip side of rejecting.

We are enlightened and some harden their hearts and some welcome the news.
There is no works in accepting.

And non-baptized people never had salvation in them.

I really see no problem here.
I see semantics.

[DaRev]

And non-baptized people never had salvation in them.

Where do you get this from? :scratch:

[Edial]

Where do you get this from? :scratch:
What?
Are you saying that non-baptized people had salvation in them?

Show me ...

[DaRev]

I asked you first.

It is a basic Lutheran teaching that baptism is necessary but not absolutely necessary. Are you suggesting that God is limited by baptism to have mercy and compassion on whom He wills?

[Edial]

I asked you first.

It is a basic Lutheran teaching that baptism is necessary but not absolutely necessary. Are you suggesting that God is limited by baptism to have mercy and compassion on whom He wills?
Man, come on.

You are implying that all have salvation in them.

[IowaLutheran]

Man, come on.

You are implying that all have salvation in them.

All have the gift of salvation given to them, some reject it. That's the short summary of this thread.

[stumpjumper]

You are implying that all have salvation in them.

I'm pretty sure I remember an almost identical discussion on this broad topic about a year ago which you were involved in, Ed.

All have been forgiven (general absolution) yet we have the ability to reject that forgiveness and justification. We do not choose it as God chooses us but we can reject God's grace and free offer of salvation.

[DaRev]

Man, come on.

You are implying that all have salvation in them.

I have made the Lutheran teaching on this subject very clear many times in the past. I'm not going to get involved in a tinkle-war with you again over this again.

Salvation was won for all people on the cross. It was bought and paid for by Christ for all people. It is ours. It belongs to us. We either know it or we don't. Those who know it either acknowledge it or they actively reject it. It's really very simple.

[DaSeminarian]

Why is it a bait? ... he is a guest who asks good questions, which we welcome.

I don't get it.


He is a guest and I do understand that, but there are times when I just am confused by his motives for asking them.

[MagnusEmboden]

I understand why you say this, but I would ask again, where in Scripture or the Confessions do we find that "accepting", being a movement of the will as you say, is a work and even more specifically a meritorious work or the cause of our salvation?

Also, If choosing is not the cause of my salvation and has no merit attached to it whatsoever, but is in fact a grace/gift enabling the action, isnt being able to say yes the same as being able to take our next breath, that is by grace?

When and why and how is faith given (what happens) to appropriate the 'benefit' of salvation?


Q

I think the idea is inherent in the word.

An analogy would be with the shipment of a package, the delivery driver whips out his electronic clipboard and you sign for the package at once receiving and accepting it.

On the other hand, if a package arrives on your doorstep and you decide you didn't order it and that it isn't yours, you may have received it but you didn't accept it.

Acceptation is a movement of the will to not only actively receive but own something, to take it into ones possession.

I believe the Bible teaches an alien righteousness, a righteousness we are clothed in for the sake of Christ and which is applied to us, not against our will, but only after our will has been brought, through baptism and regeneration, into conformance with that of the Giver.

[RadMan]

He is a guest and I do understand that, but there are times when I just am confused by his motives for asking them.Guest? I thought you were Lutheran Ed. Now that I look at your icon I don't know what you are but Christian. :scratch: Which is good.

[DaSeminarian]

Guest? I thought you were Lutheran Ed. Now that I look at your icon I don't know what you are but Christian. :scratch: Which is good.


Uh... I was talking about Q not Ed.:scratch:

[RadMan]

Uh... I was talking about Q not Ed.:scratch:Q------well that's understandable then.

[DaRev]

I believe the Bible teaches an alien righteousness, a righteousness we are clothed in for the sake of Christ and which is applied to us, not against our will, but only after our will has been brought, through baptism and regeneration, into conformance with that of the Giver.

I agree with this, except I would say that it is not simply through baptism but through the hearing of the word that is united with the water in baptism. Paul says in Romans 10, "Faith comes by hearing."

[seajoy]

Why is it a bait? ... he is a guest who asks good questions, which we welcome.

I don't get it.
Q used to be Lutheran. He enjoys stirring things up in here.
Why? I have no idea.

[BabyLutheran]

Maybe he is the Q guy off the old Star Trek Next Generation series?

That guy really liked messing with people!

[Edial]

Q used to be Lutheran. He enjoys stirring things up in here.
Why? I have no idea.
I understand this.

Some do come here after leaving Lutheranism.
(And they have to figure out why).

And yes, Q could be a pain in the neck (or much lower than that :)) (Q, I meant it in a good spirit :)).

Yet, he is asking good questions and we can handle them through Scriptures and Confessions.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[Edial]

Maybe he is the Q guy off the old Star Trek Next Generation series?

That guy really liked messing with people!
Here is the funny part.

Out of all the bad guys at the Star Trek, for some reason I liked Q. :)

[Edial]

All have the gift of salvation given to them, some reject it. That's the short summary of this thread.
Is the gift IN all the people, as DaRev implies?

[Edial]

I'm pretty sure I remember an almost identical discussion on this broad topic about a year ago which you were involved in, Ed.

All have been forgiven (general absolution) yet we have the ability to reject that forgiveness and justification. We do not choose it as God chooses us but we can reject God's grace and free offer of salvation.
Oh yes.
I definitely remember this.

And I liked the separation between the general justification and the personal one. It answered a lot of my questions.

I am not talking about this.

Yes, Christ paid for the sin(s) of the world. All sins.

How can the salvation gift be IN ALL? I need Scriptures for that.

[Edial]

I have made the Lutheran teaching on this subject very clear many times in the past. I'm not going to get involved in a tinkle-war with you again over this again.

Salvation was won for all people on the cross. It was bought and paid for by Christ for all people. It is ours. It belongs to us. We either know it or we don't. Those who know it either acknowledge it or they actively reject it. It's really very simple.
Tinkle-war? :) Interesting definition.

Show me verses where we see that salvation is IN ALL the people after the resurrection.

I see a great difference between having something IN you and having something that belongs to you.

Thanks,
Ed

[DaRev]

Tinkle-war? :) Interesting definition.

Show me verses where we see that salvation is IN ALL the people after the resurrection.

I see a great difference between having something IN you and having something that belongs to you.

Thanks,
Ed

You're making a distinction that the Scriptures do not make.

[BabyLutheran]

Logical fallacy, just because there is no verse saying it is in all people doesn't prove that it isn't in all people

[stumpjumper]

How can the salvation gift be IN ALL? I need Scriptures for that.

Maybe John 3.

Does the light not shine upon and in all even though some may prefer the darkness and reject the light?

[Qoheleth]

Is taking a breath a spiritual matter?

Yes, in the sense that without the sustaining presence/power/grace of the Almighty, I would not be able to take my very next breath

And likewise just as if I were able to say yes to Christ, it would not be possible for me to do so without the presence/power/grace God.

yet still, I must take the next breath (if I am to continue to live) and likewise I must respond to the Gospel.


Q

[BabyLutheran]

Maybe it's that we can respond only because of the Holy Spirit working within us, not through our own will.

Am I getting any more Lutheran, guys? Or do I still need work?

[ByzantineDixie]

Is taking a breath a spiritual matter?

Yes, in the sense that without the sustaining presence/power/grace of the Almighty, I would not be able to take my very next breath


Not to get in the middle of this but I had to comment on this. This weekend I attended a retreat led by Father Nicholas Tirantifilou, president of Holy Cross Seminary and my spiritual father's spiritual father (hey...does that make him my spiritual grandfather???) and he opened with this very comment! Every breath we take is by the grace of God. And he went on to explain how it was a spiritual matter. Cool.

[DaSeminarian]

Maybe it's that we can respond only because of the Holy Spirit working within us, not through our own will.

Am I getting any more Lutheran, guys? Or do I still need work?


You've come a long way in such a short time-- Our Baby is growing up:cry: ;)

[Qoheleth]

Q used to be Lutheran. He enjoys stirring things up in here.
Why? I have no idea.



I appreciate the discussions here now as before. If by stirring things up you mean to cause discord...that is flat-out wrong.

I have no intention (as I think is implied at times) of ever forcing my beliefs (proselytizing) on any TCL member.

I do not mean to offend you, Seajoy and I apologize if I have. I do believe that you caste me in a light that is not accurate. I hope that we can come to an understanding and peace.



In this whole discussion, now as before, I have learned that in Lutheranism there runs schools of thought on various doctrines and teachings of the Confessions. In the Confessions the are issues which are expounded upon with razor clarity, and others which are left to be a mystery. Some areas are gray and in these areas I have found diverse opinions (throughout Lutheranism, then and now) as to what the Confessions mean to say and according to the definitions applied to them.


This topic is a prime example. There are those that hold man is unable to respond to the call of the Gospel in anyway shape or form, aka, "we cannot accept or choose..." There are those that hold man does respond (properly understood) to the call of the Gospel, aka a choice is made.

The major issue is thus, 1. the enabled ability to respond (the yes is of grace) and 2. that the response is not the cause of salvation and non-meritorious.



The Confessions confessed specifically against the ability of man to respond (without God) in his fallen, diseased, corrupted state. And this point is driven home time and again. The Confessions also carefully and purposely avoid the issue of "Irresistible Grace", for God does not force Himself on anyone. And then there is the middle ground or the gray.

The discussion of man being able to "accept or choose" is a particularly touchy subject as being able to choose has always been associated with a work and a meritorious work (something earned or in addition to Christs work in our salvation) at that.

The question is one of conversion by the drawing of the Holy Spirit. If being able (by the grace of God) to say yes or accept, to actively receive responsibly that salvation won for us by Christ, without this response being the cause of our salvation, that is, meritorious or earned...then a grace enabled "yes" causes no offense to Scripture and like wise the Confessions.

That is what I have discovered in Lutheranism and that is why this topic fascinates me.



It all boils down to this...


Without God it is not possible for me to even take my next breath. Without God it is not possible for me to know, accept, receive, to love or work for God.


But...


With God all things are possible, without God there is nothing.


I hope this makes sense



Q

[DaRev]

Our "responding" to the Gospel is just that, a "response", which by definition means that something was done to or for us prior.

[seajoy]

Q,

In Scripture it states that all our works are as filthy rags. Even the thought of me having anything to do with my own salvation makes me ill. Many things have happened to me in my life that shows that my faith can only be from God. I am not able to do anything to make it happen.

"Choosing" God is not possible to someone dead in their sins. I am not as learned as you, and many others here when it comes to the BoC and the Confessions and other such books in Lutheranism, but I know what the Bible teaches about salvation. And my merits or so-called choices have nothing to do with it. It is Christ and Him crucified alone.

You are taking details and twisting them to try and get others to see things your way. Answers have been given to you in this thread by folks much smarter than I, yet you continue. Trust me....the guys who have answered here are not going to change their minds on what is plain in Scripture.

[RadMan]

I appreciate the discussions here now as before. If by stirring things up you mean to cause discord...that is flat-out wrong.

I have no intention (as I think is implied at times) of ever forcing my beliefs (proselytizing) on any TCL member.

I do not mean to offend you, Seajoy and I apologize if I have. I do believe that you caste me in a light that is not accurate. I hope that we can come to an understanding and peace.



In this whole discussion, now as before, I have learned that in Lutheranism there runs schools of thought on various doctrines and teachings of the Confessions. In the Confessions the are issues which are expounded upon with razor clarity, and others which are left to be a mystery. Some areas are gray and in these areas I have found diverse opinions (throughout Lutheranism, then and now) as to what the Confessions mean to say and according to the definitions applied to them.


This topic is a prime example. There are those that hold man is unable to respond to the call of the Gospel in anyway shape or form, aka, "we cannot accept or choose..." There are those that hold man does respond (properly understood) to the call of the Gospel, aka a choice is made.

The major issue is thus, 1. the enabled ability to respond (the yes is of grace) and 2. that the response is not the cause of salvation and non-meritorious.



The Confessions confessed specifically against the ability of man to respond (without God) in his fallen, diseased, corrupted state. And this point is driven home time and again. The Confessions also carefully and purposely avoid the issue of "Irresistible Grace", for God does not force Himself on anyone. And then there is the middle ground or the gray.

The discussion of man being able to "accept or choose" is a particularly touchy subject as being able to choose has always been associated with a work and a meritorious work (something earned or in addition to Christs work in our salvation) at that.

The question is one of conversion by the drawing of the Holy Spirit. If being able (by the grace of God) to say yes or accept, to actively receive responsibly that salvation won for us by Christ, without this response being the cause of our salvation, that is, meritorious or earned...then a grace enabled "yes" causes no offense to Scripture and like wise the Confessions.

That is what I have discovered in Lutheranism and that is why this topic fascinates me.



It all boils down to this...


Without God it is not possible for me to even take my next breath. Without God it is not possible for me to know, accept, receive, to love or work for God.


But...


With God all things are possible, without God there is nothing.


I hope this makes sense



QProbably because you are are getting comments from 2 different, divergent Lutheran synods. Some have more "reformed" ideas than the others.

[DaSeminarian]

I appreciate the discussions here now as before. If by stirring things up you mean to cause discord...that is flat-out wrong.

I have no intention (as I think is implied at times) of ever forcing my beliefs (proselytizing) on any TCL member.

I do not mean to offend you, Seajoy and I apologize if I have. I do believe that you caste me in a light that is not accurate. I hope that we can come to an understanding and peace.



In this whole discussion, now as before, I have learned that in Lutheranism there runs schools of thought on various doctrines and teachings of the Confessions. In the Confessions the are issues which are expounded upon with razor clarity, and others which are left to be a mystery. Some areas are gray and in these areas I have found diverse opinions (throughout Lutheranism, then and now) as to what the Confessions mean to say and according to the definitions applied to them.


This topic is a prime example. There are those that hold man is unable to respond to the call of the Gospel in anyway shape or form, aka, "we cannot accept or choose..." There are those that hold man does respond (properly understood) to the call of the Gospel, aka a choice is made.

The major issue is thus, 1. the enabled ability to respond (the yes is of grace) and 2. that the response is not the cause of salvation and non-meritorious.

I don't think that we would say that we don't respond to the call of the Gospel. The Holy Spirit call us through the Gospel so we can receive him. It is all passive though. We receive him. It is something that is being done to us and not something we are doing.




The Confessions confessed specifically against the ability of man to respond (without God) in his fallen, diseased, corrupted state. And this point is driven home time and again. The Confessions also carefully and purposely avoid the issue of "Irresistible Grace", for God does not force Himself on anyone. And then there is the middle ground or the gray.

The discussion of man being able to "accept or choose" is a particularly touchy subject as being able to choose has always been associated with a work and a meritorious work (something earned or in addition to Christs work in our salvation) at that.

The question is one of conversion by the drawing of the Holy Spirit. If being able (by the grace of God) to say yes or accept, to actively receive responsibly that salvation won for us by Christ, without this response being the cause of our salvation, that is, meritorious or earned...then a grace enabled "yes" causes no offense to Scripture and like wise the Confessions.

That is what I have discovered in Lutheranism and that is why this topic fascinates me.



It all boils down to this...


Without God it is not possible for me to even take my next breath. Without God it is not possible for me to know, accept, receive, to love or work for God.


But...


With God all things are possible, without God there is nothing.


I hope this makes sense



Q

You state it pretty well. You are not far from the kingdom of heaven Qoheleth. ;)

[Qoheleth]

Q,

In Scripture it states that all our works are as filthy rags. Even the thought of me having anything to do with my own salvation makes me ill. Many things have happened to me in my life that shows that my faith can only be from God. I am not able to do anything to make it happen.

"Choosing" God is not possible to someone dead in their sins. I am not as learned as you, and many others here when it comes to the BoC and the Confessions and other such books in Lutheranism, but I know what the Bible teaches about salvation. And my merits or so-called choices have nothing to do with it. It is Christ and Him crucified alone.



I understand and truly appreciate your perspective.

I am not, for one second (nor have I ever) suggesting that I can earn or merit my own salvation. God Forbid. And Seajoy, please feel free to remind me, a sinner in need of mercy, of this anytime.


You are taking details and twisting them to try and get others to see things your way. Answers have been given to you in this thread by folks much smarter than I, yet you continue. Trust me....the guys who have answered here are not going to change their minds on what is plain in Scripture.

Seajoy, forgive me. I am not trying to twist to get others to see things "my way". I am sharing what has been given to me here in dialogue. Where am I to have discussions about Lutheranism if not with Lutherans? There are such fine points of doctrine (which the Scriptures and Confessions contain) that are a wonder and I enjoy discussing them in all their detail.


Q

[Qoheleth]

Probably because you are are getting comments from 2 different, divergent Lutheran synods. Some have more "reformed" ideas than the others.


Well, no, this is not the case. 99% has come from LCMS Pastors from allover and from different Sems at different times. I have had many discussions with a number of WELS pastors locally amongst the LCMS crowd...great evenings, good beer, wine and scotch.


Q

[DaSeminarian]

Probably because you are are getting comments from 2 different, divergent Lutheran synods. Some have more "reformed" ideas than the others.

If you include the ELCA you would be correct. I misread your post. My apologies

[RadMan]

Well, no, this is not the case. 99% has come from LCMS Pastors from allover and from different Sems at different times. I have had many discussions with a number of WELS pastors locally amongst the LCMS crowd...great evenings, good beer, wine and scotch.


Quh--you forgot ELCA This is a combined forum of both.

[RadMan]

How would you know what is taught at either of the seminaries? Have you ever been to the one in Fort Wayne? or St. Louis? Have you audited any classes in any of the two seminaries? Before you make comments like this you need to get your facts straight. Neither of these seminaries is "Reformed." They do not believe, teach or confess a Reformed position. You speak only from your own ignorance. I'm talking about synods and not seminaries. Get new glasses. DUH:doh:

[seajoy]

Seajoy, forgive me. I am not trying to twist to get others to see things "my way". I am sharing what has been given to me here in dialogue. Where am I to have discussions about Lutheranism if not with Lutherans? There are such fine points of doctrine (which the Scriptures and Confessions contain) that are a wonder and I enjoy discussing them in all their detail.


Q
May I ask as to why you want to discuss Lutheranism so much? Why is it of interest to you? If you didn't understand Lutheranism when you were Lutheran, why not ask your questions then instead?....not after you decided to join a whole different belief system.

It just seems strange to me is all.

[Qoheleth]

May I ask as to why you want to discuss Lutheranism so much? Why is it of interest to you? If you didn't understand Lutheranism when you were Lutheran, why not ask your questions then instead?....not after you decided to join a whole different belief system.

It just seems strange to me is all.

Because I was Lutheran, its where I came from. Not so strange, I think.

and trust me, where I am at now is not a "whole different belief system" in that I do not rely on anything I do to save me.


Q

[seajoy]

Because I was Lutheran, its where I came from. Not so strange, I think.

and trust me, where I am at now is not a "whole different belief system" in that I do not rely on anything I do to save me.


Q
Then why switch?

[Qoheleth]

Then why switch?

To be honest I dont think many here would want or care for this discussion in TCL.


Q

[seajoy]

To be honest I dont think many here would want or care for this discussion in TCL.


Q
You are probably right on that one.

[DaSeminarian]

To be honest I dont think many here would want or care for this discussion in TCL.


Q


Q,

I must admit that I am intrigued to some degree to know if it was a matter of Fr. Fenton's preaching that convinced you or was it more than that? You had been a pretty staunch supporter of Luther and the Lutheran Confessions. I know that you went to Zion when he was their Pastor so the only thing I can see as the catalyst for your defection was Fr. Fenton. I am not saying that he converted you, but that the teachings he put forth from God, provided the inspiration. Had you not been in his church though I wonder if you would still be Lutheran.

If you feel, you can share this part and I wouldn't be offended. I am merely curious.

There was a time when I was into the Baptist type preaching. When my children were born we had them dedicated (we have since had them Baptized). But I do not seek out the Baptists to discuss their faith basis with them. But you have come here several times over the past six months and I know that we have gotten into a few online spats for which I have apologized for my part and you for yours. Those are bygones. But I am curious as to why someone who gave up Lutheranism wants to come as much as you do to our forum. I see Byzantine Dixie here every now and then, but she doesn't hang around nearly as much as you. I would like to understand this about you if you don't mind.

Scott

[Edial]

Logical fallacy, just because there is no verse saying it is in all people doesn't prove that it isn't in all people
What is this?

Salvation needs to be received, not recognized within.

That's what the Hindu's teach, recognize the light within.

What is this?

[Edial]

You're making a distinction that the Scriptures do not make.
?
Scriptures do not make distinction between receiving the salvation from recognizing it within??

Hindu's teach that all need to recognize the God within ...

[Edial]

Maybe John 3.

Does the light not shine upon and in all even though some may prefer the darkness and reject the light?
You mean this text?

19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

... it states here that some people will not come into the light, meaning the light is outside of the non-believers, not inside.

[Edial]

Am I the ONLY one here who believes that non-believers have no salvation in them.

I no longer ask DaRev on this. I am too astonished at his implication.

Ed

[DaRev]

Am I the ONLY one here who believes that non-believers have no salvation in them.

I no longer ask DaRev on this. I am too astonished at his implication.

Ed

You never said "non-believers". Here is what you said:
And non-baptized people never had salvation in them.


There is a big difference between a non-believer and a non-baptized.

Perhaps when you figure out what you're talking about we can continue this conversation. The rest of us haven't a clue what you're talking about. :doh:

[Edial]

You never said "non-believers". Here is what you said:
..."And non-baptized people never had salvation in them".

There is a big difference between a non-believer and a non-baptized.
OK. This is different.
I was very close to post here that I no longer wish to recommend others the LCMS synod.

Perhaps when you figure out what you're talking about we can continue this conversation. The rest of us haven't a clue what you're talking about. :doh:
I do not appreciate this for 2 reasons.
1. You did understand that I meant it to be for ALL people ...

Show me verses where we see that salvation is IN ALL the people after the resurrection.

I see a great difference between having something IN you and having something that belongs to you.

You're making a distinction that the Scriptures do not make.

2. You are speaking for "the rest of us".

You could have difused it a long time ago, or simply admitted here that you misspoke.

Ed

[DaRev]

You could have difused it a long time ago, or simply admitted here that you misspoke.

:scratch: :doh: I'm not the one who misspoke. You are the one who went from "non-baptized" not being saved to "non-believers". How on earth do you attribute your confusion to me?

I'm just not following you here.

[DaRev]

God's gift of salvation was won for all Mankind by Christ on the cross. The sins of all people have been atoned for by Him. What is necessary for people to benefit from that gift of salvation is belief which comes from God through the means of His word.

Those who hear the Gospel and acknowledge the gift of salvation is theirs are saved. They are believers. Their faith is theirs by the gift of God according to Ephesians 2:8-9.

Those who hear the Gospel but reject the gift are not saved. They are non-believers. Christ died for them, but because of their active rejection and unbelief, they are lost.

Those who have not yet heard the Gospel and don't know Christ are also unbelievers since, as Paul says in Romans 10, "Faith comes from hearing." "How can they believe in One of whom they have not heard?" They cannot believe because they haven't heard the word of the Gospel.

[Edial]

:scratch: :doh: I'm not the one who misspoke. You are the one who went from "non-baptized" not being saved to "non-believers". How on earth do you attribute your confusion to me?

I'm just not following you here.
I do not believe you when you say you are not following what I said.
(Sorry about that).

Ed

[LutheranMafia]

It says in 1 John 1 that all it takes to be right with God is love. Period. No ifs ands or buts. It explicitly says in Romans 11 that most Jews are saved regardless of whether they believe or not. The Bible clearly and plainly rejects over and over again the notion that God judges us by our intellectual concepts as opposed to what is in our hearts.

[Edial]

It says in 1 John that all it takes to be right with God is love. Period. No ifs ands or buts.
True. However, that love is the agape love.
Agape is Biblical Greek definition of the divine love.
That type of love is unknown to men. It was brought here by Christ. Through Christ we learn how to love each other divinely.

On this earth, the natural love is defined as phileo, (brotherly or family love), or eros (intimate love).
(Greek translations of the English word love in the NT).

Almost all of the definitions of love in the NT are agape.

That love through Christ what 1 John talks about.

It says in Romans 11 that most Jews are saved regardless of whether they believe or not.
You probably mean this text ...

RO 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, ...

Look at v.25. It talks about the Gentiles coming in.
Yet they came by faith (saved by faith). We know that.
So is with Israel. They will come in by faith.
They need to believe into the Messiah (Christ) by faith.

The ethnic Israel will indeed be saved in the future (all of them ... it is not many of them left even now. :))
And this salvation will take place by faith.

The Bible clearly and plainly rejects over and over again the notion that God judges us by our intellectual concepts as opposed to what is in our hearts.
Absolutely true. :thumbsup:

Intellectualism often disheartens people and shakes the faith of some hearers.

It is competitive and unyielding in nature.

That is why Christ spoke plainly, so even children understood it.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[LutheranMafia]

True. However, that love is the agape love.
Agape is Biblical Greek definition of the divine love.
That type of love is unknown to men. It was brought here by Christ. Through Christ we learn how to love each other divinely.
Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that agapé did not exist at all before Jesus, no matter how much he enhanced it such that the fate of humanity was profoundly altered. While many of our ancient ancestors were certainly much more primitive and much less civilized than we are today, that doesn’t mean that our ancient ancestors were all soulless feral animals, which is how I view the state of total absence of agapé.

On this earth, the natural love is defined as phileo, (brotherly or family love), or eros (intimate love).
You are correct about eros, but not about phileo. Agapé is not distinct from brotherly love, that is a false dichotomy, and in that context phileo is used in an overtly synonymous fashion with agapé. Jesus is said to have phileo for one of his disciples in John 20:2. What kind of love is this? In Luke 11:43 and Luke 20:46 the author repeats an almost identical phrase, first using agapé then using phileo. The two words are almost entirely interchangeable in some contexts, as demonstrated also when comparing Hebrews 12:6 and Revelations 3:19. In other contexts they are not interchangeable, such as when Judas’ betrayal with a kiss is referred to as an act of phileo and philema in Luke, and kataphileo in Matthew. But clearly this usage of phileo is very distinct from the usage that you gave above of selfless brotherly love.

So back to your point that agapé is entirely unknown to man: while I agree that divine love is the single greatest mystery there is, the last thing in the universe that could ever be fully and completely understood, that does not automatically make it utterly and completely misunderstood either.

Look at v.25. It talks about the Gentiles coming in.
Yet they came by faith (saved by faith). We know that.
So is with Israel. They will come in by faith.
They need to believe into the Messiah (Christ) by faith.

The ethnic Israel will indeed be saved in the future (all of them ... it is not many of them left even now. :))
And this salvation will take place by faith.
The critical verse here is #28: “As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs…”

While verse 26 refers to the end times in which Peter seems to predict that Christ will get better cooperation from Jews than from Christians, verse 28 refers to the present and past in which the Jews are referred to as enemies of the Gospel, who are none-the-less saved members of the elect. The reference in 28 to the salvation of unbelieving Jews is clearly not referring to the future since it strongly suggests that there will be virtually no Jews that reject the Second Coming.

[Till]

Hold on! What is this you are saying here?

That human beings can be "right with God" and acceptable to God outside of faith in Christ Jesus and his substitutional sacrifice?

[LilLamb219]

Till, to whom are you asking that?

[Till]

It says in 1 John 1 that all it takes to be right with God is love. Period. No ifs ands or buts.


While verse 26 refers to the end times in which Peter seems to predict that Christ will get better cooperation from Jews than from Christians, verse 28 refers to the present and past in which the Jews are referred to as enemies of the Gospel, who are none-the-less saved members of the elect. The reference in 28 to the salvation of unbelieving Jews is clearly not referring to the future since it strongly suggests that there will be virtually no Jews that reject the Second Coming.

Till, to whom are you asking that?

To LutheranMafia.

[Edial]

Excellent post, LutheranMafia! :thumbsup: :)
Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that agapé did not exist at all before Jesus, no matter how much he enhanced it such that the fate of humanity was profoundly altered. While many of our ancient ancestors were certainly much more primitive and much less civilized than we are today, that doesn’t mean that our ancient ancestors were all soulless feral animals, which is how I view the state of total absence of agapé.
Agape was seen in some ancient Greek literature, but it was attributed to gods.
Christ made it available to humans.

Not having agape is not necessarily being "soulless".
It is just being ... normal.

One of the aspects of agape is that it is always fair in the context of righteousness.
For example, although God agape the world He sacrificed His only Son for us.
Parents on this earth usually defend their children even if they are wrong (phileo "oarental" love).

You are correct about eros, but not about phileo. Agapé is not distinct from brotherly love, that is a false dichotomy, and in that context phileo is used in an overtly synonymous fashion with agapé. Jesus is said to have phileo for one of his disciples in John 20:2. What kind of love is this? In Luke 11:43 and Luke 20:46 the author repeats an almost identical phrase, first using agapé then using phileo. The two words are almost entirely interchangeable in some contexts, as demonstrated also when comparing Hebrews 12:6 and Revelations 3:19. In other contexts they are not interchangeable, such as when Judas’ betrayal with a kiss is referred to as an act of phileo and philema in Luke, and kataphileo in Matthew. But clearly this usage of phileo is very distinct from the usage that you gave above of selfless brotherly love..
Yet, that's what phileo means - brotherly love. Name "Philadephia" is based on this word.
I should have added it is also parental love.

In your comparison of Hebrews ...
HEB 12:6 because the Lord disciplines those he loves (agape), and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son."

and Revelation ...
REV 3:19 Those whom I love (phileo) I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. 20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

is EXCELLENT in presenting that these words could be interchangeable.
I do not have a satisfactory answer for this right now.

However, in Hebrews God is addressing His sons.
In Revelation God is addressing "anyone".

Yet agape and phileo are not interchangeable. They have distinct differences in their very definitions.
And Christ made agape available to all who believe in him.

So back to your point that agapé is entirely unknown to man: while I agree that divine love is the single greatest mystery there is, the last thing in the universe that could ever be fully and completely understood, that does not automatically make it utterly and completely misunderstood either. ..
It is a mystery. Yes. And mysteries cannot be understood, since they are outside of our understanding.
Agape in itself is divine.

The critical verse here is #28: “As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election they are loved on account of the patriarchs…”

While verse 26 refers to the end times in which Peter seems to predict that Christ will get better cooperation from Jews than from Christians, verse 28 refers to the present and past in which the Jews are referred to as enemies of the Gospel, who are none-the-less saved members of the elect. The reference in 28 to the salvation of unbelieving Jews is clearly not referring to the future since it strongly suggests that there will be virtually no Jews that reject the Second Coming.
You originally presented ..."It says in Romans 11 that most Jews are saved regardless of whether they believe or not".

RO 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ...
RO 11:27 And this ismy covenant with them
when I take away their sins."
RO 11:28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.

Although the Jews are the enemies of the Gospel, they are indeed loved by God because they are the children of the Patriarchs.

However, this does not mean that all Jews are saved today, since God also loves the world and the world is not saved today.

One needs to believe in the Messiah in order to be saved - no different from the Gentiles.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[DaRev]

I do not believe you when you say you are not following what I said.

So are you calling me a liar now? You are a piece of work, Ed!!

[filosofer]

Ed, part of the problem is trying to identify a concept based on a single word. It doesn't work that way. Rather, the concept of divine love can and is expressed with several words.

Individual words have a semantic range which overlaps with other words. Two words can have overlapping semantic ranges and within that overlap have the same meaning. Thus, in some contexts AGAPH and PHILEO mean exactly the same thing (see John 21, and especially note D.A. Carson's words in Exegetical Fallacies about how those who say there is a difference between them, do not also follow the same with other word pairs in the same context).

[Edial]

So are you calling me a liar now? ...
No, I'm not. Calling someone a liar is an accusatory and heavy statement.

I just do not believe you on that one. It is my personal opinion. One either believes or does not believe.
I can't help it.

If I am wrong, time will tell.

[Edial]

Ed, part of the problem is trying to identify a concept based on a single word. It doesn't work that way. Rather, the concept of divine love can and is expressed with several words.

Individual words have a semantic range which overlaps with other words. Two words can have overlapping semantic ranges and within that overlap have the same meaning. Thus, in some contexts AGAPH and PHILEO mean exactly the same thing (see John 21, and especially note D.A. Carson's words in Exegetical Fallacies about how those who say there is a difference between them, do not also follow the same with other word pairs in the same context).


Thanks filo.
Both words do have similar attributes, or they overlap, as you said.
Agape and Phileo are not as distinct from each other as, let's say, love and hate.

However, it should not be stated that a human can agape another human naturally as one phileo another human.
That would make these words synonymous.

Yet they are not.

It is a common error that some make at these forums while quoting 1 John (and other passages) stating that in order to be saved, all we need is love ... the Beatles paraphraze. :)

And since we do love, all are saved, IF phileo and agape are used as the same word.

Thanks,
Ed

[DaRev]

No, I'm not. Calling someone a liar is an accusatory and heavy statement.

Yeah, you are. Either you believe I'm being sincere or you believe I am lying.

When I said you weren't making any sense to me, that's exactly what I meant.

[filosofer]

Thanks filo.
Both words do have similar attributes, or they overlap, as you said.
Agape and Phileo are not as distinct from each other as, let's say, love and hate.

However, it should not be stated that a human can agape another human naturally as one phileo another human.
That would make these words synonymous.

Yet they are not.

It is a common error that some make at these forums while quoting 1 John (and other passages) stating that in order to be saved, all we need is love ... the Beatles paraphraze. :)

And since we do love, all are saved, IF phileo and agape are used as the same word.

Thanks,
Ed

Again, you are making a generalization that isn't accurate. Because the two words overlap in some distinct uses does not make them synonymous. Rather they are used synonymously in those specific instances.

But take a look at Matthew 6:46 (ESV): For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

Matthew uses AGAPH, which even the tax collectors (meaning those not of faith in this context) can exhibit.

[Edial]

Again, you are making a generalization that isn't accurate. Because the two words overlap in some distinct uses does not make them synonymous. Rather they are used synonymously in those specific instances.

But take a look at Matthew 6:46 (ESV): For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

Matthew uses AGAPH, which even the tax collectors (meaning those not of faith in this context) can exhibit.


I have a clearer example.
I began searching all the instances of love (agape and phileo) in the NT and in all cases that I saw, non-believers were phileo ...

except this one ...

LK 11:43 "Woe to you Pharisees, because you love (agape) the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces.

Also, the rendition of Matthew text in Luke is even clearer showing that tax-collectors love (agape) each other.

I need to rethink this. :)

OK, LutheranMafia, back to square one ... are you there? :)

Ed :)

[rockytrails]

Bear with me being a newbie here, but is the doctrine basically that God moves to us because we are unable to move to Him because of our sinfulness, tries to save us, but we can willfully reject or accept Him?

In other words, He knows who is going to accept or reject him, but doesn't actually force a predetermined choice on us?

It's too deep for me I think. Maybe I will just worship Him knowing that He saved me and not worry about the theology of it.
no

[rockytrails]

Bear with me being a newbie here, but is the doctrine basically that God moves to us because we are unable to move to Him because of our sinfulness, tries to save us, but we can willfully reject or accept Him?

In other words, He knows who is going to accept or reject him, but doesn't actually force a predetermined choice on us?

It's too deep for me I think. Maybe I will just worship Him knowing that He saved me and not worry about the theology of it.


no true lutheran can say he fully understands election but we can gr