What is Lutheran position on TULIP?

[Forscher]

Hi everyone,
I am new here, have been checking out this forum for about week and finally decided to join in.

First of all, it seems like you guys are all American? Well, to bring some diversity to the forum, here I am, an Indonesian, currently living in Germany. I was baptised and confirmed in a traditional tribal Lutheran church (HKBP--> mainly serve my tribe, but it has 4 million members ). The problem was, the morning services use my tribal language, of which I couldn't understand, so I usually went to other mainline protestant churches, mostly with reformed background. During my bachelor study, the christian groups I was joining in my university was also with reformed background. So let's say I am pretty much reformed, specifically with their 5 points (TULIP).

Now, since I am living in Germany, I visit the german churches ( also in order to improve my German ). Quite fascinated with the Lutheran atmosphere in the churches here. So now I decided to study more about Lutheranism.

Back to my topic. I have read several Lutheran blogs, they seem to reject Limited atonement. Is it an official view, or there is a diverse view on this? Because I agree in many things about Lutheranism: the Law and Gospel, the Liturgy, the Sacraments (including real presence of Christ); but I do not know whether I am allowed to uphold the TULIP firmly while calling myself a Lutheran.

Also, why do the Lutherans in the blogosphere and some in this forum, seem to have negative feeling towards the reformed/ Calvinists? Cause I have nothing but love for them.

Well I guess that's all.


AMDG! (this comes from the Jesuit high school i attended)

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Lutherans do not accept much of TULIP

Total Depravity-we agree on this much.
Unconditional Election-Lutherans do not understand election in the same manner as the Reformed camp. For one, we do not hold double election (although many reformed do not these days either). We agree that God alone chooses and elects those who are saved, for he is the actor in our salvation all the way.
But also this election (although this might be a little more varied among Lutherans) is a present event. God did not simply elect before time those he'd save and those he'd damn. Election comes at the moment the Holy Spirit gives you faith.
Limited Atonement- Lutherans outright reject limited atonement. The concept that Christ truly only died for the elect, and was never really intended for the world is somethign we do not accept. Lutherans believe Christ died for all, that his death atoned for the sins of the world. This is not to be considered universalism though, because it would ignore the work of the Holy Spirit, which grants faith. That is the only difference between te saved and the condemned, the condemned lack the faith to look to/grasp the forgiveness found in Christ.
Irresistable Grace- I have heard the Lutheran response to this somewhat varried. But for the most part it seems, Lutherans reject this. The will has one reaction to God and that is always rebellion. Although I have heard some who would still uphold this.
Perserverence of the Saints- like the one above, some Lutherans have to some degree or another given into this, but for the most part the majority of Lutherans uphold that man can resist faith and move from faith into unfaith.

In short, the only one I have heard pretty much universal agreement for is total depravity. On some of the others there are varrying levels of agreement/disagreement. But most Lutherans would not fully accept the other four and I am unsure if any would accept more than two.

For a good reading on this topic I suggest:
"Our Church and Others"
by Lewis Spitz. It's something like a thick pamplet or a thin book on Lutherans compared to other church bodies and their major doctrines. It was published in I believe the 60's. You might be able to find it on E-bay though.

Hope that helps

Pax

 

[Archaenfel]

One of the reasons why I am 'a Remonstrant Samurai Lutheran' is because I find the five articles of Remonstrance tends to fit what I understand Lutheran doctrine to be.

That, of course, is my understanding. Yours may vary.

 

[QuiltAngel]

Hi and welcome to TCL. I am not sure where you are going to church, but if you get a chance, check out one of the churches of the SELK: http://www.selk.de/index.php?view=a...:what-we-believe&option=com_content&Itemid=33

My daughter has lived and studied in Germany and really appreciated worshiping at a SELK church.

 

[Forscher]

hmm, interesting............
I have settled myself with all points of TULIP (it was really difficult and took years to finally grasp and accept them). I may understand why people reject them, yet now I can only use these perspectives to view God in his sovereignity and love for my life. But I do not want to open a debate, because this is not a forum for it.

Maybe I should change the question, is there a place for someone who hold all of this points but consider himself Lutheran (because he beliefs in many other aspects of Lutheranism)? I am feeling kinda stuck in nowhere. Or maybe I should just say I am a protestant.

I now attend the service in EKD, so if I were in US by now, I would attend the service in ELCA. Several points such as woman ordination and also open communion (both accepted by my church back home) makes me prefer EKD than SELK. But thanks for the suggestion QuiltAngel.

Thanks for the so far replies........!

 

[Till]

hmm, interesting............
I have settled myself with all points of TULIP (it was really difficult and took years to finally grasp and accept them). I may understand why people reject them, yet now I can only use these perspectives to view God in his sovereignity and love for my life. But I do not want to open a debate, because this is not a forum for it.

Maybe I should change the question, is there a place for someone who hold all of this points but consider himself Lutheran (because he beliefs in many other aspects of Lutheranism)? I am feeling kinda stuck in nowhere. Or maybe I should just say I am a protestant.

Hi Explorer, welcome!

I guess what you label yourself is not that important. Important is which beliefs you hold and whether they are biblical or not. You will have noticed that the church you attend - Die evangelische Kirche Berlin-Brandenburg - calls itself "evangelisch" not "evangelisch-lutherisch" as for instance in Bavaria. The reason being it is a united church. The result of a FORCED union between Lutheran and Reformed churches. So, in other words, you fit right in there when holding to beliefs which are partly Lutheran, partly Reformed. But again the labels are of secondary importance. What maters is what is Scriptural and what not.

The problem is that TULIP - as well as some other Reformed distinctives - is not Biblical. This is why we reject it. The teachings of "limited atonement", "irresistible grace" and automatic "perseverance of the saints" contradict Scriptures. Calvins and his followers hermeneutics was that there cannot be a contradiction in Scriptures. Following this principle they tried Scriptures indirectly teaches stuff which it clearly does not teach directly. Like limited atonement. The problem is: Who defines what a contradiction is? Which right do we have to harmonize or rationalize Scriptural statements?

All the best,
Till

 

[BigNorsk]

Hi everyone,
I am new here, have been checking out this forum for about week and finally decided to join in.

First of all, it seems like you guys are all American? Well, to bring some diversity to the forum, here I am, an Indonesian, currently living in Germany. I was baptised and confirmed in a traditional tribal Lutheran church (HKBP--> mainly serve my tribe, but it has 4 million members ). The problem was, the morning services use my tribal language, of which I couldn't understand, so I usually went to other mainline protestant churches, mostly with reformed background. During my bachelor study, the christian groups I was joining in my university was also with reformed background. So let's say I am pretty much reformed, specifically with their 5 points (TULIP).

Now, since I am living in Germany, I visit the german churches ( also in order to improve my German ). Quite fascinated with the Lutheran atmosphere in the churches here. So now I decided to study more about Lutheranism.

Back to my topic. I have read several Lutheran blogs, they seem to reject Limited atonement. Is it an official view, or there is a diverse view on this? Because I agree in many things about Lutheranism: the Law and Gospel, the Liturgy, the Sacraments (including real presence of Christ); but I do not know whether I am allowed to uphold the TULIP firmly while calling myself a Lutheran.

Also, why do the Lutherans in the blogosphere and some in this forum, seem to have negative feeling towards the reformed/ Calvinists? Cause I have nothing but love for them.

Well I guess that's all.


AMDG! (this comes from the Jesuit high school i attended)

We have some Europeans who show up from time to time.

Reformed theology is a wonderful logical thing, that's really kind of the problem.

Let's look at the matter of the real presence in Communion. Jesus said this is my body, this is my blood. Lutherans accept that. Reformed don't. They take philosophy, and philosophy says that a physical body cannot be in more than one place (even Jesus' physical body). Since we are told Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father, his body is there and it can't be here. So they've tried to work all sorts of glosses to say this is his body and blood while actually teaching it's not.

They say it's by faith, even speak of people being transported to heaven through their faith. Or they say it's a spiritual presence. Strange to end up with a spiritual presence when the text says anything but spiritual.

So their reason rules over the text.

Moving on to TULIP. It's again a wonderful logical system.

Limited atonement is logical because it's clear that not everyone is saved. And if not everyone is saved and you've made God's hidden predestination the foundation, then that must mean that God doesn't predestine everyone for salvation but must predestine people for condemnation. Calvin made a distinction of active and passive predestination but that seems lost on many reformed today.

Anyway, Lutherans say what does the Bible say?

Joh 3:16 ESV
(16) "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

1Ti 2:3-6 ESV
(3) This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
(4) who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
(5) For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
(6) who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

So Jesus died for the world, not the elect, that's general atonement. But it doesn't fit into their system, though so many reformed call themselves 4 point Calvinists, and it's almost always limited atonement they reject. It's not logical, it doesn't fit anymore because if you throw out limited atonement you have to get rid of irrestiable grace too, but people do it.

Anyway, what about irresistable grace?

Mat 23:37 ESV
(37) "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

Oops here we have resistable grace. Irrestible grace is logical, not biblical.

As for perseverance of the saints. Well that basically in their system comes down to the logical outcome of irresistable grace. We've already thrown that out. But look anyway in the bible for what it says.

Take Saul. God took his Holy Spirit from him. Was Saul not saved when he had the Holy Spirit, goodness I don't know one would want to go down that path. Or was he saved when God took the Holy Spirit from him? I don't think you want to go down that path either.

1Sa 16:14 ESV
(14) Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a harmful spirit from the LORD tormented him.

This Psalm which I would assume you use in worship services becomes nonsense if you can't lose your salvation.

Psa 51:11 ESV
(11) Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me.

Now in this era of dispensational hermaneutics the normal response to that is that that is Old Testament. So they end up with you could lose your salvation before but now, no. In any case, it's pretty clear nothing really has changed.

Heb 6:4-6 ESV
(4) For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit,
(5) and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
(6) and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

So there's a real short summary of why TULIP isn't biblical. Logical, easy to learn, just not consistent with the trustworthy revelation from God but rather contaminated with extrabiblical reasoning of man.

Marv

 

[wildboar]

As a former Calvinist I believe that both Calvinism and Arminianism create systems which make the Bible easier to wrap your head around. The problem is that they both twist passages to make them suit their respective theologies. They both try to make the Bible rational and make God function in ways which we think that we would if we were God.

Unconditional Election-Lutherans do not understand election in the same manner as the Reformed camp. For one, we do not hold double election (although many reformed do not these days either). We agree that God alone chooses and elects those who are saved, for he is the actor in our salvation all the way.
But also this election (although this might be a little more varied among Lutherans) is a present event. God did not simply elect before time those he'd save and those he'd damn. Election comes at the moment the Holy Spirit gives you faith.

I don't believe that this is entirely accurate. Election does not become an abstract doctrine the way that it can be presented in Calvinistic theology. But there is an election from eternity in Christ. This entry from the Book of Concord is pretty helpful in understanding the Lutheran teaching regarding election: The Epitome of the Formula of Concord - Book of Concord.

 

[Forscher]

Hi Explorer, welcome!

I guess what you label yourself is not that important. Important is which beliefs you hold and whether they are biblical or not. You will have noticed that the church you attend - Die evangelische Kirche Berlin-Brandenburg - calls itself "evangelisch" not "evangelisch-lutherisch" as for instance in Bavaria. The reason being it is a united church. The result of a FORCED union between Lutheran and Reformed churches. So, in other words, you fit right in there when holding to beliefs which are partly Lutheran, partly Reformed. But again the labels are of secondary importance. What maters is what is Scriptural and what not.

The problem is that TULIP - as well as some other Reformed distinctives - is not Biblical. This is why we reject it. The teachings of "limited atonement", "irresistible grace" and automatic "perseverance of the saints" contradict Scriptures. Calvins and his followers hermeneutics was that there cannot be a contradiction in Scriptures. Following this principle they tried Scriptures indirectly teaches stuff which it clearly does not teach directly. Like limited atonement. The problem is: Who defines what a contradiction is? Which right do we have to harmonize or rationalize Scriptural statements?

All the best,
Till

.......Thanks for the welcome! ....yeah I just learned about their FORCED union. Well glad that they did it, so someone like me can fit somewhere .

What contradiction are you talking about? And why should there BE a contradiction in the Scriptures? Some mystery maybe, contradiction I don't think so. At the end, the reformed still acknowledge some mystery do exist such as the human's responsibility to believe, to spread the gospel, about reprobation; I do not think they try to harmonize or rationalize the scriptures.

Finally, was Jakob Arminius or were the Remonstrans Lutherans? Why are the Lutherans (at least here in this forum) agree with him? I highly doubt that Luther himself who wrote something like Bondage of Will would have rejected whole-heartedly the 4 latter points of TULIP.

 

[Forscher]

We have some Europeans who show up from time to time.


Let's look at the matter of the real presence in Communion. Jesus said this is my body, this is my blood. Lutherans accept that. Reformed don't. They take philosophy, and philosophy says that a physical body cannot be in more than one place (even Jesus' physical body). Since we are told Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father, his body is there and it can't be here. So they've tried to work all sorts of glosses to say this is his body and blood while actually teaching it's not.

They say it's by faith, even speak of people being transported to heaven through their faith. Or they say it's a spiritual presence. Strange to end up with a spiritual presence when the text says anything but spiritual.

So their reason rules over the text.

So there's a real short summary of why TULIP isn't biblical. Logical, easy to learn, just not consistent with the trustworthy revelation from God but rather contaminated with extrabiblical reasoning of man.

Marv

Agree with you with the real presence of Christ, I think the reformed makes it too complicated for simple mind like me.


Wow to your last paragraph! YOu made it sound so easy. I did not have it easy to learn. Do you really think it is natural for Christian, even the reformed to agree with TULIP? It is the other way around. It's like very natural for human not to believe in justification by faith alone. I would not say that believing in justification through faith alone was an easy, logical process for you.

About the verses you showed me, thanks a lot. Of course I dealed with these verses before. But I had to deal also the other verses showing the opposite.These are the parts I considered mystery (I leave it to God).

 

[filosofer]

.......Thanks for the welcome! ....yeah I just learned about their FORCED union. Well glad that they did it, so someone like me can fit somewhere .

What contradiction are you talking about? And why should there BE a contradiction in the Scriptures? Some mystery maybe, contradiction I don't think so. At the end, the reformed still acknowledge some mystery do exist such as the human's responsibility to believe, to spread the gospel, about reprobation; I do not think they try to harmonize or rationalize the scriptures.

For you to understand the heart of the Lutheran Confession, read Article IV of the Apology of the Augsburg confession. Limited Atonement directly contradicts this statement.

Further, you would be helped by studying what Lutherans teach in the Formula of Concord: regarding original sin, free will, righteousness of faith, and especially Law and Gospel.

Finally, was Jakob Arminius or were the Remonstrans Lutherans? Why are the Lutherans (at least here in this forum) agree with him? I highly doubt that Luther himself who wrote something like Bondage of Will would have rejected whole-heartedly the 4 latter points of TULIP.

No, Arminius was not Lutheran, and no, we do not agree with his theology.

One of the problems for many who come from a "Protestant" perspective is that they assume that there are only two alternatives in viewing these topics, either Calvinist or Arminian. The fact is that many times the questions and issues are phrased in such a way that assumes only those two options, but do not exhaust the Biblical view. That is why Lutherans do not fit the mold of Calvinist nor Arminian.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

hmm, interesting............
I have settled myself with all points of TULIP (it was really difficult and took years to finally grasp and accept them). I may understand why people reject them, yet now I can only use these perspectives to view God in his sovereignity and love for my life. But I do not want to open a debate, because this is not a forum for it.

Maybe I should change the question, is there a place for someone who hold all of this points but consider himself Lutheran (because he beliefs in many other aspects of Lutheranism)? I am feeling kinda stuck in nowhere. Or maybe I should just say I am a protestant.

I now attend the service in EKD, so if I were in US by now, I would attend the service in ELCA. Several points such as woman ordination and also open communion (both accepted by my church back home) makes me prefer EKD than SELK. But thanks for the suggestion QuiltAngel.

Thanks for the so far replies........!

One thing to consider, is you have been taught by Calvinists, therefore you think theology like one. You may not notice this but it comes right out in your words such as "view God in his sovereignty". My wife coming from this background often looks at things this way too, because the sovereignty of God is central in Calvinistic theology. It is why everything happens in abstraction such as predestination, which leads to views such as limited atonement.
In Lutheranism justification by faith is our central doctrine because it is what we understand to be the gospel message at its core-Christ crucified for us, forgiveness of sins completely on his account. This is why article IV of the Augsburg Confession on justification is called commonly, "the article on which the church stands (or falls)" because it is the hub of all our theology.
Now why would I encourage you to understand theology with Article IV as its center instead of Sovereignty of God, (which we do not deny but don't hold "central")? Well because part of the concept of God's Sovereignty is it is based upon his "mind" so to speak. Thus the entire notion is based upon what we think God's thinks, and how we suppose God does things. This type of speculation can force out doctrines that are not well supported biblically, and more often they are loosely supported but twisted to fit our notion of what we think God does in his Sovereignty. It assumes things about what in theology we refer to as "the hidden God". That is, things that scripture does not say about God. For instance (and this still drives my wife nuts), the Bible says God elects those he saves, but it does not say he elects those he damns. But it would make sense to us that if some were chosen for salvation, the rest were chosen for damnation. Yet this stands against passages that speak of God's desire for all to come to salvation.
Justification at its core puts central in your theology a very real and concrete thing, the incarnate Lord Christ. The cross, grave, resurrection and what Paul tells us that does for us is the core basis for all our theology. Therefore, we have have a solid foundation on which our theology is built. Everything centers around the forgiveness of sins that was attained by Christ at the cross, and it lets us take hold and believe these doctrines in a very firm and sacramental sense.

I know that is a lot. I talk too much. But hopefully somewhere within it was some helpful information.

Pax

 

[Tangible]

Justification at its core puts central in your theology a very real and concrete thing, the incarnate Lord Christ. The cross, grave, resurrection and what Paul tells us that does for us is the core basis for all our theology. Therefore, we have have a solid foundation on which our theology is built. Everything centers around the forgiveness of sins that was attained by Christ at the cross, and it lets us take hold and believe these doctrines in a very firm and sacramental sense.

That was great DTK. Thanks! (I feel kinda like I do after a good Law and Gospel sermon. )

 

[BigNorsk]

.......Thanks for the welcome! ....yeah I just learned about their FORCED union. Well glad that they did it, so someone like me can fit somewhere .

What contradiction are you talking about? And why should there BE a contradiction in the Scriptures? Some mystery maybe, contradiction I don't think so. At the end, the reformed still acknowledge some mystery do exist such as the human's responsibility to believe, to spread the gospel, about reprobation; I do not think they try to harmonize or rationalize the scriptures.

Finally, was Jakob Arminius or were the Remonstrans Lutherans? Why are the Lutherans (at least here in this forum) agree with him? I highly doubt that Luther himself who wrote something like Bondage of Will would have rejected whole-heartedly the 4 latter points of TULIP.

Arminius was reformed in theology, not Lutheran. And we never said that we agree with him.

Do not take evidence that Calvinists fall off one side of the theological path to mean we agree with Arminius, he fell off the other side.

I guess it's easy to think of any opposition to TULIP as agreeing with Arminius because the whole TULIP think came about within the Reformed tradition as an answer to Arminius or was it vice versa, I forget.

Simply talking about TULIP does tend to sound like a choice between Arminius and Calvin but we aren't trying to go there.

For instance let's take predestination. Lutherans agree with predestination to salvation, they don't agree with predestination to condemnation. Nor do they insert that man has free will in order to explain it.

We are willing to submit to God in what he revealed. He reveals predestination as a part of the gospel, that which saves us. It would appear it is to provide comfort and assurance to the believer that he doesn't have to rely on himself to be saved.

However, turning it into the reason you aren't saved takes the gospel and turns it into a law which thereby condemns.

We don't turn predestination into a law, and we don't say man saves himself. Which seems to always be the end to the conditional election of the Remonstrants.

We believe in Christ alone, not ourselves.

The basic problem comes from taking the mysteries of God and trying to discern them instead of accepting them.

The bible says he who believes shall be saved. Our faith is in that. Not he who believes shall be saved if God predestined him to salvation. Not he who was predestined shall be saved if he chooses to believe.

It's difficult when one's system makes the predestination of God the material principle. Lutherans operate with the article of justification as the material principle. That we are saved by grace alone through faith alone by Christ alone.

Marv

 

[wildboar]

Finally, was Jakob Arminius or were the Remonstrans Lutherans? Why are the Lutherans (at least here in this forum) agree with him? I highly doubt that Luther himself who wrote something like Bondage of Will would have rejected whole-heartedly the 4 latter points of TULIP.

Luther pretty clearly teaches a universal atonement in many of his writings. It is even unclear from Calvin's writings if Calvin would have held to the limited atonement--it was a much later debate. In regards to U, in his commentary on Romans 9, Luther does sound like he's teaching double predestination but he wrote other things which seem to contradict this. But ultimately he rooted our election in Christ which is different from many internet Calvinists who just consider election as an act of the sovereignty of God. Luther did teach that some do resist God's grace and fall away from the faith. Why they do so is a great mystery. Even Calvin would speak of people falling away from the faith in ways that modern TULIP folks would feel uncomfortable with. Ultimately, Lutherans do not subscribe to everything that Luther wrote. However, Calvinists need to be careful as well. Too many read everything as if Calvinism and Arminianism are the only two options and Luther doesn't really fit into either catagory--I don't think Calvin even does. But Lutheranism is monergistic which I think leads many in the Calvinist camp to read Luther and think he is a Calvinist.

 

[Forscher]

One thing to consider, is you have been taught by Calvinists, therefore you think theology like one. You may not notice this but it comes right out in your words such as "view God in his sovereignty". My wife coming from this background often looks at things this way too, because the sovereignty of God is central in Calvinistic theology. It is why everything happens in abstraction such as predestination, which leads to views such as limited atonement.
In Lutheranism justification by faith is our central doctrine because it is what we understand to be the gospel message at its core-Christ crucified for us, forgiveness of sins completely on his account. This is why article IV of the Augsburg Confession on justification is called commonly, "the article on which the church stands (or falls)" because it is the hub of all our theology.
Now why would I encourage you to understand theology with Article IV as its center instead of Sovereignty of God, (which we do not deny but don't hold "central")? Well because part of the concept of God's Sovereignty is it is based upon his "mind" so to speak. Thus the entire notion is based upon what we think God's thinks, and how we suppose God does things. This type of speculation can force out doctrines that are not well supported biblically, and more often they are loosely supported but twisted to fit our notion of what we think God does in his Sovereignty. It assumes things about what in theology we refer to as "the hidden God". That is, things that scripture does not say about God. For instance (and this still drives my wife nuts), the Bible says God elects those he saves, but it does not say he elects those he damns. But it would make sense to us that if some were chosen for salvation, the rest were chosen for damnation. Yet this stands against passages that speak of God's desire for all to come to salvation.
Justification at its core puts central in your theology a very real and concrete thing, the incarnate Lord Christ. The cross, grave, resurrection and what Paul tells us that does for us is the core basis for all our theology. Therefore, we have have a solid foundation on which our theology is built. Everything centers around the forgiveness of sins that was attained by Christ at the cross, and it lets us take hold and believe these doctrines in a very firm and sacramental sense.

I know that is a lot. I talk too much. But hopefully somewhere within it was some helpful information.

Pax

........yeah, I do notice that (i thought about it before writing). But I see that it helps to understand the justification through faith instead of taking it away from the central. Their theological view is called Doctrine of Grace, and how can you separate justification from grace?

 

[Forscher]

As a former Calvinist I believe that both Calvinism and Arminianism create systems which make the Bible easier to wrap your head around. The problem is that they both twist passages to make them suit their respective theologies. They both try to make the Bible rational and make God function in ways which we think that we would if we were God.





Thanks for the link. I skimmed through it once, and did not see any difference to the view I have now. But I will read it again, maybe tonight.

 

[Forscher]

Arminius was reformed in theology, not Lutheran. And we never said that we agree with him.

Do not take evidence that Calvinists fall off one side of the theological path to mean we agree with Arminius, he fell off the other side.

I guess it's easy to think of any opposition to TULIP as agreeing with Arminius because the whole TULIP think came about within the Reformed tradition as an answer to Arminius or was it vice versa, I forget.


For instance let's take predestination. Lutherans agree with predestination to salvation, they don't agree with predestination to condemnation. Nor do they insert that man has free will in order to explain it.

We are willing to submit to God in what he revealed. He reveals predestination as a part of the gospel, that which saves us. It would appear it is to provide comfort and assurance to the believer that he doesn't have to rely on himself to be saved.

However, turning it into the reason you aren't saved takes the gospel and turns it into a law which thereby condemns.

We don't turn predestination into a law, and we don't say man saves himself. Which seems to always be the end to the conditional election of the Remonstrants.

We believe in Christ alone, not ourselves.

The basic problem comes from taking the mysteries of God and trying to discern them instead of accepting them.

The bible says he who believes shall be saved. Our faith is in that. Not he who believes shall be saved if God predestined him to salvation. Not he who was predestined shall be saved if he chooses to believe.

It's difficult when one's system makes the predestination of God the material principle. Lutherans operate with the article of justification as the material principle. That we are saved by grace alone through faith alone by Christ alone.

Marv

.......yes, i think I fell into the trap of reading Archaenfel saying he is a 'Remonstrant samurai Lutheran' and generalized it all to you. My mistake. Sorry.

And I whole-heartedly agree in everything you said in the rest of your reply. So where is the difference?

 

[Till]

Forscher,

Off-topic but I was wondering: You seem quite conservative theologically. How do you fit in to the evangelical church in Berlin. I guess it depends which congregration you attend but generally they would be fairly liberal, isn't it?

 

[Tangible]

I've googled around a bit, but I couldn't find what I think would be really helpful in this discussion - a three-column five-point comparison of Calvin(ist) | Luther(an) | Arminius(ian). (Realizing of course, that Lutheranism has never "officially" used this five-point presentation.)

Edit: Heck, why not throw in a Catholic and Orthodox column to make a nice, balanced five-by-five chart while we're at it?