Christian Basics Class #29 - How Is Lutheranism Different from Calvinism?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 май 2021
- Dr. Jordan Cooper joins us for a third video on Lutheran distinctives. In this case, we look at another Reformation tradition very similar to ours, the Calvinist tradition, often found in Reformed and Presbyterian churches. To follow Dr. Cooper, check out his podcast, Just and Sinner.
I have definite respect for Biblical Lutherans...NON ELCA LCMS and WELS are ones I know of and respect, as a member of the OPC. We obviously have differences but I do believe that we are brothers. God bless.
Nice discussion. I’m a Calvinist worshiping in a LCMS church for the last 13 years. There are no Reformed churches within 75 miles of our NC town. As the Catholics say, this is “mission territory.” We joined the Lutheran church because our granddaughter could be baptized there and the Lutheran doctrine of Baptism is close to theReformed than any other denomination. Reformed believers believe wholeheartedly in real presence in the Lord’s Supper which requires understanding that the elements are efficacious unto salvation. I favor closer communion between Bible believing Lutherans and Bible believing Calvinists. It hurts that LCMS members are unnecessarily indoctrinated against Calvinists. Calvinist students are taught to love Luther. Luther’s theology is constantly repeated in Reformed preaching. I wonder if conservative Calvinist theology isn’t closer to that of Luther than that of GnesioLutherans. I often refer to myself as a PaleoLutheran. I love Lutheran worship and spirituality, particularly music. But this music is to be found also in larger, more traditional Reformed churches. This past Easter we were traveling to Florida and worshipped in the First Presbyterian Church in Columbia SC, founded in 1795. What a glorious experience. Every believing Lutheran would have enjoyed that service.
In my very limited experience I think the biggest divide is with the MacArthurite Calvinists and Lutherans. It’s been years since I have gone to a Presbyterian church, but the MacArthurite ones really seem to think that their way is the only way and Lutherans probably aren’t saved and Presbyterians are iffy.
Love this! I can’t wait to watch more!
I would like to see the evidence for Luther’s support of the Arminian teachings included in the Formula of Concord. Is there a significant difference in PaleoLutheran soteriology and that of GnesioLutherans?
I'm a recent Lutheran convert coming from an Arminian background. I stand with Luther, thus I'm a 5 point Calvinist Lutheran. I disagree with the contemporary Lutheran view that God predestined us for salvation but not for eternal salvation. Can anyone shed light as to how this Reformed/Arminian hybrid makes any sense?
I’ve just seen your post and I have to disagree that Luther was the equivalent of a 5 point Calvinist. Have you read The Bondage of the Will? In it, although Luther affirmed that people are predestined to be damned, he also maintained that Christ's atonement is universal in scope. He therefore rejected the L in TULIP (i.e. limited atonement). As regards the P in TULIP (i.e. perseverance of the saints) I know he held that one can at least temporarily fall from grace and cease being in a justified state through falling into sin (as for instance happened to David when he committed adultery), but whether he believed that one can permanently fall away so that a person can lose his salvation I’m not too sure. If he did then that would mean he didn't hold to the P. Of course even those who subscribe to the Formula of Concord (which rejects predestination to hell) hold that those God has elected to save will persevere in the end and not be lost, but they also hold that one can be in a saved and justified state but permanently fall away and be lost. Whether Luther held this I’m not too sure but if he did then he believed that it happens because God has predestined it to happen as he held that all things are predestined to happen. He believed in absolute predestination because God's foreknowledge necessitates everything happening as it does. Calvinists of course also believe this but I think they also hold to OSAS (i.e. once saved always saved) which I don't accept is true because I hold with Luther that if a person falls into open sin then the Holy Spirit departs from him and he's no longer in a saved state until he repents. Those who hold to OSAS I think hold to the idea that those who are saved can't lose the Holy Spirit even when they fall into open sin. I don't accept that this is true.
With respect to the position on predestination which those who identify themselves as confessional Lutherans hold they recognise that it doesn't make logical sense but they have this perverse idea that it doesn't need to make logical sense because in their eyes God can mysteriously do things which defy logical analysis. It's absurd but they’ve been deceived into believing this through the clever arguments of Martin Chemnitz who was the chief author of the Formula of Concord which was drawn up several decades after Luther's death. Chemnitz cleverly but erroneously argued that Scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit is efficacious in the Gospel towards everyone and that those who are damned are alone responsible through resisting the Holy Spirit. This isn't Scriptural and Luther didn't believe it but confessional Lutherans hold to this strongly and won't give it up. It's a defining issue for them which separates them from Calvinists. They'll never compromise on this even if they become aware that Luther didn't hold it - they'll just conclude that Luther was wrong, so strong is their belief in it. Dr Cooper himself used to be a Calvinist but now rejects double predestination and believes in the universal operation of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace (i.e. Word and sacraments). I don't accept he's a genuine Christian as he’s teaching false doctrine and misleading his followers by doing so.
@@Edward-ng8oo Reformed teach that the atonement is universally sufficient but not universally efficient. That seems to be what the Scriptures teach.
Loved these past 3 videos. Thank you and God's Peace be with you all.
a Calvinist would say that the Lutheran view limits the sovereignty of God in salvation.
The music is TOO LOUD
Turn down the music
What Dr Cooper failed to mention is that confessional Lutheranism disagrees with Luther's position in The Bondage of the Will. Although Luther held that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, he didn't hold that the Holy Spirit is efficacious in the Word to all who hear it. Luther held that the Scriptures teach double predestination, and that God wills to damn some from eternity. I agree with Luther. For instance Paul's analogy of the potter who makes vessels of honour and dishonour in Romans 9 wouldn't be apropos if indeed Paul didn't hold that God predestines people to both heaven and hell. If Paul had been confessional Lutheran in theology he wouldn't have the potter making vessels of dishonour (e.g. chamber pots), but only vessels of honour (e.g. vases).
With regards to the confessional Lutheran doctrine of the universal operation of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace (Word and sacraments), Luther rejected this in The Bondage of the Will. He distinguished between the outer drawing of the Gospel which goes out to everyone but which doesn't have the power to regenerate, and the inner drawing by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel which irresistibly regenerates those whom the Father wills. Luther wrote:
Now take the saying of Christ in John 6 [:44]: "No one comes to me unless my Father draws him." What does this leave to free choice? For he says that everyone needs to hear and learn from the Father himself, and that all must be taught by God. He plainly teaches here, not only that the works and efforts of free choice are fruitless, but that even the message of the gospel itself (which is what this passage is about) is heard in vain unless the Father himself speaks, teaches, and draws inwardly…. But the ungodly does not come even when he hears the Word unless the Father draws and teaches him inwardly, which He does by pouring out the Spirit. There is then another "drawing" than the one that takes place outwardly; for then Christ is set forth by the light of the Spirit, so that a man rapt away to Christ with the sweetest rapture, and rather yields passively to God's speaking, teaching, and drawing than seeks and runs himself. (p.285,286, Vol. 33, Luther's Works)
Confessional Lutherans don't accept this distinction between an inner and an outer drawing, and believe that the Holy Spirit is always efficacious in the Word towards everyone, and that the reason why people are damned is because they resist the Holy Spirit. Luther on the other hand rejected this and held that people are damned because God doesn't will to regenerate them through the Holy Spirit but rather to leave them in their sins so that they're damned. Luther addressed the seeming injustice of God in doing so by explaining that God's justice can't be comprehended in this life but will be understood in the next.
Confessional Lutherans wrongly conclude from the fact that God through Christ desires to save everyone that it must follow that He hasn't predestined anyone to be damned. However this is a false deduction. The Scriptures teach both and it's wrong to pit one against the other and conclude that the Scriptures only teach single predestination. Simple logic also dictates that if people are saved only because God has elected to save them in eternity that the reason why people are damned is because God didn't elect or will to save them in eternity. It's not possible that predestination to heaven can exist on its own without it being accompanied by predestination to hell. Confessional Lutherans should have stayed with Luther's Scriptural doctrine of predestination instead of adopting Chemnitz's heretical doctrine.
By the way, I'm not a Calvinist. I agree with the documents contained in the Book of Concord that were in existence during Luther's lifetime. It's only the Formula of Concord, which was produced after Luther's death, that I take issue with.
Do people really think that God requires call these convoluted philosophical notions?? It's way too much for the average person!
@@dovygoodguy1296 Christians should have a basic understanding that God is all-powerful and that everything is under His control, and nothing can happen outside of His will. Since God is omnipotent, which means there's no force greater than Himself forcing Him to endure things which He doesn't will, it has to follow that He wills whatever happens. Also since He wills and foreknows everything from eternity, it follows that what happens is predestined to happen. Although the average Christian might not have a clear grasp of this, at least he shouldn't be denying it as confessional Lutherans do.
Very well presented evidence of Luther’s view of predestination. Thank you.
@@Edward-ng8oo In your original post, you are ignoring the differences between single and double predestination and simply stating that "simple logic" means that they are equivalent. There is a big difference between God actively creating someone for damnation (double predestination) verses God not electing someone to Heaven (single). There is a difference between refusing to save a drowning man verses actively pushing his head underwater and killing him.
Its also important to remember that Romans 9 is not dealing with individual election but corporate election. Paul is addressing the entire nation of Israel's rejection of the Gospel. The vessel of wrath was Egypt in the Old Testament and Israel in the NT. The vessel of mercy are the Gentiles brought into the church.
@@mosesking2923 In my original post I said that “simple logic also dictates that if people are saved only because God has elected to save them in eternity that the reason why people are damned is because God didn't elect or will to save them in eternity.” This however doesn't mean that predestination to hell is equivalent to predestination to heaven in that God wills to make people evil as He wills to make people good. I was arguing from the position that all people are evil through the Fall but that God elects to save some through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit whilst opting not to save others through the Holy Spirit. This is analogous to saving someone from drowning by actively reaching out a hand to save him whilst not doing so to another who then drowns through one's non-intervention. That's basically what I'm arguing for which amounts to infralapsarianism. Actively pushing a person's head under water so that he drowns amounts to supralapsarianism which wasn't what I was arguing for.
Also note that by not actively intervening in order to save a person from drowning one is predestining that person to be drowned. So what you're defending is actually that God has predestined some to be damned by non-intervention which confessional Lutherans deny is the case. They don't accept that God bypasses anyone with His grace but rather actively seeks to save everyone through the Holy Spirit. This is contradictory because whilst they admit that God elects only some to be saved they won't accept that God only wills to give the Holy Spirit to some and not to others. If God didn't actually select only some people to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, then He couldn't elect and predestine only some people to be saved. If God makes no distinction between people and tries to give the Holy Spirit to everyone, as Lutherans believe, then no one could be predestined by God to be saved. Being saved would then depend upon a free will decision to accept the assistance of the Holy Spirit. However Lutherans deny that anyone has free will as they believe in monergism. Basically their position makes absolutely no sense and can't possibly be true because nothing logically contradictory can ever be true.
With regards to Romans 9 Paul is clearly arguing for individual election and predestination. He says for instance that God “has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” which refers to individuals.
When you accept the objective dual reality, the two views are not even close.
Lovely, i am a bit confused about this topic, and still fine that i wobble between each of these; one day i think i am Calvinism, the next day i think i am Lutheran, then i think i am just lost and it doesn't matter.
Huh? M
Reformed guy here. Very fair analysis.
Dr. Cooper often does a very good job at providing an honest analysis of different traditions than his own.
Universal salvation is not the same thing as universal regeneration.
One of the areas of disunity that should be eliminated immediately is the refusal to take the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion together. Both the Reformed and Lutherans believe what the Word says, “This is my body broken for you, this is my blood shed for you”, and both even recite the Scripture every time before taking communion- as in fact do the Evangelicals as well. That should be unity enough, without trying to nitpick down to some level of disagreement. The fact that we do not commune together at the table is a very poor witness to those outside the Body.
But spiritual presence as the reformed holds onto isn't the same as real presence as what Luther believed.
But that is my point. Both groups hold to what Jesus said on the day. They disagree with the further clarifications that men have added on to what Jesus said. We as believers should be happy to share the table with other believers who affirm what Jesus himself said. That is our unity in Christ, and that is our good witness to the watching world.
@@PenMom9
No, it’s not as minor as you want to imagine.
When you finally realize the bread and wine are physically the Body and Blood of Christ, the spiritual view is far from sufficient… and diluting the Truth is unacceptable.
@@zarnoffa or when you realize that it really is bread and wine but that God is spiritually present. That we are not cannibals that that is unacceptable.
@@slamdancer1720
Is it cannibalism for a child to drink its mother’s milk which IS her body?
Is it cannibalism for a woman to receive her husband’s seed into herself? A man’s seed is his body… and arguably his blood.
These are types of communion of bodies - not cannibalism. When we share bread and wine identified as the Body and Blood of Christ, we are sharing PHYSICAL unity with Christ… not just spiritual.
The Church is the Body of Christ. That’s not merely figurative. As Paul says, it’s a mystery. The flesh of Christ and the flesh of the church are one flesh. It’s not merely spiritual.
Ephesians 5:32
“This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.”