"Not at the expense of your soul..." such a true statement for a Christian who has the care of truth in scripture. Love this convo...enjoyed it more as it progressed. Thank you both.
Podcasting is not Pastoring the people of God....amen. Enjoyed this conversation between two highly scholastic men who breathe a desire to share the Gospel in many facets and arenas. Keep sharing and speaking brothers.
Excellent discussion, guys. Just recently discovered ULC, and glad I did. I've been watching Jordan for a few years. He challenges me to think more deeply about my faith, the church, and how we should relate to the world around us. Also, glad to see he trimmed his beard. 😉 Lookin' good, man!
Lesslie Newbigin (one of the co-founders of the World Council of Churches -- back when it was conservative) said that the church of the post-Christendom future would have to work toward several goals but notably within his urging of Christian faithful witness was a balance between showing ourselves as a prophetic voice via contrast community AND that it would show this through obvious and visible efforts towards reuniting the visible Church of Christ. These two things are not contradictory - a conservative value and a liberal value. The ecumenical movement was born out of an understanding that our lives in the post-christian West are going to become more difficult, and we need each other now more than ever -- and that kind of ecumenism begins in the house of fellowship, our own divisions intradenominationally. This wasn't about squishy compromise. I think that is super relevant to this conversation.
Newbigin was a noble man with noble goals, not to mention brilliant. But he, apparently, didn't recognize the degree to which human nature is corrupt, because his hopes for the WCC were quickly co-opted by those with a more sinister agenda.
Regarding the entrance of politics of 2024 into this discussion, I don't think selling your soul to a dictator wannabe is the answer either, as the host of Lead Time seems to favor politically. Dr Cooper encourages manners and etiquette as he has a very positive outlook.
Regarding getting full of yourself 1 Corinthians 4:7 English Standard Version 7 For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it? 1 Corinthians 10:12 12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.
Interesting comments on dialogue by Dr. Cooper. With his line of thinking, Martin Luther himself could be very coarse and therefore shows immaturity in thinking, therefore, his substance of thought should be taken less than seriously. In my opinion, content rules decisively over styles of delivery. Etiquette has its place but should not determine receptability of the message.
If it were ONLY Luther, Lutheranism wouldn't exist today, but because of innumerable supporting elements and the agreeing scholars of the time who clarified and refined Luther's views, a coherent, consistent theological retrieval exists today as a robust Lutheran expression of faith.
Luther can exist in his own time and place. And sometimes the church needs people like him, but very often only in extreme need. For the most part, the church shouldn't seek to put forward his rhetorical approach as an ideal worth mimicking. His theology is sound, his approach is not without sin
Tim sounds a bit like Pat Robertson in his politics, a bit mean, behind a smiling face. I like the attitude of Jordan Cooper who is more likely to sway people with his less confrontational manner. I don't disagree with Tim in principle but with his mean confrontational tone, throwing little barbs.
I'm not particularly fond of the term "Lutheranism", as I don't really think "isms" are generally positive. I think the word "Lutheran" does the trick.
Cooper’s claim of understanding Reformed Theology lacks substantial evidence. He attended a Presbyterian undergrad college. That’s about the extent of it. His seminary work is also sketchy. He did learn TULIP.
I am also a convert to Lutheranism from Calvinism, and I can agree with much of Dr Cooper’s concerns. Calvinism too often centers around election or God’s sovereignty, and quite often the cross of Christ could become a secondary issue. I know there are exceptions to this (the Theocast hosts and Michael Horton) but oftentimes Calvinists can fall into the same trap as Arminjans and Rome in looking to works as security for salvation.
@@Outrider74. It would be interesting in this context to know a little more about your connection to Calvinism or Reformed Theology. Could you share more?
@@justintillett I’ll be happy to. Forgive me if this gets a little long; I’m a bit of a motormouth. (Ha! Took me two posts to get this on the board!) Before I begin, let me be clear that I am not a denominationalist. If you trust in Christ alone for salvation, regardless of your denominational name, you are saved. Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, Calvinist, Anglican, Lutheran-that name makes no difference if you have orthodox soteriology. I was introduced to Calvinism in 1996. I worked at a Christian radio station, and our station airedd “Renewing your Mind” with Dr. R.C. Sproul. At the time, I was what you would call a “soft charismatic” who was between the Assemblies of God and the Church of the Nazarene (my wife-then-girlfriend attended the latter, and we had broken off our relationship at that time, so I was attending an A/G church at that time). I had grown up Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (my mom was converted to Christianity when I was about 6) and had left the IFB movement for pentecostalism during my high school years (for quite selfish reasons, though I wouldn’t have admitted so at the time). When I heard Sproul, my first reaction was, as you may guess, hostile. He was speaking about the sovereignty of God in conversion. Being an Arminian-influenced Christian at the time, I disagreed. But, as other broadcasts were aired, I did find myself agreeing with him on other things, and especially his emphasis on doctrinal clarity and fidelity. Sproul often referred to Luther in his broadcasts (which ironically was part of my conversion to Lutheranism). After study and reading of Sproul, MacArthur, A.W. Pink, Asahel Nettleton, etc., I decided to convert to a Calvinist, even though I was not in a Calvinist church (by this time, my then-girlfriend and I were reconciled, and I was attending the Nazarene church). One of the main things that turned me to Calvinism was its criticism of Arminianism, and how works-reliant Arminianism could be. I saw this firsthand in the Nazarene church. There was a LOT of sermonizing about obedience, total surrender, making sure your “all was on the altar,” etc., and this wore me out. I knew I wasn’t always as obedient as I could be. I would confess a sin, raise my hand, all the stuff a good Wesleyan is supposed to do, but would find myself falling into sin within an hour of leaving church, and my “commitment” would fall by the wayside. Calvinism rightly addressed this as looking to yourself instead of looking to Christ, and that had a LOT to do with running to Calvinism. Finally, the straw that broke the camel’s back and took me out of the Nazarene church was that the pastor brought in a guy who was a self-proclaimed faith healer for what were basically “revival” services (to be frank, I wish Christians would stop using the word “revival,” as it has come to be synonymous with emotionalism). I had a bit of a disagreement with the pastor that spilled over into the church council, and even though I was told several on the council agreed with my concerns about this guest evangelist, nothing changed. That was it; I left the Nazarene church and took my family with me (I have since learned that this same fellow is now part of the N.A.R. movement, a hyper-charismatic movement associated with outright heretical doctrines, and unfortunately he has been successful in swaying many in the Church of the Nazarene in this direction). But I also noticed that Calvinism was not being consistent on things. For starters, I had joined The Puritan Board, a collective of very stringent Calvinists. Many of them were putting forth works from American Puritans, and some of the rhetoric in these works was troubling, as the emphasis on holy living and self-introspection didn’t really sound that different from the exhausting self-examination and effort I heard in Wesleyan circles. I would point out that, while we were to be striving to be obedient, we also had to remember that we could not perfectly do so. Many others on the board, while not outright disagreeing, seemed reluctant to concur. I found that puzzling, because as I understood Calvinism, the point was to rest in Christ, not to rest in my own affections and obedience. Tied to this was the doctrine of election and sovereignty. The more I listened to Calvinists, the more I heard emphasis on the “sovereignty and glory of God.” Yes, God is sovereign and is to be glorified, but at times, this seemed to be more important than even expositing the gospel, to the point where the message of Christ crucified came off almost as a secondary matter to God’s glory. I had two issues with this: first, preaching that “God is sovereign” is not the gospel. God being omnipotent in and of itself does not save. Islam believes Allah is sovereign too, yet that is not by itself a doctrine of salvation or assurance. Second, and this is most key, I was finding it harder and harder to look at Christ alone for my salvation. My assurance was starting to drift into whether or not God had decreed for me to be saved from the foundation of the world. Was I elect? I sure didn’t feel “elect” at times, as I struggled with sin. I didn’t always have the “affections” Jonathan Edwards wrote of, as my sinful nature didn’t (and still doesn’t) simply sit back and allow the Spirit to work unchecked. Did I do good works? So what? My unsaved neighbors did good works, sometimes better than Christians did. And even when I did good works, I didn’t always do them for the right reason. To put it bluntly, Calvinism, however unintentionally it meant to do so, did the same thing to me that Wesleyan Arminianism did: it kept driving me back to myself, or guessing at God’s hidden will, instead of simply pointing me to Christ alone. MacArthur at times was no different than an Arminians with his repetition of “total obedience,” “total surrender,” and the like. Even Sproul, who was usually not nearly as works-focused, did a presentation where he believed that he, despite all he believed and did, may not even be elect. What kind of assurance was that? In addition, the Regulative Principal of Worship was not Scriptural. I know that not all Calvinists (thankfully) embrace this doctrine, but the vehemence and vitriol I saw associated at times with people who held this position was frankly disconcerting. When I brought up biblical examples demonstrating the inconsistency of this doctrine, the explanations fell short of Scripturally satisfying answers. There was a lot of human reason inserted into the argument, and that human reason was subtly becoming almost on par with “Thus saith the Lord.” Maybe not intentionally, but it was leaning in that direction. Finally, Calvinism’s inconsistency on the sacraments was confusing as well. Calvin, frankly, has a very convoluted sense of the sacraments, one that doesn’t line up with either Scripture or Church History. His idea of how only the elect “ascend to heaven” to “spiritually partake of Christ” is not found in Scripture. And his attempt to reconcile baptismal regeneration (which he did believe in, for the elect) with his doctrine of predestination was confusing at best. Furthermore, Calvinist groups today do not have a consensus among themselves with what Reformed theology believes concerning the sacraments, and more concerning is that many just don’t seem to care. This is not a small matter to simply sweep under the rug. And that’s where Lutheranism came in.
I’ll be briefer here, but basically Sproul’s multiple allusions to Luther combined with my in-person and online interactions with good, devout Lutherans drove me to study Lutheranism, and it made me a confessional Lutheran. I’ll give you a few brief reasons on Lutheran/Calvinist differences, and what made me switch. Lutheranism does not hold to double predestination. They teach that, if you are saved, God gets the glory for converting you. They also teach that every damned person is damned by their own choice, not simply because God decided for you to be condemned. Both are Scripturally taught. That there is a tension is understood, but Lutherans do not feel the need to reconcile every tension in Scripture (the Trinity is a good example of this tension that even Calvinists acknowledge) Calvinism emphasizes God’s sovereignty and God’s predestination. Lutherans emphasize the cross of Christ. We don’t try to look to God’s hidden decree for assurance; we look to the person and work of Jesus Christ on the cross for our assurance. I don’t worry about whether or not I am “elect.” If I am trusting in Christ, I am elect. Scripture promises this. Calvinism made me look everywhere BUT in Christ at times (I’ll give you an example of this; there is a segment of Calvinism who is becoming more voiciferous in alleging that Romans 7 is Paul talking about his pre-conversion state, because they fear it may lead to antinomianism if it’s not understood that way). Lutherans believe in divine sovereignty, yes. But we also believe that God wants us to look at what He has plainly taught in Scripture and not try to discern what He has left hidden (In fairness, I know there are Calvinists who are working against this, like Michael Horton of the White Horse Inn and the gentlemen from the Theocast RUclips podcast channel, both of whom I would commend to you). Calvinists centralize the glory of God. Lutherans believe instead that centralizing the cross of Christ IS the glory of God. All doctrines must eventually point to Jesus Christ as the central person and work of Christianity. That is what glorifies God. “All” means “all.” The redefining of all in passages that teach that God wants all men to be saved not only does violence to the text, but also does more to cast doubt than assurance in the heart of the believer. Yes, I understand that “all” does not ALWAYS mean “all” in an ultra-literalistic manner, but the passages about God wanting all men to be saved suggest otherwise, and until Calvin came along the Church never thought otherwise. Sacraments are taken literally. Sometimes I wonder whether or not the opposition to sacramental efficacy is tied to an anti-Roman Catholic bias (before you respond, I will tell you that I have heard Calvinists specifically say to me that some things are “too Catholic” as their basis for rejecting them). Of course, Lutherans have issues with some of Rome’s sacramental doctrines, but we believe that “baptism saves” (I Peter 3:21). We believe “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). We believe Jesus meant what he said that “this is my body” and “this cup is the New Testament in my blood.” We believe that the finite can contain the infinite, contrary to Zwingli or Calvin (to disagree with this is a step in the direction of gnosticism). As far back as you can go, you will see that the early Church believed in sacramental efficacy and the Real Presence. For Calvin to disagree with this without serious backing is somewhat concerning. Finally (for now), Calvin frankly had some troubling takes on things that I believe permeated his theology. His belief that Jesus “sneaked into the room” through a window in John 20 instead of miraculously appearing is off-putting and unsupported (I know many Calvinists do not share his take of this passage, thankfully, but it’s still telling about how he preferred to exalt his reason over the plain meaning of the text). There is a book called “The Judaizing Calvin” by Aegedius Hunnius that walks through examples of Calvin’s undermining of Christological passages in the Old Testament based on his own logical assumptions, contrary to what the Church had believed and taught for centuries, and its troubling at times to see how stubborn he could be with his own presuppositions. All of this to say that, while I have no problem with acknowledging Calvinists as fellow Christians, I simply looked at the Scriptures and looked at Church History (in light of Scriptures) and I saw much more in Lutheranism than I did in Calvinism that aligns with the Word of God and historic Christendom. That’s my answer, brother. A long one, and I apologize for the length.
He is not beholden to explain all of his Reformed studies, knowledge or expertise. Do him a favor and trust that man's integrity, of which he has much.
Great podcast! We watched Dr. Cooper’a video when deciding to become Lutheran. Important ministry!
"Not at the expense of your soul..." such a true statement for a Christian who has the care of truth in scripture. Love this convo...enjoyed it more as it progressed. Thank you both.
I am grateful for Dr. Cooper's vocations for the benefit of Christ and His church. 1:07:40
Podcasting is not Pastoring the people of God....amen. Enjoyed this conversation between two highly scholastic men who breathe a desire to share the Gospel in many facets and arenas. Keep sharing and speaking brothers.
Dr. Cooper is the Lutheran's R.C. Sproul
What a crossover!
Excellent discussion, guys.
Just recently discovered ULC, and glad I did.
I've been watching Jordan for a few years. He challenges me to think more deeply about my faith, the church, and how we should relate to the world around us.
Also, glad to see he trimmed his beard. 😉 Lookin' good, man!
Lesslie Newbigin (one of the co-founders of the World Council of Churches -- back when it was conservative) said that the church of the post-Christendom future would have to work toward several goals but notably within his urging of Christian faithful witness was a balance between showing ourselves as a prophetic voice via contrast community AND that it would show this through obvious and visible efforts towards reuniting the visible Church of Christ.
These two things are not contradictory - a conservative value and a liberal value. The ecumenical movement was born out of an understanding that our lives in the post-christian West are going to become more difficult, and we need each other now more than ever -- and that kind of ecumenism begins in the house of fellowship, our own divisions intradenominationally. This wasn't about squishy compromise.
I think that is super relevant to this conversation.
Newbigin was a noble man with noble goals, not to mention brilliant.
But he, apparently, didn't recognize the degree to which human nature is corrupt, because his hopes for the WCC were quickly co-opted by those with a more sinister agenda.
Regarding the entrance of politics of 2024 into this discussion, I don't think selling your soul to a dictator wannabe is the answer either, as the host of Lead Time seems to favor politically. Dr Cooper encourages manners and etiquette as he has a very positive outlook.
Regarding getting full of yourself
1 Corinthians 4:7
English Standard Version
7 For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?
1 Corinthians 10:12
12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.
Interesting comments on dialogue by Dr. Cooper. With his line of thinking, Martin Luther himself could be very coarse and therefore shows immaturity in thinking, therefore, his substance of thought should be taken less than seriously. In my opinion, content rules decisively over styles of delivery. Etiquette has its place but should not determine receptability of the message.
If it were ONLY Luther, Lutheranism wouldn't exist today, but because of innumerable supporting elements and the agreeing scholars of the time who clarified and refined Luther's views, a coherent, consistent theological retrieval exists today as a robust Lutheran expression of faith.
Luther can exist in his own time and place. And sometimes the church needs people like him, but very often only in extreme need. For the most part, the church shouldn't seek to put forward his rhetorical approach as an ideal worth mimicking. His theology is sound, his approach is not without sin
What? The early church was well thought of by the Greco Roman world?
Post-Constantine, yeah.
Tim sounds a bit like Pat Robertson in his politics, a bit mean, behind a smiling face. I like the attitude of Jordan Cooper who is more likely to sway people with his less confrontational manner. I don't disagree with Tim in principle but with his mean confrontational tone, throwing little barbs.
I'm not particularly fond of the term "Lutheranism", as I don't really think "isms" are generally positive. I think the word "Lutheran" does the trick.
Cooper’s claim of understanding Reformed Theology lacks substantial evidence. He attended a Presbyterian undergrad college. That’s about the extent of it. His seminary work is also sketchy. He did learn TULIP.
I am also a convert to Lutheranism from Calvinism, and I can agree with much of Dr Cooper’s concerns. Calvinism too often centers around election or God’s sovereignty, and quite often the cross of Christ could become a secondary issue. I know there are exceptions to this (the Theocast hosts and Michael Horton) but oftentimes Calvinists can fall into the same trap as Arminjans and Rome in looking to works as security for salvation.
@@Outrider74. It would be interesting in this context to know a little more about your connection to Calvinism or Reformed Theology. Could you share more?
@@justintillett I’ll be happy to. Forgive me if this gets a little long; I’m a bit of a motormouth. (Ha! Took me two posts to get this on the board!)
Before I begin, let me be clear that I am not a denominationalist. If you trust in Christ alone for salvation, regardless of your denominational name, you are saved. Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, Calvinist, Anglican, Lutheran-that name makes no difference if you have orthodox soteriology.
I was introduced to Calvinism in 1996. I worked at a Christian radio station, and our station airedd “Renewing your Mind” with Dr. R.C. Sproul. At the time, I was what you would call a “soft charismatic” who was between the Assemblies of God and the Church of the Nazarene (my wife-then-girlfriend attended the latter, and we had broken off our relationship at that time, so I was attending an A/G church at that time). I had grown up Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (my mom was converted to Christianity when I was about 6) and had left the IFB movement for pentecostalism during my high school years (for quite selfish reasons, though I wouldn’t have admitted so at the time).
When I heard Sproul, my first reaction was, as you may guess, hostile. He was speaking about the sovereignty of God in conversion. Being an Arminian-influenced Christian at the time, I disagreed. But, as other broadcasts were aired, I did find myself agreeing with him on other things, and especially his emphasis on doctrinal clarity and fidelity. Sproul often referred to Luther in his broadcasts (which ironically was part of my conversion to Lutheranism). After study and reading of Sproul, MacArthur, A.W. Pink, Asahel Nettleton, etc., I decided to convert to a Calvinist, even though I was not in a Calvinist church (by this time, my then-girlfriend and I were reconciled, and I was attending the Nazarene church).
One of the main things that turned me to Calvinism was its criticism of Arminianism, and how works-reliant Arminianism could be. I saw this firsthand in the Nazarene church. There was a LOT of sermonizing about obedience, total surrender, making sure your “all was on the altar,” etc., and this wore me out. I knew I wasn’t always as obedient as I could be. I would confess a sin, raise my hand, all the stuff a good Wesleyan is supposed to do, but would find myself falling into sin within an hour of leaving church, and my “commitment” would fall by the wayside. Calvinism rightly addressed this as looking to yourself instead of looking to Christ, and that had a LOT to do with running to Calvinism.
Finally, the straw that broke the camel’s back and took me out of the Nazarene church was that the pastor brought in a guy who was a self-proclaimed faith healer for what were basically “revival” services (to be frank, I wish Christians would stop using the word “revival,” as it has come to be synonymous with emotionalism). I had a bit of a disagreement with the pastor that spilled over into the church council, and even though I was told several on the council agreed with my concerns about this guest evangelist, nothing changed. That was it; I left the Nazarene church and took my family with me (I have since learned that this same fellow is now part of the N.A.R. movement, a hyper-charismatic movement associated with outright heretical doctrines, and unfortunately he has been successful in swaying many in the Church of the Nazarene in this direction).
But I also noticed that Calvinism was not being consistent on things.
For starters, I had joined The Puritan Board, a collective of very stringent Calvinists. Many of them were putting forth works from American Puritans, and some of the rhetoric in these works was troubling, as the emphasis on holy living and self-introspection didn’t really sound that different from the exhausting self-examination and effort I heard in Wesleyan circles. I would point out that, while we were to be striving to be obedient, we also had to remember that we could not perfectly do so. Many others on the board, while not outright disagreeing, seemed reluctant to concur. I found that puzzling, because as I understood Calvinism, the point was to rest in Christ, not to rest in my own affections and obedience.
Tied to this was the doctrine of election and sovereignty. The more I listened to Calvinists, the more I heard emphasis on the “sovereignty and glory of God.” Yes, God is sovereign and is to be glorified, but at times, this seemed to be more important than even expositing the gospel, to the point where the message of Christ crucified came off almost as a secondary matter to God’s glory.
I had two issues with this: first, preaching that “God is sovereign” is not the gospel. God being omnipotent in and of itself does not save. Islam believes Allah is sovereign too, yet that is not by itself a doctrine of salvation or assurance.
Second, and this is most key, I was finding it harder and harder to look at Christ alone for my salvation. My assurance was starting to drift into whether or not God had decreed for me to be saved from the foundation of the world. Was I elect? I sure didn’t feel “elect” at times, as I struggled with sin. I didn’t always have the “affections” Jonathan Edwards wrote of, as my sinful nature didn’t (and still doesn’t) simply sit back and allow the Spirit to work unchecked. Did I do good works? So what? My unsaved neighbors did good works, sometimes better than Christians did. And even when I did good works, I didn’t always do them for the right reason.
To put it bluntly, Calvinism, however unintentionally it meant to do so, did the same thing to me that Wesleyan Arminianism did: it kept driving me back to myself, or guessing at God’s hidden will, instead of simply pointing me to Christ alone. MacArthur at times was no different than an Arminians with his repetition of “total obedience,” “total surrender,” and the like. Even Sproul, who was usually not nearly as works-focused, did a presentation where he believed that he, despite all he believed and did, may not even be elect. What kind of assurance was that?
In addition, the Regulative Principal of Worship was not Scriptural. I know that not all Calvinists (thankfully) embrace this doctrine, but the vehemence and vitriol I saw associated at times with people who held this position was frankly disconcerting. When I brought up biblical examples demonstrating the inconsistency of this doctrine, the explanations fell short of Scripturally satisfying answers. There was a lot of human reason inserted into the argument, and that human reason was subtly becoming almost on par with “Thus saith the Lord.” Maybe not intentionally, but it was leaning in that direction.
Finally, Calvinism’s inconsistency on the sacraments was confusing as well. Calvin, frankly, has a very convoluted sense of the sacraments, one that doesn’t line up with either Scripture or Church History. His idea of how only the elect “ascend to heaven” to “spiritually partake of Christ” is not found in Scripture. And his attempt to reconcile baptismal regeneration (which he did believe in, for the elect) with his doctrine of predestination was confusing at best. Furthermore, Calvinist groups today do not have a consensus among themselves with what Reformed theology believes concerning the sacraments, and more concerning is that many just don’t seem to care. This is not a small matter to simply sweep under the rug.
And that’s where Lutheranism came in.
I’ll be briefer here, but basically Sproul’s multiple allusions to Luther combined with my in-person and online interactions with good, devout Lutherans drove me to study Lutheranism, and it made me a confessional Lutheran. I’ll give you a few brief reasons on Lutheran/Calvinist differences, and what made me switch.
Lutheranism does not hold to double predestination. They teach that, if you are saved, God gets the glory for converting you. They also teach that every damned person is damned by their own choice, not simply because God decided for you to be condemned. Both are Scripturally taught. That there is a tension is understood, but Lutherans do not feel the need to reconcile every tension in Scripture (the Trinity is a good example of this tension that even Calvinists acknowledge)
Calvinism emphasizes God’s sovereignty and God’s predestination. Lutherans emphasize the cross of Christ. We don’t try to look to God’s hidden decree for assurance; we look to the person and work of Jesus Christ on the cross for our assurance. I don’t worry about whether or not I am “elect.” If I am trusting in Christ, I am elect. Scripture promises this. Calvinism made me look everywhere BUT in Christ at times (I’ll give you an example of this; there is a segment of Calvinism who is becoming more voiciferous in alleging that Romans 7 is Paul talking about his pre-conversion state, because they fear it may lead to antinomianism if it’s not understood that way). Lutherans believe in divine sovereignty, yes. But we also believe that God wants us to look at what He has plainly taught in Scripture and not try to discern what He has left hidden (In fairness, I know there are Calvinists who are working against this, like Michael Horton of the White Horse Inn and the gentlemen from the Theocast RUclips podcast channel, both of whom I would commend to you).
Calvinists centralize the glory of God. Lutherans believe instead that centralizing the cross of Christ IS the glory of God. All doctrines must eventually point to Jesus Christ as the central person and work of Christianity. That is what glorifies God.
“All” means “all.” The redefining of all in passages that teach that God wants all men to be saved not only does violence to the text, but also does more to cast doubt than assurance in the heart of the believer. Yes, I understand that “all” does not ALWAYS mean “all” in an ultra-literalistic manner, but the passages about God wanting all men to be saved suggest otherwise, and until Calvin came along the Church never thought otherwise.
Sacraments are taken literally. Sometimes I wonder whether or not the opposition to sacramental efficacy is tied to an anti-Roman Catholic bias (before you respond, I will tell you that I have heard Calvinists specifically say to me that some things are “too Catholic” as their basis for rejecting them). Of course, Lutherans have issues with some of Rome’s sacramental doctrines, but we believe that “baptism saves” (I Peter 3:21). We believe “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). We believe Jesus meant what he said that “this is my body” and “this cup is the New Testament in my blood.” We believe that the finite can contain the infinite, contrary to Zwingli or Calvin (to disagree with this is a step in the direction of gnosticism). As far back as you can go, you will see that the early Church believed in sacramental efficacy and the Real Presence. For Calvin to disagree with this without serious backing is somewhat concerning.
Finally (for now), Calvin frankly had some troubling takes on things that I believe permeated his theology. His belief that Jesus “sneaked into the room” through a window in John 20 instead of miraculously appearing is off-putting and unsupported (I know many Calvinists do not share his take of this passage, thankfully, but it’s still telling about how he preferred to exalt his reason over the plain meaning of the text). There is a book called “The Judaizing Calvin” by Aegedius Hunnius that walks through examples of Calvin’s undermining of Christological passages in the Old Testament based on his own logical assumptions, contrary to what the Church had believed and taught for centuries, and its troubling at times to see how stubborn he could be with his own presuppositions.
All of this to say that, while I have no problem with acknowledging Calvinists as fellow Christians, I simply looked at the Scriptures and looked at Church History (in light of Scriptures) and I saw much more in Lutheranism than I did in Calvinism that aligns with the Word of God and historic Christendom.
That’s my answer, brother. A long one, and I apologize for the length.
He is not beholden to explain all of his Reformed studies, knowledge or expertise. Do him a favor and trust that man's integrity, of which he has much.