God’s Sovereignty in Lutheranism: An Interview With Josh Strodtbeck (3- Assurance)

Posted byChaplainmikePosted inInterview, Theologia

luther.jpgIn this question, Josh deals with the sensitive subject of assurance. Can a believer know they are saved? This is bound to be controversial and informative.

3. Adam O’s piece on “Why I Am Not A Calvinist” centers on the issue of assurance. Can Calvinists know they are elect or are they in a
similar situation to Roman Catholics?

In terms of systematic theology, I suppose it depends on the Calvinist. In terms of practical reality, I’ll just say that Holy Spirit isn’t beholden to filter the Gospel of Luke through Reformed systematics when and if it’s read publicly in a Reformed church. If a Calvinist hears Jesus say “Man, your sins are forgiven” in the story of the paralytic and walks home realizing Jesus was talking to him, so much the better.

Even theologically speaking, I have to be careful here. There are a lot of versions of Calvinism, and not all are equally committed to limited atonement. Calvin himself said, “He is no believer, I say, who does not rely on the security of his salvation and confidently triumph over the devil and death” (I.19).

But realistically, Westminster is way more influential in American Calvinism than anything Calvin said. After all, the Westminster Standards and not the Institutes have been the official confession of most English-speaking Calvinists since the 17th century. Almost anything good Calvin borrowed from the Lutheran Reformation is casually dismantled and refashioned in a quite different mold by Westminster. And in my opinion, Westminster is the only Reformed confession rigorously consistent on the matter of limited atonement. So if you look at Westminster, it bases assurance on anything and everything except the proclamation from the pulpit that Jesus died for you…because the pastor isn’t allowed to say that. Sure, it mentions “promises,” but when a Lutheran says “promise,” he means “an unassailable promise God has made to you in Christ.” When Westminster says “promise,” it means “a promise contingent upon fulfillment of covenant conditions.” In that context, the only assurance a Calvinist can have is the kind based on a positive self-assessment.

The scary thing about TULIP is that uncertainty about predestination means uncertainty about the atonement. For the Calvinist, as long as his predestination is up in the air, so is his atonement. So the only recourse Westminster gives him is a subjective experience, which obviously is subject to uncertainty. Ochuck’s description is hardly unique. The ironic thing is that in obsessing about predestination about the answer to salvation by works, Calvinists have come full circle and based assurance on works anyway.

I knew a guy who went to a large PCA church here in Kentucky. We got to talking, and I straight-out asked him, “Did Jesus die for your sins?” His answer: “I know that if God wants me to, I’ll be saved.” It was just depressing. To him, all the passages in the Gospels where Jesus is forgiving people left and right aren’t talking to him. They’re merely historical narratives of Jesus forgiving some other person’s sins. The Gospels are a dead letter to him. And I think that’s how most Calvinists look at the Bible, and it’s reflected in their sermons. The Bible is largely a compilation of historical information, data for systematic theology, and conditions to fulfill. That’s not too different from Catholicism–Trent treats forgiveness in Christ and atonement as abstract truths you should believe in, but not necessarily apply to yourself.

People who read my blog won’t be surprised when I say this, but Calvinism kills itself with the sacraments. People who read theology as abstract doctrinal formulations don’t see what the big deal is about Lutheranism vs Calvinism on the sacraments. We both baptize babies, and we both talk about Jesus being present in the Supper. So in abstract, philosophical terms, it’s not all that different. But in Law-Gospel terms, in homiletical and kerygmatic terms, it’s enormous. For Calvinists, the Supper is just like the atonement. If you’re not elect, then you’re not regenerate, then you don’t have true faith, so Jesus isn’t even there to begin with, and he sure as heck isn’t telling you your sins are forgiven.

Westminster’s doctrine of communion is actually nearly identical to Trent’s (remember that the Sacrifice of the Mass and Holy communion are practically two different sacraments in Trent)–it’s all about making you a better person and strengthening your soul with nary a word about forgiveness. The reason Luther was so insistent on the objective, identifiable real presence is that he knew that if you make the reality of the sacrament dependent on your own faith, you lost the whole thing and would be stuck obsessing on whether or not you really had faith rather than believing what Jesus said about “for the forgiveness of sins.”

The same goes for baptism. Mostly what baptism does is place a bunch of conditions on you and your parents. Anything it promises is either conditional or not a promise of forgiveness of resurrection. I’ve even heard some Calvinists say that if you’re not elect, you didn’t get a real baptism; you just got wet. We Lutherans always look to baptism as establishing us in Christ and as God declaring us his forgiven children. We take “therefore reckon yourselves dead to sin and alive to Christ” very seriously when it comes to baptism, so all this vague stuffabout “inauguration into the covenant community” isn’t anything we have time for. It doesn’t assure anyone of anything except that infant baptism can be reconciled with limited atonement.

So yeah, I think that in the end, the Calvinist is in the same place the Catholic was before the Reformation, and for similar reasons. Both Calvinists and Catholics agree that the Lutheran doctrine of grace is unbecoming of God; he’s too good to just tell you you’re forgiven and expect you to believe it. Catholics say it doesn’t satisfy God’s justice, and Calvinists say it doesn’t satisfy his sovereignty. And the end result is pretty similar–you’ve got to be living up to a pretty high standard to qualify for believing that God’s forgiven your sins.

Stay tuned for more…..

53 thoughts on “God’s Sovereignty in Lutheranism: An Interview With Josh Strodtbeck (3- Assurance)”

  1. I just can’t seem to know what to do there!

    Go with whichever Scripture says! Duh!

    Seriously, if you are interested in further reading on the subject, especially if you want a good explanation of what Lutherans actually believe and why, Herman Sasse’s This is My Body is excellent. If you’re more interested in a more historic text, Martin Chemnitz’s Lord’s Supper is pretty much the definitive 16th century work on the subject. Neither book is expensive.

    Like

  2. Larry,

    Could be you’re over-thinking the Supper. Lots of people jump straight to, “Isn’t it possible He could have meant X?” without first asking themselves, “What reason is there to doubt that He literally meant what He said?”

    Like

  3. Josh,

    I think you’ve got it right on the bulk majority of “calvinist”. And WOE to the poor wretched soul that wonders into a formerly wesleyn type SB church turned “TULIP”, the heat is really turned up then, but NO assurance at all.

    I’ve always detected in Calvin’s own writings that he was more of Luther than either American Puritans or TULIP modern calvinist.

    Calvin himself seem to put the crucifixion at a universal level, and in fact said as much (Christ died for all without exception, something that is shocking for most TULIP calvinist to hear of today). Many times Calvin actually says this very thing. But the application of the blood on the mercy seat unto the elect only, His High Priestly prayer. His reasoning, I think, is that all can be sure Christ died for them and they have a part of Him, but only the elect are given the faith to believe it and receive it. The reason Calvin would say is 1. That one may freely proclaim Christ’s death for all without exception or caveats and 2. That the believer could believe it so without fear of doubt. It’s tricky, but most of todays ‘calvinist’ would fall over dead if they grasped that about J. Calvin himself.

    BTW, I may be at that large KY PCA church you are speaking of. I’m not sure but I can tell you, I’ve run into the very thing you said myself.

    Me I’m about 99% Luther, and 1% Calvin overall. On baptism I’m 100% Luther (because that’s where the devil warred with me in great terror while I was SB), its the Lord’s Supper that gets me, I admit I’m a fence rider on that one between the two. I just can’t seem to know what to do there!

    Blessings,

    Larry KY

    Like

  4. Chris,

    Thanks, I’m glad you found my comment helpful.

    For some good writing on the question you ask, check this out:

    http://threehierarchies.blogspot.com/2006/02/page-for-reformed.html

    Chris Atwood is a very articulate Lutheran blogger (and Professor of Mongolian History) who used to be a Calvinist, and this link will take you to a sub-page of his blog where he links to a bunch of his posts that explain various differences between Lutheran and Calvinist understandings of theology. The first link there (scroll down) offers a nice quick summary of the Lutheran take on TULIP, and some of the other posts will also be relevant to your question.

    For something more comprehensive, you can’t go wrong reading straight from the Lutheran Confessions on the subject. The Formula of Concord has a whole chapter on it:

    http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/election.html

    As for the “I” in TULIP, it’s okay if you take it to mean simply that all the Elect will inevitably believe and be saved, but if you interpret it from within its native framework, it implies some bad doctrine, e.g. that apostates have never actually received Christ’s saving grace in the first place(because if they had, they could not have eventually resisted it and lost the faith). In that regard, it goes hand-in-hand with Limited Atonement.

    Like

  6. Hi Eric —

    Very interesting and helpful comment – would you be able to point to any resources (online or in print) that would explain the Lutheran doctrine on predestination comprehensively ? (Preferably at the level of a layman).

    Also, in light of what you said about limited atonement, how does Luther see the ‘I’ in Tulip ?

    Like

  7. Apologies in advance, since this is way off subject, but I’ve just come across your blog, IM, and I have to say, GREAT banner!
    In fact, if you’ll pardon me again, it’s way too good for such an ephemeral medium…I DO hope the artist (if it’s not you…{or even if it _is_ you!}) is working, exhibiting and being appreciated in more permanent media {& no, I am not the artist, nor even a friend or relation, as far as I know :-)}.
    Does he by any chance have a site where we may view more of his work?

    OK, thank you so much for your indulgence, as Luther said to the Pope.
    Now back to the fascinating and vital discussion; to which, may I add, in paraphrased form, Susannah Wesley’s apropos observation (and she ought to have known, growing up in the unlovely shadow of English Puritanism in decline) : Calvinism leads either to presumption or despair.
    In my observation, more commonly the latter.
    So, lose the “L” (as in TU_L_IP), give Christ His due, and become good Lutherans. The rose is infinitely more sublime in its beauty than the tulip, don’t you agree?

    Like

  9. Greg,

    > Telling unregenerate people later on in life
    > to “remember their Baptism” is both un-biblical
    > and damning

    I don’t know why you’re assuming that this exhortation, “remember your Baptism” happens instead of reminding them that Christ died for their sins. What, do you think we tell people, “It’s okay if you don’t believe in Jesus anymore, as long as you got baptized once upon a time?” I don’t think you know what “remember your Baptism” means. It means “but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (I Cor. 6:11). It means “we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). To the man who believes, it is an encouragement; it bolsters his faith and bids him look to Christ. To the man who does not believe, it is a proclamation of the Gospel that he should believe, and an indictment if he has rejected his baptism and fallen from the faith. It’s eminently biblical, and has never damned anyone.

    Josh said:

    > The scary thing about TULIP is that uncertainty
    > about predestination means uncertainty about the
    > atonement.

    Greg answered:
    > Oh; Lutherans do not believe in predestination?

    Yes, we do. You’re missing Josh’s point. Calvinists and Lutherans both recognize that predestination lies in the hidden will of God, where we cannot see it. For five-pointers, this ignorance spread from the topic of predestination to the topic of atonement. They reason, “If I can’t be sure I’m predestined, then I can’t be sure Jesus died for me, because he didn’t die for the non-elect, and I might be non-elect.” Lutherans approach it from the opposite direction. The atonement is sure and solid: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief” (I Tim. 1:15), so we deal with the fact that predestination has not been revealed by relying on this promise that has been revealed, and letting God worry about the secret things of God.

    > Are we to believe that Luther would deny this and
    > assert that Christ paid for the sins of men who
    > never put their trust in his saving sacrifice and
    > then turned around and sent those same men to
    > Hell?

    Absolutely. Luther believed that. The Bible teaches it. “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). Even people who once did trust in Christ can be lost if they turn away (Gal. 5:4, Heb. 6:1-6, I Tim. 1:19).

    > How can they be sent to Hell if they are forgiven
    > by Christ?

    The same way the ungrateful servant could be handed over to the tormentors even after his lord had forgiven his debt (Matt. 18:23-34): he rejected forgiveness, and thus, like the man in Gal. 5:4, chose to be judged according to the Law instead.

    Like

  10. You’re right, Greg. You want me to say I’m a liar, and I’m not going to do it, because you said this:

    >>I thought you were a Baptist, Michael? If so why are you getting all starry eyed over infant baptism or sacramental-ism of any sort; whether it be Catholic Lutheran or Reformed?

    You are lecturing me about what I have on my blog telling me what I think about things I haven’t said.

    Is this going to go on all evening, Greg? Because I am pretty close to ending this myself. You are about a universe away from the purpose of any of these posts.

    UPDATE: You now believe the doctrine of the Trinity is rational. I can safely warn people about you. (I’m assuming you know what the word “rational” means, as in “the product of reason.”)

    I will gladly warn anyone about Calvinists who treat a critique like Josh’s with responses like you’ve made.

    Like

  11. I am really not trying to “take over” your blog Michael. I appreciate the apology even if was heavily qualified. However: you know my objections to the podcast contained a more serious issue than the mere use of the word “vendetta”. You also claimed that I said you should not have allowed a Lutheran to post on your blog. I don’t recall the exact wording, but I’m sure your subscribers have copies of the podcast they can refer to. It would be no big deal except you used that fictitious statement to warn all the young people about people like me. This is a different matter altogether than simply paraphrasing.

    Like

  12. OK Greg. I deleted it because it was a personal message to me. You can rewrite it and post it here and I assure you it won’t be touched unless it has the f-word in it or says someone I love isn’t saved.

    You’re the first man to get an entire podcast deleted because a synonym offended you. You’ve taken over the blog for the day and I am through dealing with you. SAY WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.

    My response to you is above. My response to your accusation of “sticking it to” Calvinists and promoting “cheap shots” is also in this comment thread.

    Like

  13. Well so much for the “free speech Zone” That lasted for all of a few hours. I appreciate the fact that you removed the podcast where you blatantly made up things I did not say over and above the term “Vendetta” which I also did not use. I had already challenged you to stop doing that and respond to the actual things I did say. I still think you owe me an apology, and I think you should post my response that you deleted.

    Like

  14. Greg:

    First of all, I’m happy to have you in the comment threads, even if you’re smackin’ me upsida da head a bit. I deserve it frequently and if I disagree, I’ll say so.

    I have published my views on the sacraments and on the Baptist view of the Supper and Baptism at length on this site. You can find recent posts on the Lord’s supper in the sidebar category of “Baptists.”

    I’ve also written on credobaptism:
    https://internetmonk.com/archive/credobaptism

    One thing that’s true of this site: I may not be a Calvinist and I may agree with them less every day, but I won’t be taking down anything I ever said supporting them and I will continue to call myself a reformation Christian.

    Calvinists never appeared to be in much need of protection, in my opinion. They have their battle-bots on the field.

    Like

  15. Josh, thanks for your incredibly insightful analysis. It explains some of my own decades-long struggle on this issue (altho a lot of that struggle also issues from Scripture itself).

    PK: “How is the Gospel good news…despair is sure to follow.” How indeed, Patrick! With that whole passage, you have hit the nail on the head! This is exactly what I’ve told God in the midst of my wrestlings with the Law-Grace issue.

    Like

  16. I’m learning much from this series. Some things I’m sure I don’t agree with (because they’re outside my current box) but I’m working on getting a new box. I am grateful for the different perspectives, though less the occasionally graceless tone. (I just blogged a fuller lament on the disintegration we [de]gravitate toward.)

    Keep ’em coming, Michael.

    Like

  17. Micheal, I would say my estimation of you has gone up a notch. (not the that is important). A lot of blogs would not have published the things I said so I give you credit for that.

    You are right I don’t know you and you don’t know me but I have more of your material with which to make an evaluation that you do because you have written so much more. As I said I have been reading you for a while, not exhaustively but enough to where I can get a sense of where you are coming from. I am not from any “camp” except for the “Jesus Camp” (NO not that one). That said; there is a little pyro in all Potters. We like to throw things and then light them on fire.

    Given your history I think it’s hard for you to hide behind “I was just asking questions”. You have exhibited a pattern of being highly critical of Calvinism in all it’s forms. You are not going to deny that are you? I was probably wrong in ascribing motives to your postings. I’ll try to refrain from doing that again.

    As I said: as an Arminian Baptist, many of the criticisms of reformed views of Baptism and more specifically the Lords Supper also apply to you.

    I have to run. My wife is the director of the local food bank and they are having a work bee that I said I would help with.
    Later; Greg

    Like

  21. As an oblique answer to certain things being bandied about here, “Luther” and “Lutheranism” are not strictly identical. As a tradition, Lutheranism confesses what is written in the Book of Concord, which consists of 3 ancient creeds, 3 confessional writings by Melancthon, one confession and two catechisms by Luther, and two confessions compiled by Chemnitz, Andrae, Brenz and others. So however you may interpret some particular remark of Luther’s in some particular book, you need to remember that “Lutheranism” is defined by the Book of Concord, not your interpretation of said remark. Concord can be found here:

    http://www.bookofconcord.org

    Like

  22. Greg,

    I’ll let you go back and read who initiated this exchange. Your gripe is that I have these posts at all. I absolutely don’t care what you think about these posts. Read them. Comment on them. Say what you want about them. But I have contributed 5 questions to them. You don’t know me at all, and have no basis to say anything about my vendettas against anyone. You can construct whatever you want from these blog posts and take my comments threads to be as personal as you want. The readers can decide.

    But if you aren’t representing the teampyro/Frank Turk wing of the conversation, then I genuinely apologize for saying “you people” or otherwise implying you were in their camp.

    Now enjoy the free speech zone.

    Like

  23. “You people never cease to amaze me.”

    Ah; Who exactly do you think I am Micheal? Oh I see, I’m one of those “OTHERS”

    “A cheap shot is a poster making fun of someone’s appearance.”

    Did someone point at you and laugh when you were a kid or something? I certainly have not done any such thing.

    “A cheap shot is name calling you can’t show to your pastor or elders.”

    Again I’M sorry but I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

    “A cheap shot is calling anyone who disagrees with your favorite theologians a blasphemer.”

    Now this; I do know what you are referring to and frankly; I thought you handled the situation very poorly. You tried to steer the subject away from the central issue by throwing out this red herring about not being able to criticize certain teachers, when the real issue was that a man made a highly inflammatory and insulting remark that clearly implied Calvinists worshiped a God that could not be distinguished from Satan. I noticed you are very fond of playing the victim and pretty much constantly complain that people have questioned your salvation. I can just imagine the caterwauls if they had even implied that you were a Satan worshiper. I have a saying I used to kid my daughter with “You have to be tough if you want to play hockey”. I have some advise for you Micheal. Make whatever use of it you can. If you want to play the big bad blogger, you had better develop a slightly thicker skin than you have evidenced so far. For instance:

    “Why not talk to Josh instead of telling me I’ve broken the tr speech code by allowing a point of view they never mention EVER.”

    Never said any such thing; did I? I said you seem to have an agenda against Reformed Christianity. This is clerly evidenced by your pejorative use of “tr” and “you people”. I also said that even though many of Josh’s criticisms also applied to you as a Southern Baptist it seemed like it was just too good to pass up the opportunity to host an attack on the “YOU (TR) PEOPLE” (as you so fondly refer to them) without actually having to say a word. Feel free to challenge what I have actually said instead of roughing up the mascot and doing the victory dance. Just keep your head up coming over the blue line.

    Like

  24. jmanning,

    Election is part of Paul’s arguement in Romans 9. But how does it fit into the overall arguement? Why does Paul mention hardening? Who does he consider hardened?

    10:1 identifies them as Jews who have not believed. Instead of receiving the grace and forgiveness that is Jesus Christ they have rejected him and continued to seek covenant with God through works of the Law.

    As far as hardening goes, look at the purpose clause in Rom. 9:17- “so that My name might be proclaimed throughout all the earth.” Pharoah’s hardening did not occur because God was just in a bad mood that day. It occured so that God could reveal himself as a just and righteous God who delivers his people from oppression and bondage. It occurred because God made a covenant with Abraham to bless the nations. Scripture mentions that Pharoah hardened his own heart as well as being hardened. The NT clearly states that many of Jews rejected Jesus because of the hardness of their hearts.

    But the purpose clause must remain clear. Whatever part God plays in this action, he does so “in order that” he might bless the nations.

    Like

  25. jManning: I’m not harassing you. I’m making an aside on the typical use of Romans 9.

    For a guy who is selling a point of view I don’t agree with on my nickel, you sure carry a chip. If I wasn’t going to allow the Reformed to have their say, why are the comments open? And if I can’t say what I think, why do I have the page at all?

    Like

  26. MODERATOR NOTE: We aren’t going to have an infant Baptism debate. If you want to post different understanding, that’s fine, but the challenge to prove the other fellow wrong isn’t going to happen. Been there. Done that. Everyone knows the score.

    Like

  27. Michael, your humor is wasted on me, I have an accounting degree.

    But I do want to mention some things:
    -Did not Josh’s comment above deal with issues brought up by Romans 9?
    -Did not the response I left stick to the specific topic of national/individual election and Romans 9?
    -So your comment is unfair to caricature me as thinking I understand all in the Bible because I mentioned Romans 9 whereas two days ago I said in another thread I did not understand a certain aspect of Romans 9.

    So I’m a bit curious why you choose to constantly harass my posts on here? If you don’t want me to comment, ban me.

    Like

  28. Greg:

    How do you explain (or explain away) the following?

    1. Christ commanded us to baptize everyone (Matt. 28:19)
    2. Acts shows entire households being baptized
    3. Babies are sinful and need forgiveness (Psalm 51:5)

    So, are you arguing that?

    1. The early church fathers were all deluded or wrong
    2. Jesus did not included children in Matt. 28:19
    3. There were no children in the households in Acts.

    Like

  29. Truly, Truly, I say to you, he who hears my word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgement, but has passed out of death into life. John 5:24 (NASB)

    We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death. First John 3:14 (NASB)

    At the risk of oversimplifying the theology of these two texts, I think I can state without much disagreement that “has passed out of death into life” is equivalent of saying “has been saved.”
    Now let me run another risk here of being too logical. Consider the following, A will cause B to happen, and if B happens so will C. If C does not happen, there is a very good reason to suspect that A never happened. Now let us look at the two verses quoted and figure out what A, B, and C are. A in this case is faith, B is passing out of death into life, and C is loving the brethren. So let me break it down a bit, if one does not love the brethren, he has a very good reason to question if he has indeed passed out of death into life and hence whether or not his faith was genuine.

    Is this a subjective evaluation? YES it is. However, is it based of the objective truths of the word of God? YES it is (at least as far as my subjective mind can understand it).

    Hmmmmmmm, I think I’m starting to understand why Luther did not like the book of James.

    Like

  30. Greg:

    In Defense of Infant Baptism, Don Matzat writes:

    “The fact of the matter is that those who reject and even disdain the Baptism of infants promote a “Believer’s Baptism” are in the minority and actually out-of-step with the historic position of the early Christian Church. They promote an understanding of grace and faith that is of recent origin. In fact, their theology arrogantly suggests that the mode of Baptism received by church fathers the likes of Athanasius and Augustine and by the Reformers Luther and Calvin was not proper.”
    http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/v2n3.htm

    In Why We Baptize Babies, Dr. Bucher states:

    “Those who deny infant baptism have a problem. They must explain why the fathers of the Church’s first centuries speak of infant baptism as a universal custom. The Fathers is what we now call Pastors who led the Church after the death of the apostles. When we examine the writings of Irenaeus (d. 202), Tertullian (d. 240), Origen (d. 254), Cyprian (d. 258), and Augustine (d. 430), we see that they all spoke of infant baptism as accepted custom (though Tertullian disagreed with it).”
    http://www.orlutheran.com/html/trinfbap.html

    Greg, I am interested in how you explain (or explain away) the following:

    1. Patristic Testimony to the Scriptural Doctrine and Practice of Baptizing Infants into the Christian Faith and Church
    http://reformationtoday.tripod.com/chemnitz/id43.html

    2. Evidence for Infant Baptism in the Church Fathers and Inscriptions
    http://www.orlutheran.com/html/baptevid.html

    Like

  32. Josh,
    By God choosing Israel, He actively rejected the other nations around *unless* they became as Israel. The national/individual election thing is really talked about in detail in Romans 9, where God rejected and hardened Israel to fulfill the prophecies spoken of in Isaiah that you quote. God rejected Israel, and hardened them, had mercy on the Gentiles, all to provoke the people He hardened…

    You can’t make election all hunky-dory positive, it involves a hardening. Read Romans 9 and see, if you don’t take my word for it.

    Like

  33. I am a Baptist. And I am not a Calvinist. And Luther got a lot right.

    This interview is a “cheap shot?”

    Wow. You people never cease to amaze me. A cheap shot is a poster making fun of someone’s appearance. A cheap shot is name calling you can’t show to your pastor or elders. A cheap shot is calling anyone who disagrees with your favorite theologians a blasphemer.

    The posts are in english and the comments are open. Why not talk to Josh instead of telling me I’ve broken the tr speech code by allowing a point of view they never mention EVER.

    1200 comments defending saying whatever you want to whoever you want any way you want, as if you owned the entire Reformation. And then you are dogging me for asking Josh 5 questions and not editing his answers? Give me a break!

    Like

  35. I thought you were a Baptist, Michael? If so why are you getting all starry eyed over infant baptism or sacramental-ism of any sort; whether it be Catholic Lutheran or Reformed? What it looks like, is that you will take any opportunity you can, to stick it to those “TR’s”, even if you have to take a few shots yourself to do it.

    This whole section of the interview is grossly unfair in it’s assessment of

    Paedo-Baptists all suffer from the same problem in the sense that they are all applying something explicitly meant for confessing believers only, to unregenerate infants. Telling unregenerate people later on in life to “remember their Baptism” is both un-biblical and damning, when what they need is to hear the Gospel, repent and believe. Throwing water on them may help babies to smell better, but it does nothing for the condition of the soul.

    Same goes for the Lord’s Supper. Although the “Real Presence” of Lutheranism is not as bad as the Hocus Pocus of Transubstantiation which Catholicism tries to foist on the people the question remains what exactly is it that is gained by those who partake as opposed to those who do not, or do so with a different understanding?

    “The scary thing about TULIP is that uncertainty about predestination means uncertainty about the atonement.”

    Oh; Lutherans do not believe in predestination? Or do they have some sort of secret decoder ring that allows you to have certainty about their predestination without regard to whether they have been predestined or not? What about Total depravity? I have read “Bondage Of The Will” and I’m pretty sure Luther believed it in spite of what you hear from current day Lutherans. What about Unconditional Election? Exactly what conditions can a totally depraved human being meet? How about Particular Redemption, (Limited Atonement)? Are we to believe that Luther would deny this and assert that Christ paid for the sins of men who never put their trust in his saving sacrifice and then turned around and sent those same men to Hell? I doubt it. How can they be sent to Hell if they are forgiven by Christ? I won’t go on but I think Stodtbeck is just blowing smoke.

    I have followed your blog for a while Micheal and I find your views to be sometimes refreshing but often engaging in what amounts to partisan cheap shots. All in all: very disappointing.

    Like

  36. jmanning,

    To be elect means to be chosen. But chosen for what purpose. Chosen because God desires to be reconciled to one but not another or chosen to accomplish something?

    Israel was chosen to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. They were to be a source of light to a world of darkness. When Isaiah looked to the future, he saw a pagan world swarming to Jerusalem in order to worship Yahweh. He saw the fulfilment of promise of Abraham to bless the nations. Election is missional not national.

    One of the main problems that I have with hardcore Calvanism (and another other kind of systematic theology that does the same thing) is that pictures God sitting on a throne emotionlessly picking and choosing, saving and damning, killing and delivering. That is not the God of the OT that constantly bears his heart through his prophets. That is not the God revealed in Jesus’ parables. That God runs to prodigal sons in great fits of emotion. That God abandons all to find the one lost sheep. The God revealed in Jesus mourns over Jerusalem’s refusal to come to him.

    The posts over these past few days have been good in that they have informed me about different tradition’s history and theological formation but they have also made me glad that I truly believe the Reforming doctorine of sola scriptura.

    Like

  37. .As for the closing indictment of Calvinism and Catholicism that “you’ve got to be living up to a pretty high standard to qualify for believing that God’s forgiven your sins,” I’d consider it a commendation rather than an indictment.

    Assuming Calvinism is true, it’s a commendation. I make no such assumption.

    Like

  38. Josh,

    Election in the New Testament sense of the word is sort of a national Israel parallel. Whereas Israel was chosen to be known by God, to receive revelation and covenant love from God, we are in Christ elect as a new kind of people as Ephesians 2:11-18 shows. Israel as a distinct covenant people has been dismantled, and now all that are “in convenant” are in covenant through Christ. It’s just a personal, rather than a national election, since the election is really some of every tribe, tongue, and nation. That’s where it starts to seem like a vacuum, like it suddenly moves from national and relational to a personal/ontological status. But it really shouldn’t be, many Calvinists may make it out to be, but the language should be more bibline and less philosophically cold. To be elect merely means to be “known” like Israel, like Abraham, just in Christ.

    Like

  39. “But I am left thinking: Why is election defined as God choosing some for salvation and some for damnation.

    In the OT, God elects/chooses a nation to fulfill the Abrahamic promise to bless the nations. Israel is chosen not in spite of the other nations but in order to bless the nations (with the only hope for humanity, knowlege of the one true God). Election then has a missional sense.”

    Here, here! Great point. I wish I had said it. There is an inherent problem when we take promises made to a nation and make them promises to individuals. Calvinists slam Pentecostals and charismatics all the time for doing the same thing. Just different promises (election vs. prosperity type blessings).

    Like

  40. Phil: Many people who talk about assurance of salvation talk as if it is an unmitigated good. But we must always keep in mind that, at the very least, assurance can only be good if it is true.

    Assurance is true. You can’t go wrong telling someone “you can be 100% assured that Christ died for your salvation through the forgiveness of your sins”.

    If they have faith in that, they have faith in that. They are a believer and believers can be assured.

    If they don’t have faith in that, they don’t have faith in that. By definition, they don’t have assurance. If they don’t have assurance, you don’t have to worry about them having improper assurance.

    Like

  41. Calvinism can be carried to a logical, emotionless extreme, but does Lutheranism tend to go to the opposite?

    I don’t want to sound flippant, but trust me: the biggest threat to Lutheranism has rarely been a surfeit of emotion or irrational exuberance… 😉

    Like

  42. Many people who talk about assurance of salvation talk as if it is an unmitigated good. But we must always keep in mind that, at the very least, assurance can only be good if it is true. It is cruel and blasphemous to assure people who are far from Christ that they are in fact near.

    As for the closing indictment of Calvinism and Catholicism that “you’ve got to be living up to a pretty high standard to qualify for believing that God’s forgiven your sins,” I’d consider it a commendation rather than an indictment. Isn’t it what the Bible teaches in places like 1 John 2:3-6?

    Like

  43. “Calvinism can be carried to a logical, emotionless extreme…”

    I don’t know that I have ever heard a Calvinist admit that. Refreshing honesty. Some of us on the outside looking at Calvinism would might think that description is what Calvinists shoot for, in other words it’s not so much the extreme.

    I mean that as an observation not an accusation.

    Like

  44. “he’s too good to just tell you you’re forgiven and expect you to believe it.”

    What a terrible caricature of Calvinism. Axe to grind perhaps?

    Like

  45. These discussions have filled me in on a lot of thinking behind the different traditions of Luther and Calvin.

    But I am left thinking: Why is election defined as God choosing some for salvation and some for damnation.

    In the OT, God elects/chooses a nation to fulfill the Abrahamic promise to bless the nations. Israel is chosen not in spite of the other nations but in order to bless the nations (with the only hope for humanity, knowlege of the one true God). Election then has a missional sense.

    Why do we then go to the NT and give it the sense of divine determinism. Was Paul’s theology formed in a vacuum? Paul spent years with the Christian communities in Antioch and Jerusalem. Doesn’t it make sense that the synoptic tradition along with Paul’s Damascus road experience would have provided the core of his theology? Doesn’t it seem logical that the parable of the seeds and the soil, which appears in ALL FOUR gospels, would have informed his belief about God’s initiative in salvation (the sower) and man’s response (the nature of the soil)? Paul knew Jesus as Lord and God and had to know of Jesus’ weeping over Jerusalem’s refusal to find rest and refuge in him. Did he think Jesus was faking it or something?

    Church history and the development of doctorine is great study but it seems that we need to really test our assumptions about word connotation and other things in light of scripture.

    Like

  46. Really Joe, the problem with assurance isn’t Limited Atonement. Limited Atonement is just a logical flowthrough from Unconditional Election. This affects both Lutheran and Reformed.

    As long as you believe Unconditional Election (which Luther and Calvin believed) you can’t have “sure, empirical” assurance, because it’s up to God and not man. You must have assurance out of something you can’t know, it must be an assurance of faith on the promises of God. The offer is genuine “all who believe will be saved”, but the access is not universal. There’s where Limited Atonement comes from.

    Salvation is not an unLimited offer, (it’s limited by “whoever believes”), but it could be of unLimited scope (if all believe, all will be saved).

    If you can trust God’s promises to save )as revealed in Scripture), you can be assured you will be saved by faith. If you can’t trust those promises, you are disbelieving them. (From the other discussion you know faith sometimes wavers, I’m not talking about unwavering perfect faith, but belief vs unbelief).

    Faith is assurance. Unconditional election doesn’t have anything to do with “once I believe, can I be sure I’m elect”, it has everything to do with “how did I come to believe?”

    Even Arminianism short-circuits assurance, because it bases assurance on your decision and not on God’s promises. How do you know you believed hard enough? How do you know you were sincere? I’ve heard preachers before say “If you were fully sincere when you prayed that prayer, you will be saved.” I’ve never been fully sincere in anything I’ve done….there’s always 1% that is staying back..making sure there is room to run.

    Can it be, Josh, that Lutheranism, by avoiding the systematic treatment Calvin gave doctrines, goes too far in the direction of the subjective? Calvinism can be carried to a logical, emotionless extreme, but does Lutheranism tend to go to the opposite?

    Like

  48. I got to hear Dr Carey lecture at a Ft Wayne symposium. He was fantastic. Guys from oustide Lutheranism always see things a little differently than the lifelongs do. As you may or may not know, I grew up evangelical, flirted with Calvinism for a year or two, then tripped over a stone and drowned in the Elbe.

    Like

  49. Based on this, if I was stranded on an island that had only two churches – one Lutheran and one under the sway of the Westminster Confession, I’d flee to Luther. No doubt. I have much assurance of that.

    A steadfast assurance only needs two things – first, you need unlimited atonement, and then you need a firm divine promise that “whosever” trusts that his sin was paid for in full at the cross, whoever reckons it so (because it is so!), shall not fail to enter the kingdom of God.

    I believe in unconditional particular election.

    What I don’t believe in though is the ‘rigorously logical’ assumption of limited atonement.

    Westminster would agree that the gospel is indeed offered to all men. What I am saying is this: On what basis does a holy God have the right to offer salvation to a sinner? As the hymn states “…only the blood of Jesus…”

    So, if God is really legitimately making an offer of salvation to all men (who are sinners), then if you don’t believe in an atonement wide enough to encompass them all you have the following…

    1.) The offer is not genuine. God is being dishonest.

    2.) The offer is genuine, but not based on the blood of Jesus, which was shed only for the elect. God is then being unholy.

    Blessings,
    Joe

    Like

  50. P.S.

    Dr.Rod Rosenbladt told me that Carey’s lecture series mentioned in my previous post is the best introduction to Luther’s life and theology in existence. It is certainly the best I’ve ever heard or read.

    Like

  51. Phillip Cary in his lecture series ‘Law Gospel and Luther’ (avail at http://www.teach12.com) devotes a whole lecture to infant Baptism. He compares and contrasts the Lutheran and Reformed views of infant Baptism.
    Its totally in line with what Josh is saying.(Cary is an Episcopalian) He sums up the Lutheran view by saying ‘Trust Christ’s promise to you in baptism and don’t call Him a liar.’ He then reads from a sewing sampler from a 12 year old Lutheran girl in America around the mid 1700’s. She waxes eloquent about being robed in Christ’s righteousness because she is baptized,and no longer does a cold grave await her,but a rich welcome into Christ’s Kingdom. Every time I hear it, I weep.

    How is the Gospel good news if you can’t ever be sure you are elect, or if you have to inspect your moral progress or your faith to determine if you are really a christian? If Christ’s promises may not be for me, and I’m left to my own devices to determine if they are or are not,despair is sure to follow.

    Like

  52. I’m reading with great interest the Lutheran take on (some versions) of Calvinism. My reformed tradition, for example, is very strong on the the assurance of salvation. Otherwise it would indeed be depressing.

    Like

Leave a comment