Continuing the Lutheran identity discussion. . . .I want to draw your attention to Kevin N’s comments on the ‘Not For Lutherans Anymore” post. He tells about growing up in a liberal ELCA church that was all confused about the gospel. He heard and grasped what it meant that Christ died for his sins through a Campus Crusade witness in college. He went through the “are you a Lutheran or are you a Christian” phase, but now has come up to appreciate Lutheranism again, though he is a member of an Evangelical Free church. He is seeing that Lutheran theology can resolve controversies between Calvinists and Arminians–for example, on the doctrine of predestination–that are afflicting his denomination. At the same time, he sees certain gaps that the Lutheran confessions do not really address. I’ll let him tell it:
I am now in the Evangelical Free Church, and am happy with where I am at. Over the past seven years or so I have had a growing appreciation for Lutheran theology (I suppose I am 90% Lutheran in my thinking), and can see that Lutherans could make a valuable contribution in the overall discussions that go on in evangelicalism, but they are either silent or ignored. For example, in my denomination, 80% of pastors are Calvinist and 20% are Arminian, but few of either are even aware of the distinct Lutheran approach to issues such as predestination. I also believe that Lutheran Christians have a better sense of heritage and history than do most of us evangelicals.
I do see great value in the Lutheran confessions, but also believe they don’t sufficiently address issues such as evangelism, missions, or eschatology.
To non-Lutherans, I ask, what elements of Lutheran theology could you take profitably into your own church or personal beliefs, without becoming whole-hog Lutheran? Or, to all, do you think Lutheran teachings are so interlocked with each other that a person has to go all the way to Wittenberg? And, to Lutherans, I ask what you think about Kevin’s contention that our confessions do not sufficiently cover evangelism, missions, and eschatology? No one ever said that our confessions address EVERYTHING of importance that might come up, though it is possible to extrapolate applications, as we did with the doctrine of Scripture. Are there things Lutherans learn from evangelicals (keeping in mind that Lutherans were the first to go by that Gospel-centered name)?
P.S.: I also hope somebody can rise to Kevin’s challenge of identifying the titles of my books that have been translated into Romanian, since I don’t know myself!
126 comments ↓
Veith, could you explain how the Lutheran doctrine of predestination resolves the conflict between Calvinists and Arminians?
I am a Dutch Calvinist and am convinced that the Reformed view of predestination is biblically sound and that Arminianism is an assault on the gospel. As far as I’m concerned, there’s no debate.
But I am curious about the Lutheran doctrine of predestination. Can you explain further how Lutheranism sheds light on the Reformed/Arminian battle over predestination?
Kevin N:
“[ Lutheran´s don´t ]sufficiently address issues such as evangelism, missions, or eschatology.”
Tell us more. We respectfully can´t address your assertion without more information.
Questions for you:
Are these the ONLY main areas where you see deficiencies?
If you are 80% Lutheran and 20% not, that begs an important question. You are in a church that is good for the 20%. This is intended as a friendly question, not a challenge to you.
“our confessions do not sufficiently cover evangelism, missions, and eschatology”
For me, coming from a long background of Evangelicalism, the Lutheran approach to Christianity provided answers for me in the areas of evangelism, missions and eschatology. The answers weren’t necessarily written in the Book of Concord, but were found in my pastors who were more soundly educated in the faith than any others in my 30+ years as a confirmed Christian. To go into details would require quite a long comment and I’ve surely discussed these things on my BSITG blog, but a good summary would be that my pastor continually reminds us to bring people to the Word. I find the people and bring them to the Word. In my community, that Word is found as preached by my pastors at my church. No longer am I burdened with needing to read tons of books on missions or evangelism; I’m freed up to do the job of getting to know people in a natural and genuine way, show them love and caring and get them to the Word. I’m not the pastor; my job is to bring them to the Word. Of course, through a natural relationship with people, the Word will naturally come up and I need to be prepared to give an account for the joy that it is my heart. Again, I need to get myself to the Word through worship, fellowship and bible study at my church.
To summarize, the questions I have are answered in scripture. The Book of Concord rests on top of scripture in that it is an accurate summary of the doctrine contained in scripture. I don’t have to know all the answers nor is God dependent on me to save anyone. Salvation is His realm, not mine. I “merely” have to live my life at the foot of the cross in repentance and grace. In doing so, I have some small hope of being helpful to others in showing them where to find the Word. And where they find the Word is the place where the gospel is preached accurately by men appointed by God - my church.
That is what I have learned from Lutheran teachings.
Ditto what Dan (post #1) said/asked. I’m in a Reformed/Charismatic church–although I consider myself more of a Lutheran than a Calvinist, simply because I’m more familiar with Luther’s teachings than I am Calvin’s. My views on election have come mostly from my studies of “The Bondage of the Will” and the writings of John Piper, and none of these materials have seemed to contradict one another–or Scripture itself! So I’m not clear on the differences between the Lutheran view of election and the Reformed view of election.
Dan, excellent question! I looked up your question at the WELS Q&A site (answers are in the form of educated opinion from seminary professors- not an official opinion statement from the synod):
Lutheranism rejects the Arminian view as much as it rejects the Calvinist view. Both Calvinism and Arminianism make the same mistake in tackling the question “why are some saved and not others?” The Calvinist says the difference is in God–he provided redemption for some but not for others. The Arminian says the difference is in man–some accepted Christ, some did not.
Both make the same mistake–they try to supply one answer to two questions. Scripture answers this as two distinct questions: Why are some saved?
There are many passages which say that Christ died for everyone, including unbelievers who are ultimately lost. A few of them are:
1 Timothy 4:10–”God is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.”
Here “all men” is clearly a category that is larger than “those who believe.”
2 Peter 2:1– “False teachers…introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.” This explicitly says that those going to destruction were bought by God.
2 Corinthians 5:19–”God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.” God forgives the sin of the world.
These are just a few of the many passages that explicitly say that Christ paid for the sins of everyone. These in no way contradict passages that say he died for believers, because none of these say Christ died only for believers. It does not matter how many passages say “Jesus died for believers.” To make a scriptural case for a limited atonement, one has to cite a passage which says, “Christ died for believers, not for unbelievers.” There is no such passage in Scripture.
Lutherans do not try to reconcile what our reason judges to be “tensions” in Scripture. We simply let them stand.
One problem in our church in particular and I think is a problem in most ELCA churches is that people aren’t catechized well. I teach Sunday school and am pretty saddened by how little people know. Lutherans have great theology, which is why I became one in the first place. If we actually did anything about our theology, we’d be more than a sleeping giant. Our church is struggling with evangelism. Culturally Lutherans are very reserved and usual methods of evangelism don’t work well for reserved people. If you are a community of people saved by grace through faith, how can you NOT proclaim such Good News?
Our formal, non-negotiable “Confessions” (i.e. the Symbols), to which our Pastors vow unconditional subscription, do not directly address the issues of evangelism, missions, and eschatology because these were not topics of debate at the time. However, we Lutherans certainly do “confess” a Biblical doctrine regarding all these and other issues.
The point I’m trying to make is that just because some issue is not addressed in the Book of Concord doesn’t mean that Lutherans don’t have a firm confession of doctrine regarding that issue.
We in the LCMS even have other documents which have been adopted as the official teachings of our synod. Some of these address the very topics mentioned above.
For instance, the Brief Statement of 1932 (which is an official doctrinal statement in the LCMS and other conservative Lutheran churches) directly addresses eschatology. And for an even more detailed explanation of Lutheranism’s Biblical eschatology as compared to other beliefs, see the CTCR document “The ‘End Times’ - A Study on Eschatology and Millennialism.”
Bottom line: The Book of Concord is not the only thing we Lutherans believe, teach, and confess. We confess a complete Biblical body of doctrine.
Thanks for the response Theresa.
How do you explain “tensions” in Scripture. Isn’t it true that God’s truth cannot contradict itself? The Bible is quite clear that Christ died not FOR ALL but for MANY (Isa. 53:11; Matt. 20:28; Matt; 26:28; Heb. 9:28). He died for HIS PEOPLE (Isa. 53:8; Matt. 1:21), FOR HIS SHEEP (John 10:14, 15, 26-28), and FOR THE CHURCH (Acts 20:28).
Passages that speak of “all” or of “the world” don’t contradict this or create tension, because the Word of God cannot contradict itself. These text teach that Christ died for ALL KINDS of men (I Tim. 2:1-6), for all who are in him (I Cor. 15:22), or for the “world” of his own people (his elect from every nation). Compare John 3:16 and John 17:9.
I still don’t see how the Lutheran view of predestination helps the Calvinist/Arminian conflict. Either God chooses His people (Calvinism) or man chooses God (Arminianism). Do Lutherans just refuse to answer the question because Scripture seems to create “tension” on this issue? Luther himself emphasized the “Bondage of the Will” and man’s complete inability to even desire salvation apart from God’s intervention.
Thank you again for your time.
#1 Dan
I think the more accurate answer is that we do not see a conflict in need of resolution. We instead see a very radical disconnect with all sides of the argument.
We as Lutherans would freely agree that the Calvin/Arminius argument is eminently and utterly logical as framed. And we agree that it is a good and important question (depending on who is asking and why).
This question is usually framed by both sides in two parts:
“(1) Why are some saved? and , (2) why are others not? ”
Calvin resolved this all in God´s sovreign and just decree. Arminians points to free will. Both rely heavily upon rules of reason and logic.
We Lutherans stand apart from this debate with two objections: 1) Reason is not held sufficiently “captive to the Word of God”. 2) Apart from Jesus, any questions of theology are pure logic, opinion and ego-building abstraction for a Lutheran. We miss Jesus in all of this I am saying.
So what DO we Lutherans believe then?
As to the first proposition:
“I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ nor come to him.” (Luther´s Small catechism). Or, to paraphrase ” I believe that I cannot believe”. Note: This is not a logical statement. Note again: Lutherans confess it as true.
This belief is profoundly connected to EVERY single article we believe as Lutherans and cannot be understood in anyway OUTSIDE of our understanding of the Person of Jesus Christ as the central totality of what we believe (not I am not merely saying He is the chief doctrine or main doctrine. I am saying much more).
What looks like a point of agreement to 5 points, is really not. We arrive at a similar conclusion for a radically different Reason. Orientation and the declared “essence” of the matter are both radically different between Lutherans, versus Calvinist, Armenians and all other protestants.
Your spiritual ancestors felt that the Lutheran and their very consciously conservative reformation came to a complete stop and at rest in Jesus (!). I here confirm their judgement completely. It therefore did not go far enough at reform for them, and so they felt conscience-bound to separate from the Lutherans. We are having that same calm discussion again right now. It is a one sided bone-to-pick.
Now as to the second proposition:
We believe that whoever is lost and does not end up in heaven will be lost over Jesus dead body! Further they were all invited to the heavenly party. Their party favors and name cards are at their place at the wedding feast table. They are only out after having been fully in.
Mankind are enemies of God. They are not merely “lost”. They do NOT seek God. No one does. They are in active, take-no-prisoner hand to hand combat with Him! They sense this is the fight to the death. It is. They have that part right. They fear death. The seek life in things that are dead. (Where we seek Life in a Death and look to our own death as our ultimate victory over death.)
Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels. Not for man. The bible says that men WILL end up there. I accept this, sadly and reluctantly, as does God. And I believe with all my heart that this situation is violently at war with what God´s Will declares. That Will is Jesus. In the flesh. Lutherans look to Him ALONE to know anything at all about God´s Will.
“God would have that NONE should perish but come to the knowledge of the Truth (ie Jesus)”
This is not “proof-text”. It is the unitary message the Bible was built to proclaim. It is like there is only ONE passage in the entire Bible and this is it! No system here in the sense of Calvinisms.
Let this sink in please for a moment to really understand the Lutheran position. Where do we Lutherans express this radical single-christ-mindedness? Everywhere. In fact, where we fail to say this, we claim that we cease to be Lutheran. It is THAT fundamentally definitional of who we are. You will find it in hundreds of phrases like “The Gospel and all it´s articles”. “True worship is Trust in Jesus Christ”. These are some of the many radical expressions of this One Truth in the Augsburg Confession. See a pattern?
Think of what this deceptively simple second observation about what True Worship is, means for “evangelism, missions, and eschatology” which Kevin raised as shortcomings of ours.
Maybe these shortcomings exist in that Lutherans don´t take seriously enough what they confess to be true about their worship or don´t really believe as they should what they claim to confess? Maybe we are not “Lutheran” enough??!! Now THIS thought in this form every Lutheran would heartily embrace and thank you for the kick in the ass in doing so! Thanks Kevin!
In summary, I have not compared Calvinism, Arminianism and Lutheranism in a side by side table or chart.
I hope I have successfully shown, or at least have begun to, that this cannot, in fact be done. This is because the basic orientation and premises are so very radically different between Lutherans on the one hand, and the calvinists, armenians and the spiritual heirs of Zwingli and the anabaptists.
I am lumping you all together in only ONE way. The frame for your arguments as to what the two (or three) sides are and the logical tools agreed upon to resolve the argument seem the same. You are all comfortable with the FRAME of your discussions.
We Lutherans find this frame and the tools extremely foreign to us. This is probably why, historically Lutherans have been largely seen as outsiders to all of your larger debates between these groups.
A true discussion between us would need to start at a far more basic level. I am sure then, that any differences such as Election and Predestination would then appear to be merely symptomatic of differences far deeper and basic.
And note that THIS was a very long post. ( I am sure you have).
Until we can have that larger discussion, let us all pray for the true unity of the church that can only be found and fully expressed the true worship of Jesus Christ!
God desires that all men be saved, and He died for the sins of the whole world, not just the elect. Lutherans reject the notion of a limited atonement because it is contrary to Scripture.
Those who do not believe are damned 100% by their own unbelief. It’s entirely their fault. But those who do believe are saved 100% by God, contributing nothing to their own salvation.
God saves us all by himself. Even faith is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8). We were saved like Lazarus in the tomb. A dead man cannot make a decision for Christ, and I was dead in my sins when God saved me (Ephesians 2:5). God gives us faith by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God. We do not create faith in ourselves.
So, we are left with the question: “Why are some saved and not others?”
Every other Christian confession tries to answer this question. The only “logical” answers are
1) God didn’t die for everyone’s sins and therefore created some people strictly to damn them. This is called “double predestination.”
2) There’s something about those who are saved that makes them saved. This is works righteousness whether you say you are saved by faith plus works, or if you contradict yourself by saying salvation is only by faith and then turn around and make faith a work of man which he create in himself by decision.
The Biblical answer is that we don’t answer this question because the Bible doesn’t answer it. We don’t know why some are saved and not others. Christ died for everyone, and no one is outside of God’s grace, because God desires that all be saved. Yet everyone isn’t saved. If you are saved, it is ENTIRELY God’s doing. If you are damned, it is entirely your fault.
This is a paradox, and Lutheranism is the only Christian confession which has the guts to hold on to the Biblical paradox in faith and not have the arrogance to think we can solve it with our reason.
Similarly, this holds true for the Lord’s Supper. Christ said “This IS my body.” Yet Scripture also describes it as bread. Roman Catholicism tries to explain this through their doctrine of transubstantiation. All others change the word “IS” to “represents.” Lutheranism ALONE just believes what Christ said without trying to explain it. Therefore, even “consubtantiation” doesn’t apply to Lutheran belief.
What can we take from Lutheranism? I certainly differ with some of the specifics in Lutheran theology, but it was certainly worth my time to visit Worms, and it will be certainly worth my time to read a bit of Luther in the future.
(interestingly, when I visited Worms, most Germans I spoke to didn’t understand the significance of that city in theological terms….they knew the Jewish quarter, but little about Dr. Luther)
<>
I was raised Missouri Synod Lutheran, then followed my husband through a couple independent Bible churches and now a Baptist church. I think I am still Lutheran down in my soul. The Lutheran church is where I heard the Gospel. Here are elements of “Lutheranism” that I missed in the Bible churches:
–a strong sense of the Awesomeness of God
–beauty of music (Oh how I missed that!)
–above all, the centrality of Christ. Lutherans put their hope in Christ, not in that moment that they walked down an aisle.
–a depth of education and doctrine. A Lutheran father indoctrinates his son in the strong words of the catechism. A Bible church father prays that his son will accept Christ at the junior high bible camp with the big-name speaker, as he flicks his t.v. remote. Sorry, but that is what I observed.
–Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances from Christ, not a casual happening. The Lord’s Supper has wine, NOT grape juice.
–Strong sense of family. Families get baptized, catechized, and worship together. It is not so independent and individualistic as in the bible churches.
–Lutherans observe the church calendar, which gives a sense of unity with other Christians, and a sense of belonging with saints from the past. I yearned for Advent and Lent in the bible church.
–The Gospel is something Christ has done, not something we do.
–Lutheranism has historicity. Christianity did not begin with D.L. Moody.
–Lutherans hear from the Old Testament, Gospels, and Epistles every single Sunday through the word *and the music.* Bible church congregations may hear only from Corinthians for 6 months in a row if that is the Pastor’s current topic. A congregant misses the coherence of the whole Bible.
–Orderliness and reverence. I’ll just leave it at that. I could go on and on.
I’m sorry that I sound bitter against bible churches, but I for one tired of the statement, “I used to be a Lutheran, but now I am a Christian.” I went to a bible church made up of people who “used to be. . .” There were former Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. That was the only doctrine that tied us together–we all used to be some form of Christ-followers. That was the sad thing–we only seemed to convert “used-to-be’s.” We weren’t reaching pagans. It was a mega-church at one time, but it is now leveled to the ground. We had no unity, only the belief that we had now arrived and had now become the right type of Christian because we had walked down an aisle in some type of revival. It didn’t last. When a church focuses on Christ instead of an Experience, that church will last.
O.K. there must be some mass confusion either as to what the Lutheran confessions are, or to what Eschatology is. The Gospel is eschatological. The 3 eceumenical creeds are part and parcel of the Confessions. How does “from thence he will come again to judge the living and the dead” not address eschatology? Then there is the bit in Luther’s Small Catechism that on the last day he will raise me and all the dead,and give eternal life to me and all believers in Christ.” Then there is article 17 of the Augsburg Confession that repudiates millenialism, also known as chiliasm. There is treatment of the pope as being the anti-Christ, which normally fits somewhere into eschatological frameworks.
Missions, I don’t know that the confessions need to address it, The Bible does a pretty good job of that, and evangelism also, Matt.28 springs to mind. But that being said, Lutheranism would not be exploding on the African and Asian continents if we were weak on Missions. And those Lutherans are now doing a pretty good job of returning the favor in Europe and elsewhere.
Sorry someone touched a nerve here.
Our local LCMS church mission statement is:
“To first go find my brother and bring him to the Lord.” (adapted from John 1:41). Evangelical, and a first grader can write it.
Dan,
I believe you, I and the writer are saying the same thing. Perhaps the writer should have used the term “assumed” tensions. Lutherans see no tensions in scripture. All scripture is God-breathed, scripture cannot contradict itself and the purpose of all scripture is to point the way to Christ. We may not understand it all, but there are no tensions and no contradictions.
Theresa
#10
“The Biblical answer is that we don’t answer this question because the Bible doesn’t answer it. We don’t know why some are saved and not others.”
actually you DO know and you explained it well indeed! and better you said that the only answer worth knowing is found in Jesus.
thanks Dentist guy!
#8 dan
I still don’t see how the Lutheran view of predestination helps the Calvinist/Arminian conflict. Either God chooses His people (Calvinism) or man chooses God (Arminianism).
You are so right Dan! The Lutherans dont help here at all!
Do Lutherans just refuse to answer the question because Scripture seems to create “tension” on this issue?
We don´t see any tension at all Dan. But this issue is only a symptom of far deeper differences.
To answer your question would be alot like your trying to answer the question “Dan when are you going to stop beating your wife?!” without FIRST addressing all of the differing pressupositions that led up to the question. It cannot and should not be done.
I hope that this makes some sense to you and you can see from my post how Lutheran theology is so utterly “other” than your own even though we confess a common Lord.
frank
Slightly off topic, but to Frank’s point, I would dare suggest that “reading Calvin” and “reading Arminius” would be a very good way to address the “conflict” between Calvin & Arminius as is understood today. More or less, you cannot stuff Calvin into a bulb, and most “debates” over the issue involve two people who have never done the (hard) work of opening the “Institutes.” You could protect a lot of cornfields from crows with the straw men involved in a typical “Calvin/Arminius” debate, I’m afraid.
(Arminius’ favorite book after the Bible: Calvin’s Institutes)
On another note, Booklover makes a great point about one failing of “fundagelical” churches; we do tend to assume at times that members of any “mainline” church do not indeed know Christ. Regrettably, it’s too often a good assumption with the CPUSA (oops, PCUSA), ELCA, United Methodists, and others–and just as regrettably, the Missouri Synod unfairly gets lumped in with the Bible-denying denominations.
I’ll start with Dr. Veith’s question: “To non-Lutherans, I ask, what elements of Lutheran theology could you take profitably into your own church or personal beliefs, without becoming whole-hog Lutheran?”
As an evangelical, the conservative Reformation is part of my heritage, and there is much from Luther that I already take into my belief system. Here are some that are core doctrines that I, as an evangelical, share with Luther and Lutherans:
–Total depravity. Apart from Christ, I am dead in sin. I don’t even want to want to be right with God.
–Christ alone. The gospel is about Christ and what he has done for us, not about what we do for him. Preaching, evangelism, and worship need to reflect this.
–Justification by grace alone through faith alone.
I know that many evangelicals don’t emphasize (or even know) these important truths, but there are many of us who cling to them.
On the Calvinism vs. Arminianism issue, I appreciate the Lutheran approach. I have been mostly in Calvinist churches, but always found the idea of limited atonement to be unscriptural. There are too many “Christ died for the sins of the whole world” passages. If the only other option were Arminianism, I would stick with Calvinism. Arminianism puts the emphasis on what we do for God rather than on what he does for us in Christ. The Lutheran approach, with God getting all the credit for salvation, and us getting all the blame for our damnation, fits very nicely with a number of passages. I can live with whatever tension is left over.
Grace and Peace
Grace and Peace
In the Peanuts comic strip, Sally Brown began an essay with: “When writing about Church History, we have to go back to the very beginning. Our Pastor was born in 1930.”
A strength of Lutheranism is that it has a much better awareness of history and heritage than do most evangelicals. Bruce Shelley’s book “Church History in Plain Language” has a chapter called “Rootless Immigrants in a Sick Society,” which is about American evangelicalism. The title reflects that many of us take a Sally Brown approach to church history; ignoring our deep roots. The kids in my church never get the kind of perspective of the continuity of the church through the ages that I got in Lutheran confirmation. I appreciate this heritage, as it is expressed in Lutheran liturgy and worship. This heritage gives Lutheranism a stability that is lacking in many evangelical churches, so they are not as susceptible to the latest fad that comes along.
Here are things that I found very appealing about evangelicalism that were lacking in the Lutheran church I grew up in:
–People read their Bibles. They studied their Bibles. They memorized verses. They talked about the Bible. I had never experienced anything like this.
–People talked to others about Christ. Evangelism and missions were important values to the people I fellowshipped with. They didn’t talk about church, they talked about Christ.
–Above all, the gospel was fresh to me. As I said before, I felt the Lutheran church had failed to teach me this. In hindsight, I can see that this was due as much to the hardness of my own heart as anything.
So why am I not Lutheran?
–Some doctrinal differences. I am fine with infant baptism, but take more of a reformed rather than Lutheran view. I am a premillenialist. I have no problem with saying that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, but Lutherans tend to over-emphasize the forgiveness aspect of communion.
–Evangelism and missions. Is there something fundamentally defective in Lutheran theology that has led to the negligence of these areas?
–Culture. I would be perfectly fine with Lutheran the Lutheran liturgy, but my wife and kids look at it as boring.
There is much more I could say.
Grace and Peace
fwsonnek asked: “If you are 80% Lutheran and 20% not, that begs an important question. You are in a church that is good for the 20%. This is intended as a friendly question, not a challenge to you.”
Actually, I had said that I am 90% Lutheran. I find Lutheran theology to be very rich and rewarding.
I did not say that I find my own church (Evangelical Free) to be only 20% doctrinally correct. There is a tremendous amount of overlap between the core doctrine of the E Free church and the Lutheran church. I guess I am 95% EFC and only 90% Lutheran, so I’ll stick with the Free church.
Grace and Peace
On evangelism and missions: Yes, I am aware of rapid growth of Lutheranism in parts of Africa, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
I hope Bror Erickson is right about some growth of confessional Lutheran churches in Europe. I don’t see it, but it could be happening somewhere. After 470 years of having numerous (German) Lutheran churches here in Romania, there are only 70 (!!!!) Romanian Lutherans in the entire country (according to a Romanian-language newspaper article I read recently). That represents a serious lack of evangelism and missions.
Theresa K and Heidenreich DDS….
Thank you for the the thoughtful input and explanations here.
Confessional Lutherans believe:
Universal Grace
and
Only Grace
are both Scriptural truths.
Scripture must interpret Scripture.
1. Christ atoned for the sins of the entire world: He died for all men without exception (universal).
2. Those who are saved are saved by grace alone without any merit on their part (only).
When Christians tell an “unregenerate” that Christ died for his/her sins, we *must* be telling them the truth, without reservation or qualification.
The “unbeliever”, if he/she hardens the heart, has resisted God’s grace and perishes through their own unbelief.
Lutherans do not accept the concept of “irresistable grace” and “limited atonement”.
We accept *both* Scriptural stances of Universal Grace and Only Grace, and say with Luther:
“God the Holy Ghost is a greater theologian than I”…….
Kevin N,
Pardon me if I take your assault that we over-emphasize forgiveness in communion as a deep compliment.
but as a son of a Lutheran Missionary, and as a pastor, I’ll take your questionable assumption that we are negligent in missions and evangelism as a misunderstanding. We may not go about missions, and evangelism the way you do, but we do it. And I think we do it fairly well. Everyone could be better at it.
as for your children and wife finding it boring. Well that only confirms some of my misgivings about how evangelicalism views worship. I don’t think it is supposed to be entertainment.
I don’t know Kevin, I think you think your 90% Lutheran. Maybe maybe not. I tend to think you only think that because you haven’t quite grasped that other ten percent, and if you grasped that you would understand you are far from the 90 % you think you are. From where I stand, no one who was 90% Lutheran would claim pre-millenialism, for the assault on Biblical Eschatology and the Gospel that that is, or say anything close to the idea that one could over-emphasize forgiveness in any aspect of doctrine. Forgiveness, justification, is the heart of what we believe.
“…but Lutherans tend to over-emphasize the forgiveness aspect of communion.” ~Kevin N.
Kevin, how is that possible?
When instituting the Sacrament, Christ said it was poured out: “for the forgiveness of sins.” The forgiveness of sins is the Gospel! How can the Gospel be over-emphasized?
If the blood of Christ is not for forgiveness, what’s it for?
What aspect of communion should we be emphasizing more than this?
Weak on evangelism and missions? Check out a few third world countries and ask them if they’ve heard from the Lutherans lately. You’d be surprised with the answer. I suggest you take a look at the work of Lutheran World Relief, etc.
Liturgy “boring?” You might want to define what the purpose of liturgical worship is. It’s not about entertainment, but rather being fed what we need (whether we like it or not).
Kevin,
Lutherans have always had their issues with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine, but we have always believed that they are christians too. So we didn’t spend much time evangelising in countries where the gospel (however muddled) was being taught by another christian church body. That is not what we considered to be mission work. Nor is converting christians considered by us to be evangelism.
Now I will share my faith with other Christians, and if they want to join my church I am hard pressed to say no. But I would never give them the idea that they weren’t Christians before they became Lutherans, while they were in the E.O, or the R.C. or that they couldn’t be Christians in those Churches.
Thank you, Bror Erickson, for sharing (#26) some of what my heart is sick about. That was part of what I was trying to share in my post (#12). The revival church that I attended (the one that is now flattened to the ground) was so busy telling Bible-believing Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc., that they were wrong; that they totally ignored the pagans. The fundy church was preaching to convert those who already knew what sin was, who Christ is. It was almost as if they had used those mainline churches as pre-evangelization centers.
One other interesting thing of note was that this once mega-church, now flattened, existed peacefully next to an abortion clinic. The abortion clinic still stands.
Bror Erickson: “Pardon me if I take your assault that we over-emphasize forgiveness in communion as a deep compliment.”
It certainly was not meant as an assault. I’ll explain my thinking a little further.
If I take communion, my sins are forgiven.
If I don’t take communion, does that mean my sins are not forgiven?
When I was a Lutheran, I lived in fear of this. “Forgiveness” was never defined. I have yet to see it defined in a discussion of communion. Rather than defining what they mean, Lutherans reaffirm, “yes, there is forgiveness in communion.” In what sense is there “forgiveness” in communion? Without clarification on this, I feared the worst, and I know Lutherans who live in fear rather than in confident hope.
This issue was central when the Evangelical Free Churches split from the Lutheran churches in the 1800s.
The same applies to confession of sins. What does it mean to say that one is forgiven when they confess their sins?
Here is how I understand forgiveness in communion and confession: I am justified and forgiven of all my sins in Christ. If I don’t take communion and neglect to confess my sins (I know I don’t even know all of my sins), then I am still justified in Christ, and therefore forgiven of all my sins. Communion, however, is full of deep meaning for me. In communion, I experience forgiveness anew–even though my sins are already forgiven. Same with confession. I would wither spiritually without them, but still have that basic forgiveness in Christ.
How does this compare?
I’m eager to learn.
Kevin said (#20) “Evangelism & Missions - Is there something fundamentally defective in Lutheran theology that has led to the negligence of these areas?”
I appreciate others pointing out where there is evangelism being done by Lutherans. I’ll add a couple of other thoughts:
I am skeptical when I see huge, fast growth in a Christian congregation. As someone else pointed out, often that growth is from the “used-to-be’s”: former Catholics, Lutherans, etc. Usually such people leave their old church because they are dissatisfied with something. Sometimes it’s legitimate, sometimes it’s not.
When it’s the unbelievers that are joining a church in droves (does that happen?) I wonder why. I don’t doubt the power of God’s word, but I do know that the sinful mind is hostile to God, and it seems that many of those new people bring a revolving door with them (think of the parable of the seed falling on the different kinds of soil). Just as an observation, it seems that slow growth in the church is the best kind of growth, where people are methodically, purposefully taken through the Scriptures rather than rushed through a membership class, if they even have one.
But whatever the growth, we know only God can grant real growth through the gospel, which not only saves but is also a stumbling block and foolishness. So, in these last days, if we get the message right, it wouldn’t be surprising to see few being drawn by it. But finally it is God’s work. Whether fast or slow, he grants the increase through the gospel. We are just messengers.
My other point is the other side of the evangelism equation which you addressed: Any deficiency is in people, not Lutheran theology. Lutheran Christians who don’t share the gospel or support the spread of the gospel may be dissuaded by fear, apathy, or any other sinful reason, but not by Lutheran theology. My sinful nature still fights against EVERYT part of the Christian life, including evangelism. We will always struggle with sin, as St. Paul said. But God’s law leads us to repentance and the gospel, in word and sacrament, grants us forgiveness through the blood of Christ, and that gospel also strengthens us to do what is right, “For it is God who works in you both to will and to act according to his good purpose.”
#26 Amen Bror!
Regarding evangelism:
I certainly don’t believe someone is not a Christian because they are Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.
But that does not mean that I will not tell them about Christ. My assumption is that there are too many in all kinds of churches (including my own) who don’t understand the gospel in even the most basic way. We need to hear the gospel over and over and over, and so do our neighbors in RC, EO, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, and yes even E Free churches.
A question: I was baptized as an infant in the Lutheran church. By the time I was 18, I had no clue as to what the gospel was. As I said before, if you had asked me, I would have said that if my good works outweighed my bad works, then God would certainly accept me. I knew the phrase “Jesus died for my sins” but had absolutely no idea what that meant.
Was I in need of better instruction, or in need of the gospel?
How about the EO seminary professor here in Romania who answered the question “What must a person do to be saved?” by saying “Go to church, do good works.” Is he in need of better instruction, or in need of the gospel?
In regards to liturgy, evangelicalism, and entertainment:
Not all evangelical worship is man-centered entertainment. My wife (who doesn’t like liturgy) and I (who likes liturgy) are both in complete agreement when it comes to the its-all-about-me “worship” that occurs in some places.
Don’t lump us all in the same box
#28 Kevin N
“True worship is Trust in Jesus Christ” Your entire life therefore is worship according to Lutherans. Sacred and profane are false distinctions in your life Kevin.
Trust is created ONLYwith the living Word of forgiveness. That Word is Jesus. Where does He tell us we can find Him to get our strength? We must look for Him there.
That Word of Forgiveness is really present “in , with and under… the words of the pastor in the sermon, in private and public absolution, your water/spirit baptism, the conversation of the saints, forgiveness you hear from other christians.
Jesus is present in a special way with the very body and blood He offered up for you on calvary in the Holy Supper.
These are ALL exactly the same Jesus you are receiving. You are forgiven before during and after your encounter with the Word in any of these forms.
This Word is not mere proclamation, announcement , exhortation or argument. This is the part that you miss.
It LITERALLY brings you Christ and all of His gifts. Where Christ is, THERE is life and salvation.
Bror: I have a hard time seeing premillenialism as an “assault on the gospel.” I’ll be the first to admit that the Left Behind series and such are goofy and I don’t read that stuff. Don’t base premillenialism on Tim Lahaye or Hal Lindsay.
Anyways, I’ve stated what I feel is valuable for me in Lutheranism as a non-Lutheran Christian, which was the initial point of the post. It is past my bedtime here in Bucharest.
Thanks to all for your Christ-centeredness.
Grace and Peace
fwsonnek: You still didn’t define what you mean by “forgiveness” that is found in communion. And I didn’t say anything about having separate “sacred” and “profane” areas in my life.
Kevin N,
Forgiveness is forgiveness no matter where you get it. But you shouldn’t play one source off on another. Jesus gave us communion for the forgiveness of sins, We can’t over emphasize that.
You were the one who was bringing up Romania as the place where you don’t see Evangelism happening. Well I’m fairly sure that most of the people there belong to the E.O or the Roman Catholic, which is maybe why the Lutherans there never bothered doing much “Evangelizing” there. Also before getting to smug in this, remember for most of those 470 years the lutherans have been in a very precarious position. Evnagelism between churches was very rarely permitted.
Third you were the one who said the liturgy was boring which is why you didn’t want to worship that way. Which opens you up to the position that you think worship needs to be entertaining.
As far as premillenialism goes, it is a pseudo-gospel, and dangerous. Nothing more than the resurrection of the Jewish Myths that Paul warns Titus about. I’ll be willing to discuss it with you in more detail. So email me as we are getting off topic here. And when you Email me explain what you believe and why.
#35 Kevin.
bror is saying it all better than I am. I am gonna listen here.
Kevin,
I think what you’re missing here is the distinction between the “fact” that you are forgiven and the bountiful means by which this “forgiveness” is graciously delivered to you.
We are in constant need of forgiveness, so God has provided “means” by which he showers us with His forgiveness. We receive forgiveness through the washing of holy baptism, through the eating and drinking of the Sacrament of Christ’s body and blood, and through the hearing of the Gospel in God’s Word.
The thief on the cross was forgiven even though he was not baptized, and even though he never received holy communion. I believe Anabaptists are forgiven through the Gospel in God’s Word. But I am grateful that Christ saw fit to place me in the Lutheran church where this forgiveness is showered upon me in so many meaningful and physical ways.
If you were in a Lutheran church that made you feel like you might not be forgiven unless you received communion or confessed your sins, then you were in a church that didn’t do a good job of teaching the Gospel. Confession and communion are not law - they’re Gospel !!!
Forgiveness is not something that was an event in our lives that we can point to. It’s not something we get past. Yes, it was accomplished on the cross, but it is delivered personally to you through the means God has appointed for that purpose: “take drink, this cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.”
This forgiveness nourishes our bodies and souls. The Word of God is food, indeed, and it saves. But God has prepared a banquet of forgiveness and salvation for you that, through His Word, also includes His very body and blood. A heavenly feast! Christ washes you in holy baptism, dressing you up in His righteousness, and then continues to feed you at this heavenly banquet, now and for all eternity.
Thanks be to God!
# 38 Tiradente
Wow. that was excellent. Your post made me think to say this:
We daily sin much. we deserve punishment for this now and for eternity. We need to be forgiven daily, hourly, by the minute.
In the Our Father and in our prayers we ASK for forgiveness.
In the Word, of Baptism and Body and Blood and absolution we RECEIVE , actually, the literal answer to those prayers.
#38 tiradentes = tooth yanker (portuguese)
Thanks, but I refer all extractions to an oral surgeon. I don’t like blood and gore. I am a “Zahnarzt.” I prefer the preventive and “artistic” side of dentistry.
“what elements of Lutheran theology could you take profitably into your own church or personal beliefs, without becoming whole-hog Lutheran?”
I forgot to add “Beauty.” Lutheran churches are beautiful–wood, stained glass, and other aesthetically pleasing articles are often used. The revivalist church used lots of cement. It was an “evangelistic,” radio church. What does this say about who comes first–God or people? Jesus verbally applauded the woman who used her expensive nard to anoint him, even though it cost a year’s wages. Why, then, would we build an ugly church??
I hope my fellow Lutherans don’t think I’m being too critical, but I wonder whether Lutheran hesitancy to “evangelize” Christians of other denominations hasn’t been a mistake, at least to some degree. If our doctrine is the truth, shouldn’t we tell it to everyone? Even the heterodox (as politely as posible)? Especially in some denominations (hint: the Lutheran concept of Antichrist has been mentioned here) that tend to lose the Gospel in their doctrines concerning good works?
I’m not suggesting that RC’s aren’t Christian, but as individuals, plenty of members of any denomination may be hypocrites. So, I don’t know that we should assume that all churched people are Christians either.
Also, I really think this Evangelical fixation on being able to pinpoint the time when one goes from unbelief to belief is very un-Lutheran. If we don’t become Christians by our own reason or strength, how do WE know exactly when we went from point A to point B. I mean grace through faith by means of Word and sacraments is HOW we get there. But, WHEN? Who knows? Or cares?
#43 Kerner
Our reason for not trying to pull people from their pastor we believe God has placed over them, is the SAME reason we don’t normal advocate the overthrow of governments or dictatorships. It is about the order God imposes on the world and works “in, with and under”.
It is more interesting than that Kerner. We actually believe the the dividing line between in the church and outside of it, in a sense passe through the middle of each of us.
the formula of concord talks about Christians “in sofar as they are reborn.” this says there is a part of us “the old adam” in fact, that needs to be reborn, threatened with the law, and evangelized!
“I don’t know that we should assume that all churched people are Christians either.” ~Kerner
That goes equally for those in Lutheran churches.
“Also, I really think this Evangelical fixation on being able to pinpoint the time when one goes from unbelief to belief is very un-Lutheran.”
Agreed. Even Paul, who had a dramatic and drastic Damascus Road experience, talked about it some, but talked mostly about Christ.
Bror and others,
Regarding liturgy:
–I never said liturgical worship is boring. I did say my kids think so, but perhaps only because they have only experienced it presented in a liberal ELCA church. A few years ago I attended a funeral at an LCMS church and it was beautiful in its simple focus on Christ.
–I think that the stability and Christ-centeredness of the liturgy is something Lutheran churches have to offer to evangelicals, as a Biblical alternative to entertainment and following the latest fad.
Regarding premillenialism:
–Perhaps you are confusing dispensationalism with premillenialism. Dispensationalism has different methods of salvation in different ages. Not all premillenialists are dispensationalists. I don’t see premillenialism as being at all in conflict with the creeds. I have read much of the Book of Concord, but don’t remember much about what it says about eschatology.
–I do believe we premillenialists too often dismiss other positions without understanding them, and perhaps the Lutherans have something to offer here. I understand your rejection of much of popular premillenialism (Left Behind, etc.). My denomination had a push in the past several years, initiated from the top, to remove the reference to premillenialism from its doctrinal statement and replace it with a more general statement about Christ’s return. I was strongly in favor of this change, but it was not approved at the most recent national convention.
Theresa and Frank,
Thank you for the discussion.
As a Protestant Reformed Calvinist and a teacher of church history, I can appreciate the high regard that Lutherans have for tradition and “the old paths.”
The discussion about limited atonement was especially interesting to me. I hadn’t realized the immense doctrinal differences between our Protestant traditions.
Limited atonement, better called particular atonement, is a doctrine firmly rooted in both Scripture and Jesus Christ, and insisting on it is not an exaltation of reason or a refusal to submit to the mystery of God’s Word. Scripture speaks very plainly and consistently about Christ dying for His people, His sheep, and His church.
First of all, the doctrine is firmly rooted in Scripture. Christ’s prayer to the Father immediately before He suffers for the sins of His people on the cross in John 17 makes this very clear: “Thou [the Father] hast given him [Christ] power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him” (vs. 2). “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, bur for them which thou hast given me” (vs. 9). Would Christ refuse to pray for the world, yet die for their eternal salvation hours later?
Secondly, particular atonement alone gives glory to God. What a comfort it is to know that Christ is my Savior, not because I chose Him, but because He chose me. What a comfort it is to know that I cannot fall away from His free gift of grace and His infinite mercy to His people. To say that Christ died for the sins of all people and that not all people are saved makes Christ’s work ineffective and denies God’s sovereignty over salvation.
The Holy Spirit is indeed a better theologian than we. But thanks be to God that the Holy Spirit reveals His Word to us and gives us spiritual eyes to see. “All Scripture is given for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness.”
Thank you again for an interesting theological discussion. We certainly have our differences. I do appreciate the thoughts of this group and the Christian intellectual stimulation it provides on so many issues from day to day.
Dan
Dan,
You are clearly using reason to draw what you think is a logical conclusion from John 17:9. There are other clear explanations for Christ’s specific prayer for His disciples. There are NOT, however, other explanations for the plain words of Scripture here:
“Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” John 1:29
“…in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” 2 Corinthians 5:19
“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
Use the clear words of Scripture to help understand the ones which seem to not make sense.
Kerner,
At various levels I do think it is a mistake not to talk to others about our theological distinctives, very much so.
When I was a boy going through confirmation and first beginning to understand what these distinctives were, my dad had to reign me in as I began to think members of other churches were going to Hell, (no need for hockey sticks here bike bubba) for being members there. He assured me that they were Christian. they believed in the trinity, that Christ is God, and so forth.
It wasn’t until I was in the Air Force then that I realized many people had gone to church their whole lives and never heard the Gospel. The really sad thing is that it is ditto for many Lutherans. But I really began to understand the importance of our distinctives.
Therefore I do not hesitate to talk to people of any church about Lutheranism. At the same time, I still believe that there are Christians in all denominations. Lutherans aren’t the only ones going to heaven, even if I believe we’ll all be Lutherans once we get there.
Kevin,
-liturgy, when i was groing up my parents could care less what I thought of it. And I thank them for it.
-Premillenialism,
First I haven’t read the left behind series, and could care less about any distinctions brought up between dispensationalism and “classic” premillenialism.
If you have a Book of Concord read Article 17 it addresses all millenialism, pre and post in one fell swoop.
In anycase, the idea that we will be spared the tribulation, the idea that Christ after rejecting an earthly kingdom to go to the cross, will now come back to set one up, the idea that Jews are saved by a different manner than are Gentiles, that there will be a second chance (however slim) after Christ comes back. All these are patently false, and constitute a gospel other than the one Paul gave the Galatians.
Christ accomplished all he wanted to accomplish, all he needed to accomplish on the cross with His first coming. When he comes again it is to judge the living and the dead, the end. He has no need of an earthly kingdom, and no use for an earthly kingdom.
Erich,
The Scriptures are indeed clear; and Scripture interprets Scripture, because Scripture is one.
What are we to make of the following passages in Scripture:
“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
“I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.” John 17:9
Because the Word of God cannot contradict itself, we must conclude that God uses the word “world” differently in different contexts. In passages such as 1 John 2:2, for example, God is referring to the “world” of His own people, the elect. In passages such as John 17:9, God is referring to the “world” of the wicked, the reprobate.
However, Scripture makes limited (particular) atonement abundantly clear in other passages:
“He shall see the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify MANY; for he shall bear their iniquities.” Isaiah 53:11
“And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save HIS PEOPLE from their sins.” Matthew 1:21
“For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for MANY for the remission of sins.” Matthew 26:28
“So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of MANY; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” Hebrews 9:28
“He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? For he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the trangression of MY PEOPLE was he stricken.” Isaiah 53:8
“Even as the Son of man came not to be minsterd unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for MANY.” Matthew 20:28
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the CHURCH of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Acts 20:28
“I am the good shepherd, and know MY SHEEP, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life FOR THE SHEEP…But ye believe not, becaue ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” John 10:14, 15, 26-28
Dan,
That God died for the whole world and all people in it. That his death was sufficient for the sins of the whole world is a truth of scripture that cannot be denied. After all it was God who died on the cross, He being infinite, his blood has infinite value.
That not all people are saved is another truth of Scripture, and reality in general shows us this. Faith in Jesus Christ alone saves, and not everyone we run into has faith in Jesus Christ.
The other truth of Scripture that is being ignored here is that it is God’s Desire that ALL men be saved.
Romans 5:18 (ESV)
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
Ezekiel 18:23 (ESV)
Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?
1 Tim. 2:3-6 (ESV)
This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, [4] who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [5] For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, [6] who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
So to say differently, however much it may go against your idea of God’s sovereignty, is to speak against the clear words of Scripture and God does not lie.
So we have to turn else where to the answers to our questions. That we are saved is a 100 % the glory of God. That some are damned is their own literally damned fault. If God does not see a person’s resistance of his will as an attack on his sovereignty neither should we.
This gives me the confidence last night in jail to tell everyone their Christ died for them, and not to hesitate or quallify.
Dan:
There are also the words of Christ:
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!”
Luke, 13:34
We can’t choose Him, but we CAN reject Him, and we are responsible for it when we do.
Dan have you ever given thought to the possibility that “His People” are all people? Plus, as early as Genesis Chapter 28 we are told that “all people will be blessed” by Isreal and his decendants.
Dan, if we are going to ascribe any limited definition to who are Jesus’ sheep or who are His people - the only limited definition that could be supplied by scripture would exclude everyone except the Messianic Jews. See Matthew 15:24 (”I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”)
So if you believe there is a limited atonement that is reserved for His sheep or His people please explain how any of us have hope?
I would take issue that reason is not to be used or that it is overused. Reason is the stamp of God in Man. When we read words , our reason kicks into gear. It must make sense or it is unreasonable–illogical. I am not saying that there is not mystery, but I do not believe that mystery is as prevalent as many “reason” it to be. God spoke. We understand this speaking as words. Words have a sense to them which must be understood. It seems in some ways what some are purporting here is the same idea that Postmodern Emergents are purporting. Mystery over reason.
I do assert that reason must be over mystery or unknowing. If it is not , then all is mystery and all unknowable in any absolute sense. Again—Postmodernism.
“These things are written that you may know…..” “The secret things belong to God but that which is revealed belongs to us and our children.” The Word is that which God has revealed and they are knowable–reasoned. But this reason must be according to God—in other words—dadactic—not dialectic. We must take it as it is,the WHOLE counsel of God, and not with a lack of attempting reason , therefore allow for mystery. The RC church did this and it {mystery) led to the infallible Magesterium. We can not all live in a state of mystery, though it seems that today’s world would like to. Look at the amount of mystery/spiritual/otherworldly films and books that are being produced. We love mystery and the unknown. But that is just the thing that gets us into trouble, Eve thought , “what mystery is God withholding from me”, instead of God hath said.
I was raised Lutheran, though I am now more Calvinistic in my beliefs and do not attend a Lutheran church My heart though has neber left my Lutheran bretheran. There is much to Lutheranism that I am greatful for and appreciative of. But this mystery concept always bothered me. It was too RC. We are reasoning creatures. Though I do not know why God does what He does in everything, I do know what I believe the whole of Scripture teaches, for Scripture can not be broken. God is sovereign and we are responsible. This has always been. Yet God knew before He made Adam that Adam would sin and He knew before He made the world that Christ would redeem His people, who were chosen to be redeemed before the foundations were ever laid. Is it fair? Is it right? Or is it mystery?
” So if you believe there is a limited atonement that is reserved for His sheep or His people please explain how any of us have hope?”
Joe, Not to butt in here, but to me the answer is believe and you will be saved. If you believe, then you are one that Christ has died for. There is the sense that Christ died for “all” in that “all” who will believe shall be saved.
If Christ did not die for His elect and it was up to man to freely choose under his own volition entirely, to come to salvation—-what if no one came? Could Christ have died for nothing? Now , if He gives faith, then that would mean that we will come to Him. But that faith is not given until God makes one alive. And if he makes alive, then that “aliveness” is to Christ, not to choice, for if it was to choice, then man could boast.
So if man was made alive unto faith in Christ, then we must also concur that not all are made alive unto faith, for not all believe and of those that do not believe have not been made alive and therefore not chosen to that fact.
Our position is not to decide who is elect, for all that believe, believe because they were elected to eternal salvation. If one says , “I will not believe because I am not Elect”, then he has shown that he is not, by his unbelief. We are to preach the word to every soul, God brings them to salvation and those that He does are Mine Elect. Therefore limited atonement only refers to the fact that the salvific work of Christ is only effectual to those that believe, though it is effectual to the damned in as it seals their destruction, but that is not salvific. If we deny this , then it either leads to man’s free choice,whereby man is ultimately sovereign or else, universalim .
Fred,
Don’t confuse God’s knoweldge with His will.
God has given us his scripture. He tells us very clearly what his will, desire is, That ALL men be saved. However much it may go against our reason we may not doubt that.
I agree reason is a gift of God. But it is not a useful tool for prying into the mysteries of God. Some things are just closed to us. We have no right to forsake the revealed God in Scripture, to climb into the deus abscondus, The hidden God. If reason contradicts scripture than we need to leave it at the door.
This is far from Roman Catholic teaching that leads to the magisterium.
Fred,
“If Christ did not die for His elect and it was up to man to freely choose under his own volition entirely, to come to salvation—-what if no one came? Could Christ have died for nothing? Now , if He gives faith, then that would mean that we will come to Him. But that faith is not given until God makes one alive. And if he makes alive, then that “aliveness” is to Christ, not to choice, for if it was to choice, then man could boast.”
This shows a patent misunderstanding to everything that has been said here, and to the Lutheran understanding of Election. Lutherans do not believe in Free will (not in spiritual matters anyway). Faith is the work of the Holy Spirit. Who works throguh means, the word and sacraments. It is through these we are elected in time from eternity. But we can resist his will.
Say one drowns and is brought back to life. He did not choose life, it was given to him. But that same person could go home and shoot himself.
just as Adam and Eve freely chose to eat the apple (or what ever it was) in the garden. That was their choice not God’s. That was their will, not God’s.
Booklover,
A little off topic…. you mentioned in an early post your deep appreciation for Lutheran music. That interests me as a church musician. How would you characterize Lutheran music?
Bror,
Fred has very clearly demonstrated the serious mistake of rejecting limited atonment.
I would like to add further that if you insist that Christ died for everyone and that God desires the salvation of everyone, then you must also say that Christ failed, for not everyone is saved.
Are you really willing to say that Christ was not able to achieve what He set out to do? This is a rejection of God’s sovereignty. If God desires the salvation of all men, all men will certainly be saved.
“The Lord of hosts has sworn, saying, “Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand.”" Isaiah 14:24
“For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? And his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?” Isaiah 14:24, 27
If God purposes to save a man, that man cannot disanull or turn it back. The Lord Himself teaches us to pray, “THY will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”
Would one of our Calvinist brothers/sisters out there please explain the term “double predestination” within the framework of the Reformed T.U.L.I.P. to us confessional Lutherans, please?
When presenting the Law/Gospel to the “unbeliever”, isn’t the Christian obliged to tell him/her the truth, without reservation (Called full disclosure in legal lingo)?
If the atonement is limited, wouldn’t I be obliged to say to the unregenerated………”*Maybe* Christ didn’t die for *your* sins because the atonement is limited to the elect, but I am instructed by the Savior to tell you about the Gospel, because you *might* be one of the elect……….or not.”
God cannot be resisted in His sovereign majesty (when He called the world into being or when He will call the dead from their graves. They will not be allowed to refuse to arise, just as the elements could not refuse to come into existance).
When God approaches man through “means” (Word and Sacrament), Scripture tells us that He can be resisted.
People can and do harden their hearts.
Does God ever offer His grace less than earnestly?
Isn’t He really serious about it when grace and salvation are proclaimed through the Word to *all* the unbelieving?
Lutherans believe that by His death Christ atoned for all the sins of the world.
I don’t see any evidence in Scripture for a “secret” effectual inner call to only the limited elect.
That would suggest an acceptance of some sort of “infused” grace, wouldn’t it?
Election and reprobation together are called “double predestination.” One cannot be true without the other. The truth of double predestination is easily proven from Scripture.
What about election?
Romans 9:10-13 and Ephesians 1:3-6 clearly teach that God has chosen some from “before the foundations of the world.” I John 4:19 shows us that God was the first to love His people, and that from eternity.
What about reprobation?
In Romans 9:10-13, God reveals that he loved Jacob and hated Esau. Romans 9:21-22 calls some people “vessels made unto dishonor” and “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” I Peter 2:6-8 says that some people were appointed to stumble through disobedience. Jude 4 speaks of men ordained to condemnation.
Dan (@62), your comment seems to ignore Jesus’ words to Jerusalem, quoted by Kerner (@54): “how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!”
By your logic, Jesus did in fact “gather [them] together” in spite of their rejection, or else he would not be sovereign. And yet he himself tells us that he did not “gather [them] together” because they “were not willing”.
Christ did not fail in his mission, but many did reject him. And yet God’s sovereignty remains — it was in his sovereignty that he gave us the ability to reject him.
Dan (@64), since I do not disagree with what you term “election”, I will only address what you term “reprobation”.
Romans 9:11-12 tells us that God called Jacob before he had done anything to merit it: “Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’” It does not, however, tell us that God hated Esau before he was born. Instead, it quotes Malachi 1:2-3 as proof of God’s election. Esau (and his descendents) had rejected God and turned away from him when that was written. God does not tell us that he “hated” Esau before he rejected him.
With Romans 9:21-22, I don’t have the ability to research it more now (and I’m no Greek scholar, regardless), but I remember looking at the Greek for both words the NIV translates as “prepared”, and they are not the same. In fact, your quote from the KJV uses the phrase “fitted to destruction”, which makes it clear to me it’s not about predestination to hell.
There are similar translation issues with Jude 4. The NIV translates it as “certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago”, marking it as a prophecy, not predestination.
I don’t have a good answer right now for the remaining reference (1 Peter 2:4-8), but I would certainly be interested in what the underlying Greek says, given all this.
Dan,
I’m not the one insisting that God desires all men to be saved. Scripture is the one insisting on that. The Apostle Paul insists on that. So take up your argument with what scripture has said. just realize who your are arguing with, it’s not me.
As to whether or not Christ failed. Well He died for everyone, his death is sufficient for all sins. That some choose to reject, that some don’t hear at all, that is not His failing.
So in light of this I think you need to go back to the drawing board, and rework your pardigms, on God’s Sovereignty, and what exactly eternity is.
“Lutherans and Evangelicals learning from each other.”
Hmmm…
I think what this discussion should teach us is that we all approach Scripture with certain first principles.
Evangelicals (in general) come to the Word with the first principle of God’s sovereignty. There are very few world religions that would argue that point. But what is uniquely Christian about such an idea?
Lutherans, while agreeing that God is sovereign, come to the Word with the first principle of the Gospel that Christ died for the sins of the whole world.
There’s no comfort or security in the idea that I may or may not be part of a group called “the reprobate” - a people for whom Christ did NOT die. Such a notion is foreign to the Gospel. Where is the “good news” in that? How can I believe that Christ died for ME if I don’t know if I am part of the elect?
On the other hand, the fact that Christ died for the sins of the whole world offers unquestionable comfort. There is the Gospel in its fullest! Are you part of this world? Then believe that Christ died for you!
It’s soon Christmas! What did the angels say to the shepherds?
“Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying:
‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.’”
Christ came to reconcile the world unto himself. The angels announced that Christ’s begin born in the manger brought God’s peace and good will toward all mankind.
I’m part of this world, so this is good news to me!
Bror, Thanks for your reply and thoughts. You stated:
“Say one drowns and is brought back to life. He did not choose life, it was given to him. But that same person could go home and shoot himself.”
If this is true then how does God perserve his own? I was under the assumption that the perseverence that God offers, “not one will be lost” was a guarantee of His ability to keep us. If it is dependant on my faith, then I fear for my own salvation, for I must by works of believing stay true. Again, God is true even when I am not. So then according to you “one can be lost”. Christ is not able to keep us because we may choose to disbelieve. I believe God puts in His Spirit, His heart in us when we are saved. This Spirit is stronger than he that is in the world. It is a deposit of a sure salvation. God is able to keep what is His. This does not mean that He can keep it, or has the ability to keep it. It means to me that He will keep it and by no means , even our wills will He lose it. He is God.
Yes we can resist His will, but not when it comes to salvation. We can resist before salvation and all do. We can resist His will in sanctification , but that will have consequences of discipline. If we fall from the faith, then we were not of the faith. Now here is a mystery. At what point is falling away proof that one was never in the faith? We do not really know for only God sees the heart.
I agree that we can not let reason take us where Scripture does not go. But all Scripture is interrpretation and therefore is reasoned. I think it better to say that if Scripture forbids us to go there, then we should not use reason to go there, rather than if it must be reasoned out of the text that it is then a mystery.
Fred,
Sorry we must be using different translations here, would you mind giving me the verse, for not one will be lost?
You say if scripture forbids us to go there. Well, I think we are forbidden to call God a liar, Now when he say he desires all men to be saved, I believe him. That is his will. Yet we know it doesn’t happen.So attack my analogy if you like, those are fallible, but then tell me how God, doesn’t mean exactly what he says in 1 Tim 2:4.
Hello Fred…….
Lutherans believe and teach that the elect have their names written in the Lamb’s Book of Life and will be kept in the faith.
The good work that the Lord has begun in His elect, He is faithful to finish. He preserves His elect.
Thor. Decl., XI, 45.46. says this: “….He ordained it in His eternal purpose, which cannot fail or be overthrown and placed it for preservation in the almighty hand of our Savior Jesus Christ, from which no one can pluck us., John 10:28.”
We embrace the doctrine of election as a “glorious consolation”.
It is eternal decree of reprobation that we and Scripture reject.
Men harden their own hearts: God only hardens the hearts of those who first harden themselves.
The question remains: Is God earnest and serious when the Scripture asserts that Christ died for the sins of the world…………when it is proclaimed that the “Lamb of God takes away the sins of the world”?
Another Kerner,
Hello. I am so very glad I entered into this conversation. I have had my eyes opened, and found out things about my Lutheran brethren that I did not know in earnest. I just always had a inkling that we were not on the same page. This does not mean that I think less at all. As I said above. My heart is still with Lutherans. I just disagree in some issues. That being said, I would like to explain, (as poorly as I do it ), my position ,as I understand it, on something you said and that someone said above.
“when it is proclaimed that the “Lamb of God takes away the sins of the world”?”
(This is sin of the world–singular)
He is earnest. Jesus takes away the sin of the world, the sin that condemns all the world. Creation will be redeemed and man will be redeemed as a part of the creation. But not all men. Nor all creation. The flash flood will not become a good flash flood. It will disappear as will evil. So Christ indeed takes away the sin of the world because He will judge it and remove it as he creates a new heaven and earth. It no longer has dominion over the world, though it has not been completely eradicated until the Lord’s return.
Now for the reprobation. I agree that men harden their own hearts. From our perspective this is very true. But God being sovereign and if He predestines the Elect to salvation,by bringing them back to spiritual life so that they will confess , repent and believe, then it must also be said that He does not do this for some. He leaves them in their fallen state. Now comes the hard part.
If God knows all things and nothing happens outside of His providence,( for to say something does is to imply that there is another power that is equal to God in that He does not control it ), then by this omniscient , omnipotent power he ordains all that comes to pass, even evil as He Himself states in Scripture. This has to imply that God ordains certain men to salvation and certain men to reprobation. But this is in the private counsel of His own will and not for us to know in the sense of who is and isn’t. But that it is is present in Scripture and we can not throw that out.
So what of the passages that state that God desires that none should perish? That has to be true too. So how do we reconcile this?(I am not willing to just leave it alone and call it mystery} I believe it is like this. God is good, perfect , righteous , holy , etc. He alone determines those qualities, not us. Since He is good and holy, he does not with capriciousness say “Joe goes to hell and Sam goes to heaven”. This would be by our standards, wicked. But God does not answer to us. Where were we when He set the stars and called them by name? Did He ask our counsel? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? Why would He do that? Because. We do not know for this He does not tell us. But it must be grand and absolutely holy, even if we can not see this now.
This is difficult and I agree that there are some problems for the Calvinists. But I see more problems for any other interpretation. Blessings to all.
Bror,
Thanks again for your response. I truly enjoy the discussion here. It is civil and good spirited. Iron sharpens iron. This is the first time I have ever discussed these things with my Lutheran Brothers and Sisters in Christ.
John 6:39
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
Romans 8:35
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?
Romans 8:39
neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Ezekiel 11:19
I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh.
Jeremiah 24:7
I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD. They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart.
Then the people of Israel will no longer stray from me, nor will they defile themselves anymore with all their sins. They will be my people, and I will be their God, declares the Sovereign LORD.’ ”
All these passages and many many more imply implicitly and explicitly that God is sovereign and what He decrees will come to pass. It is not left up to man. If God calls a man effectually, he will come for he is born again to that purpose. If once saved and then we could be lost, then we are no better than Adam had it. This is not true. We have a sure salvation. we are no longer under that covenant of works. If the Father gives us to the Son, and the Son promises that nothing will pluck us from His hand then that must be true. This verses has a far stronger sense than God is not willing that none should perish. I am not willing that any should perish. I can relate to God’s desire. He is not capricious, though I may be as I am only a man.
Paul speaks of nothing can separate us from the love of Christ, and he lists many things and the list is not meant to be comprehensive in itself , but all inclusive. What is this love of Christ but that He lay ed down His life for the Brethren (1 John 3:16
We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.}
I will be their God. How can God know this for sure if we can fall away? What good is it to tell us that, if we can never be sure of it? Now if we decide after salvation to live a life of sin , then of course the Spirit will not give us a sense of security. But also we are warned in 1 John that if we live a life of sin then the love of the Father is not in us.
Since you are using analogies , I agree that God desires that all be saved. If this desire was God’s will then all would be saved for who can stay the hand of God? Universalsists appeal to precisely this text. But in analogy,— I desire that all children be loved. In reverse, I do not desire that any be hated. So is it with God. He does not desire that men go to hell. That would make Him evil. He would rather that all go to heaven. But God can not deny Himself. he is Holy and Righteous. He must punish sin. So either all are saved by Christ, or all are saved that are chosen by God before the foundation of the world. I believe and so do you in the second. But what if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? —–It is obvious by this text that God does prepare beforehand those for destruction. But we know that He is good and Holy. This is not evil. It is God’s plan. Does the clay say to the potter , why are you making me like this?
Thanks again for the conversation. I only hope I made sense and that it is comprehensible. I can understand that you may not agree with me and I with you. When we get into God’s presense , then we will probably both laugh with each other on how blind we all were.
““how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!”
I believe many are taking this out of context. Christ is actually scolding the Pharisees , the religious system that was now in place. —–Oh Religious System that you’ve made, religious system that you’ve made. How I desired to gather you under my true teachings but you were not willing. So I have made you desolate {I have removed your lamp stand}. This is actually a curse on the religious system that the Pharisees had made and on Israel. It is not to be taken as a desire that people would come to Him for salvation and refused, but rather that evil men place stumbling blocks {impede}in front of the truth. But that never stops the truth from having effect. Even the gates of hell will not prevail over God’s purposes to save His people. For though Jerusalem {Temple, religious system}was made desolate, Jews still were being saved. The old system just did not work. Oh Jerusalem Jerusalem!—This has nothing to do wih personal salvation.
Fred,
“Since you are using analogies , I agree that God desires that all be saved. If this desire was God’s will then all would be saved for who can stay the hand of God?”
I’m sorry Fred, What you desire to be comprehendable is not. You will have to do a better job of explaining how God’s desire is not His will.
Now as for the faith thing, and perseverence of the saints. (Thank you for the discussion that sends me back to the BOC.) As long as we remain Christian’s it is too God’s glory. This does not subtract from the fact that some people at one time or another have faith, and leave it. Parable of the sower comes to mind here. Some of the seed actually does sprout to life, before it is scorched by the sun. We have not credit for maintaining our faith, that is to God. But we do have the blame for leaving the faith. So Jesus is not responsible for any lost souls. And that is what those texts are getting at.
As far as God’s sovereignty goes. That God allows things to happen against his will, is ultimately a show of how powerful He is, it is not an attack on his sovereignty or a show that there is another power out there equal to his. That is a false assumption that leads down a really bad road. God is powerful enough that he is able to restrain himself. For instance, I am of the mind that God let Jacob win the wrestling match. He isn’t like a log splitter that has to split at ramming speed every time. He is more like a pool player that knows just how hard to hit the cueball.
So in essence, I believe things happen against God’s will all the time, its called sin. This insights his wrath, but He is powerful enough to keep his anger in check until the last day, so that he can accomplish his over all goals. Which is as far as I can tell, he lets this evil world continue day by day, so that one more person might hear the word and be saved.
Fred,
So God is able to control people just not religious systems? What does that say for His sovereignty?
The topic of the history of the Lutheran church in modern times has not yet been hashed. I think it is REALLY important to know why the various synods split off from each other. Some of us claim to have grown up in Lutheran churches, but how Lutheran were our churches…really? Not very, in some cases. In my journey from Evangelicalism to Lutheranism, it was crucial that I understand why my family’s church was the way it was.
You mentioned that the Evangelical Free church split from Lutherans in the 1800’s. The EFCA website says that the Evangelical Free Church of America was formed in 1950 by the merger of two church bodies: the Swedish Evangelical Free Church and the Norwegian-Danish Evangelical Free Church Association. Both groups had been birthed in the revival movements of the late nineteenth century. The two small Swedish Lutheran synods in question were heavily pietistic in nature and were soon to leave orthodox Lutheran fellowship.
I think that to understand Lutheran practice one must know Lutheran history. Too many churches claim to be Lutheran or claim to be bore of Lutheran practice (but improved upon), but in practice they are not so. I’m sure there are several good books on the subject, but one I found helpful and readable is What’s Going On Among the Lutherans by Leppien and Smith. You can find it at Northwestern Publishing House.
http://online.nph.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?10418&productID=150544
Change of Address notification:
FWSonnek has been saying that there are 3 essential things to remember in any theological or other debate. Those three things are Jesus, Son of God, Our Savior.
I have been told that this is looking boring.
I am now converted to this way of thinking! (insert happy face here. But not TOO happy now.). This back and forth cuisinarting of humanity called Double Predestination has finally pushed FWSonnek over the edge. (No he wasn´t quite there yet, even if you thought he was).
My new nome-de-plume here shall now be Legalistic Lutheran
tm. My mission here shall be to push the Law to it´s ultimate conclusions. Whether you all like it or not. Why should I care about that? I got the Big Guy on my side.
Truth in advertising:
All that nicey-nice stuff about Jesus will still be ALL there “in, with and under” Mr. Lutheran Legalist
in spite of his new slogan:
“More of the Disciplined Comfort of Law and Order that you little neo-idolators crave,
feels he has a good start on developing an “Ablaze”-like program´s mission statement.
Less of the Free Discomfort of Gospel that bores you.” Lutheran Legalist
Lutheran Legalist
is FWSonnek. Or was. He has just not gotten around to filing the DBA yet. He will. He is a legalist for pete´s sake. 200 proof Law and Order. Yeah I get to drink. In moderation always. When I fill out forms. I NEVER write outside those little boxes on the form by the way. And neither should you.
Since this Law stuff is a “foreign work” for Lutheran Legalist :). You all shall refer to Mr Lutheran Legalist in the 3rd person only. As shall He.
Good grammar and logic shall now be insisted upon requirements, as shall be good manners. No spitting please. Floss daily. Your mileage will NOT vary.
So Dr Vieth: your demanded blog is on the way. Now for the banner/name…“Entire Sanctification Lutheranism” has a nice definitive air. Fire and Brimstone Lutheranism” also has that nice Old (really old) time religion ring to appeal to traditionalists and the neo-restorationists here who think it would be cool to stone me to death publicly according to Divine command (Regardless of whether Lev 20:13 applies to me or not…).
“Love the sinner and hate the sin!” “It works if you work it (courtesy of AA)!” have the u-rah, and conservative-don´t-give-em-TOO-much dollop of compassion, but unfortunately lack that one essential of morality, truth with no confusion of law and gospel. “We report, YOU decide” would invite a lawsuit from FoxNews and unfortunately would invite you to meditate on His Law and not merely obey the Almighty in the abstract way that I am seeing we all love here.
So I am stumped on a name.
Any suggestions? Whatever it is, it need to say “Lutheran Legalist
is relentless and unyielding.”
So let´s start taking the fun out of all this. Lutheran Legalist
lives now to put the X in the word “fun”! 
:):)
Lutheran Legalist
is impressed at the profound way Luthruns here proclaim Jesus in the positive proclamation on election here. Lutheran Legalist 
is comforted, and needs it what with spending so much time with the Law and all… Lutheran Legalist :)however sees alot of change left on the table by those same Luthruns however when it comes to applying Christ to that other proposition as to why THOSE people are lost.
Sure it´s THEIR fault. And THEY need to all just stop whining about that fact! THEY need to grow a pair.
Opps. I noticed that THEY (who could not possibly be any of US here. No. Never.) are not personally participating anywhere here in this debate. I totally missed that. How COULD I have missed that being as sharp as I am and all? (Lutheran Legalist hereby points out that false modesty is a sin so he will, therefore, repeatedly point out how sharp and smart he is. If you are annoyed at this due to (realistically founded) envy or your other own sins, my advice is to get your OWN law mirror and stop messing with mine.).
THEY are totally absent in this stimulating and highly abstract debate (Lutheran Legalist
likes a good abstraction like any other legalist I point out so this is not a criticism at all..
None of THEM are speaking up here. Just “who in hell
“ tm, are the THEM or the THEY I ask? THEY lack a voice and a face in this discussion.
How COULD I have missed that.
Lutheran Legalist
has recently taken a look at his Law mirror and concluded that in fact HE is probably strongly indicated as heretofore referenced as said party and herein named variously as THEY, THEM, THOSE PEOPLE! THE REPROBATE! THE CHOSEN VESSEL OF DESTRUCTION, ET AL. After all Lutheran Legalist :)does happen to be a homosexual, and that is not even the worst of it. That is actual the nicest part, relatively speaking.
To all you Calvinists here: Lutheran Legalist
(1) sees the shoe you have brought him for his consideration, (2) it appears to fit Lutheran Legalist quite nicely by looking in that Law mirror he likes so much, and the Calvinists are all urging Lutheran Legalist to put it on ( I see in them no exhortation or basis for such to the contrary).
Lutheran Legalist´s
question to both sides is rather simple:
Should Lutheran Legalist
put the shoe on and walk (away from Jesus in this case) in it or not? Putting it on and walking a way in it would certainly resolve a lot of the tensions of being both Christian in society, and being gay.
is forced to look at in the mirror before and after his morning cup o´ Joe), but maybe Lutheran Legalist 
not really one of His and Lutheran Legalist 
is only fooling myself. Oops! It went first person and got personal. Sorry.
On the other hand, I am pretty ecstatically happy with Jesus in my life (who wouldn´t be when you see what Lutheran Legalist
Further Lutheran Legalist
clearly sees all the legal evidence and arguments necessary to lock him up, for several consecutive mandatory sentences of eternity, fully accessorized with John Milton´s snazzy adamantine chains. They would match a couple of outfits Lutheran Legalist 
has. It would look damn good with Lutheran Legalist´s Pradas to be exact. We legalists like to be exact, don´t get us twisted on that.
This appeals to Lutheran Legalist´s
gay aethetics, yet still Lutheran Legalist 
hesitates to embrace the scenario for rather obvious reasons that have to do with liking air conditioning, and not having Jesus. Lutheran Legalist 
of course likes flowers, but is not feeling cool about TULIPs just now. Help Lutheran Legalist 
out here fellas!
Make it personal.
Lutheran Legalist,
I’m partial to the daisy. He loves me, He loves me not…
Or maybe its that rose with the cross in the middle. Yeah I like that one any flower with a cross at the center.
Lutheran Legalist
is REALLY fond of that one too. The one with the black sin-bearing cross in the middle that does not kill the red heart that it is the center of.
The question for all you TULIP lovers here is:
Do you have anything at all to offer Lutheran Legalist
even the slightest REAL hope that THAT flower is meant to be for him?
(Brother Bror is talking about the Luther Seal here. Google it).
Here is a Puritan/Calvinist blog. and a summary of their lead-in explanation of TULIP.
http://mikeratliff.wordpress.com/about/the-doctrines-of-grace/tulip/
“The essential doctrineS concerning salva