Many readers of my blog, are aware of my dislike for C F W Walther. While many hail him at par with Luther, I would probably spit on his gravy. I blame him for the division and lack of comradery present in our circle. I am so repulsed by the effect of his works that I do not credit him with anything. In this post (which is long), I will outline why I am good with Intuitu Fidei. If you are familiar with Walther, then you would probably know how he stirred up controversy in mid 1800 with his adaptation of the Calvinistic view of Unconditional Predestination.
The Book of Concord historically accounted that there were NO CONTROVERSY among the Augsburg Theologians on the issue of predestination. You will find this stated in BoC SD, XI.1. Yet Walther and his group ventured into it and even introduced the controversy in the late 1800s in the USA. This can be found in the tract published by Concordia Publishing House entitled The Doctrine Concerning Predestination Presented in Question and Answers with Preface and Conclusion by C F W Walther, translated by J. Humberger. As can be understood by the Preface, this tract contains the Walther's position on Predestination.
The gist is this. The Waltherian position tries to assert the single predestinarian view of the BoC at the same time adhered to the Calvinistic understanding of predestination in terms of God's Decrees. The glaring example is found in Q. 24.
Q.24. Has God in this His counsel, purpose and ordination prepared the salvation of His
children in general only?
A. No: in this counsel, purpose, and ordination God has mercifully considered also all and
each person of the elect, who will ultimately be saved through Christ, has elected them to
salvation, and DECREED, that in the manner now mentioned He will, through His grace,
gifts, and operation, BRING THEM TO THIS SALVATION, ASSIST THEM IN IT,
PROMOTE IT, AND STRENGTHEN AND PRESERVE THEM. [714,6.] [italics, theirs, not mine]
There are more I could site but space and time forbids me right now. Nevertheless, further on, this position of decreetal predestination is defended by Walther in the Conclusion.
If I may say, it is precisely this decreetal predestination is exactly why I could not be part of the Presbyterian Church I attended for 4 years, even though I had a great relationship with the people there especially with the Pastor. I could not sign the Westminster Confession of Faith. For in the WCF, you will read this in Chapter 3 points 2 & 3 below.
2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions;
yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, as that which would come
to pass, upon such conditions.
3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are
predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.the
Many people know Calvinism to have the 5 points - TULIP. I won't spend so much time but there is one letter there that locks you to Calvinism, once you admit it. It is the U - unconditional election/predestination. Calvinism is like an interlocking jigsaw piece and also like a domino, if you grant U, you must accept the other letters because it is the underpinning logic that holds L, I and P. Hence, you must accept Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perserverance of the Saints. Further, if you believe in decreetal predestination, then you would have to explain if your view is supra, infra or sub-lapsarian. I will leave that to the reader to research and find the meaning of these theological terms. In my view, supra-lapsarian is the only logical choice all the other views are just a cowardly attempt to deny the sharp teaching of what this decreetal predestinarian doctrine.
So if you are a Lutheran and agrees with decreetal predestination, could you explain what lapsarian idea do you bring? My best wishes with that.
When Walther and his followers introduced this position into US Lutheranism, naturally there were those who saw it for what it was - Calvinism in Lutheran garb. The anti-Waltherians charged them of Calvinism and proceeded to explain that the Lutheran position is that of the old Lutheran theologians BoC and post-Boc some of which were even alive when they fought the Calvinism surrounding them. To name a few, they were Chytraeus, Andreae, Koerner, Hunnius, Hutter, Gerhard etc. Their position was that God elected in view of faith, or with the foresight of faith. This is called the Intuitu Fidei, which is a formula adopted by the BoC and Post-BoC Lutherna Fathers. Indeed these Fathers claim that Sola Fide and Intuitu Fidei go hand in hand that speaks of the same Gospel truth. Many I have come across start with Predestination. Yet that is not what the Scripture says.
The starting point of Predestination is Foreknowledge. This is found in Romans 8:28. What they mean is that faith in Christ is not an after effect of predestination but the very means that justifies and thus itself that predestinates. So to be pedantic, Intuitu Fidei means "elect in view of Christ's merit apprehended by faith". Now some allergic to the mention of faith, will immediately retort, but faith is a work! So you are predestined by a good work in you, so they will counter.In fact the pro-Waltherian camp charged the anti-Waltherians of Pelagianism by foiling this strawman which Calvinists also do. It is black propaganda, a smear campaign, we old folk should not fall for. So the pro-Waltherians and Calvinists are in league sleeping on the same bed, so to speak.I find this suspiciously amazing.
Dear friends, we have already in this blog proved that if ever we Scripture see it talking about saving faith in Christ, if ever we are justified by faith in Christ, St Paul says in Romans 4:16, if it is by faith, by definition, it is of grace. So the Lutheran Fathers cannot be charged with making faith a work in formulating Intuitu Fidei. This is the antidote to Roman salvation by works versus Calvinistic arbitrary fix grace. What the Fathers were saying is that faith is not a meritorious condition but nevertheless a condition present and which we know is produced by the HS through the Means of Grace. The condition of faith is considered in so far as it takes hold and embraces Christ work and person in the foreknowing of God. Just imagine if God foreknew you, what are those he knew about you, they would be infinite categories of items about you..
At any rate, nothing can be better than proving from Scripture that Intuitu Fidei is Scriptural. I make no originality of this, rather I will credit Dr. Richard Lenski for the exposition I am about to outline here. If you are interested you can get his defense of Intuitu Fidei through Bro Alec Satin's website. I summarize Lenski's exposition coming from just two passages that act as a witness, to wit, that faith in Christ has a consideration in our predestination which was foreknown by God. Even from a logical point of view, God foreknew something about us before we were born etc etc.
Here are the Scriptures...
2 Thes 2:13-14 (warning SOME Greek! but work with me)
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Notice that the KJV has the words "through". How did the Lord chose us for salvation? Through holiness or separation by the HS and belief or thus faith in the truth, which is the Gospel. Now in the NT Greek the proposition before "Sanctification of the Spirit" has ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος καὶ πίστει ἀληθείας, suffice it to say the preposition ἐν stands for "in", or we can literally say "in sanctification of the spirit and belief of the truth".
So why did the KJV translate this as "through"? Now the Calvinists like to translate this as "unto". Clearly this is revolting and disrespectful to the text. So why "through"? In the NT Greek we see that the word "sanctification" and "belief" are all in the Dative Case before the "in" preposition. Because this is in the Dative Case, that case is used to designate "how or with what something is done" thus it designates the manner by which something is done.. Both of these "in" and "through" tells us the how and with what has God chosen us. However, "through" has been chosen by the KJV because it brings out what the passage means. Some also argue that "through" has been chosen because of the "through" in v.14.
So in summary, God chose us through two means, one of them is through faith in the truth. Thus faith was regarded in God chosing us.
Matthew 22:1-14 The Parable of Marriage Feast.
Do the parabales of Jesus teach doctrine? In this case most certainly so, because here he explains that many are called but few chosen. The reader should do a quick run through the passage in question. Martin Chemnitz wrote a fine sermon on this and Lenski referred to it himself. We note that characters in the story.
1. The king who arranged the marriage of his son. Analogously, this is God the Father and the son, is Jesus God's son.
2. The king sent his servants to call out people to come to the wedding. These are the prophets of old, who preached to Israel and as we know, they were persecuted rather than heeded.
3. He then again sent his servants, the apostles and disciples of Christ to invite people to the wedding, the Gospel call to all.
4. Then we see that there was one there who did not have a wedding garment. It is said to be customary for a King to supply the wedding garment to those whome he invites. This according to Chemnitz is the righteousness of Christ, which no one obtains except through faith in Him.
5. Then this man is thrown out with the explanation that many are called but few are chosen. We ask the question what could have prevented this man from being thrown out of the feast? If he was wearing the wedding garment supplied to him. The fact that he was not wearing it and being thrown out is the explanation that he was called but he was not chosen. To conclude, the choosing of a person for the feast or for fellowship with Christ must have a regard for the wearing of the wedding garment which is the righteousness of Christ obtained only through faith in Him.
More passages can be given but I have presented here the most appropriate ones and by the mouth of two or more witnesses a thing is established.
Lastly as Lenski pointed out, this view so happens to conform to the analogy of faith principle that says that an aspect of truth sheds light to the inner unity of truth found in Scripture. In fact IIRC, the Greek Father, John of Damascus c 676 argued saying if we are justified by faith we are predestined by faith also.
This stands to reason as well. If you are justified through faith alone, thus saved, it cannot be that you have been predestined without faith as well. The connection is axiomatic.This has been the position of the BoC and Post-BoC Lutheran Fathers
So Intuity Fidei is alright with me.
30 comments:
Debating the Order of God's Decrees, whether Calvinist predestination or Intuitu Fidei, is not a profitable exercise. "God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will." Bondage of the Will, M. Luther
You must feel so relieved that you have finally come out of the closet; so to speak. Lenski tried to explain the dilemma 'why some and not others'. In his mind there had to be something good in a man that would warrant his salvation and that was faith. Never mind about Grace and all that stuff. Faith makes salvation possible; not grace, right synergism breath? You are beating dead horse. That should be the name of your club;The Beating a Dead Horse Club. You and that Jackson guy.
This is well stated. Walther introduced a spin on Predestination and election that is refuted in the Solid Declaration of the FoC.
Don Vega,
What I do not appreciate about Waltherians like you is that you claim so and so but you do not offer as to where Lenski said that there is something good in man as man.
The blunders I see with Waltherians is that they do not take seriously the teaching that saving faith is a gift and that when faith is mentioned as a cause it has to be seen always as meritorious. The BoC writers did reject faith being meritorious but they did speak of faith being instrumental. Anything that God creates is good. Faith is a work of God - Phil 1:6
Levi,
Thank you that you have seen Walther's spin too.
LPC
Intuitu Fidei is merely Arminianism, dressed up to look like something else. No amount of latin or 50cent words can mask the fact that this teaching is thoroughly synergistic. The fact that this teaching hits the scene around the same time that Arminian theology is exploding in the United States should give you pause. People are always trying rationalize the paradoxical elements of scripture. Coincidentally, this is how heresy is born. Intuitu Fidei is just another attempt at rationalizing what can not be rationalized.
Intuitu Fidei is merely Arminianism, dressed up to look like something else. No amount of latin or 50cent words can mask the fact that this teaching is thoroughly synergistic. The fact that this teaching hits the scene around the same time that Arminian theology is exploding in the United States should give you pause. People are always trying rationalize the paradoxical elements of scripture. Coincidentally, this is how heresy is born. Intuitu Fidei is just another attempt at rationalizing what can not be rationalized.
Hi
It is not. IF was the position of the BoC writers. Besides your argument does not rebut the exegesis presented here. When you start w hasty and simplistic generalisations it is hard to conduct a reasonable conversation w you. The Waltherian attack on IF is actually a Calvinistic position of unconditional election reduces God eventually to Allah. I know because I was a Calvinist.
In IF faith in Christ is not a work of man as you suppose. I have no evidence you know what you are talking about.
Hello Lito!
It is written above in your subject "
Intuitu Fidei is just alright with me":
"So if you are a Lutheran and agrees with decreetal predestination, could you explain what lapsarian idea do you bring? My best wishes with that.
When Walther and his followers introduced this position into US Lutheranism, naturally there were those who saw it for what it was - Calvinism in Lutheran garb. The anti-Waltherians charged them of Calvinism and proceeded to explain that the Lutheran position is that of the old Lutheran theologians BoC and post-Boc some of which were even alive when they fought the Calvinism surrounding them. To name a few, they were Chytraeus, Andreae, Koerner, Hunnius, Hutter, Gerhard etc. Their position was that God elected in view of faith, or with the foresight of faith. This is called the Intuitu Fidei, which is a formula adopted by the BoC and Post-BoC Lutherna Fathers. Indeed these Fathers claim that Sola Fide and Intuitu Fidei go hand in hand that speaks of the same Gospel truth. Many I have come across start with Predestination. Yet that is not what the Scripture says."
Lito,
Why Walther and his followers introduced decreetal predestination into US Lutheranism?
Hi Jorge,
It has been noted that all through the years in Lutheranism, the issue of predestination has been settled since the BoC.
However, when Walther gained prominence and influence he involved himself with the US religious landscape of his environment. During his time US evangelicals are having this debates. Walther involved himself in these debates - I can only suspect his motives, maybe he just don't have anything better to do. In the process, he sided with decreetal predestination, that is God decreed someone to hell or some to heaven irrespective of faith ie faith has nothing to do with it.
Walther promoted universal objective justification and this is a perfect match if you believe in decreetal predestination. He tried not to be full blown universalist by talking about objective vs subjective justification, but the effect in my estimation is the same.
Lapsarian - means the fall. Calvinists are decreetal predestination promoters. So the question is when did God predestined you? Is it before the fall of Adam, or after the fall of Adam?
Supralapsarianism (also antelapsarianism) is the view that God's decrees of election and reprobation logically "preceded" the decree of the fall while infralapsarianism (with a minor variant, sublapsarianism) asserts that God's decrees of election and reprobation logically "succeeded" the decree of the fall.
Therefore if a person insists on this unconditional election he needs to answer the order when the predestination happened.
To me the only logical view is the supralapsarian view. This is hard because it also means God purposely condemned people to hell without reference to faith.
Intuitu Fidei - does not have this problem because the predestination is based on foreknowledge of God. If you are saved by grace through faith, then you are predestined by grace through faith also.
I hope this helps you in your study.
In my opinion, Walther was a schismatic, that is a definition of a heretic, someone who divides believers by their teaching.
Bothe LC-MA and WELS pastors claim Walther as thier inspirational saint, yet both of them won't pray with each other, why? Because Walther has this view that when you pray with another "Christian" who do not have the same confession as you, you are actually endorsing his belief, effectively this decision has the notion that the other person effectively is not a Christian at all.
Walther in my view was cultic in such a practice.
LPC
Hello Lito!
Thank you very much for your response.
What are the lutheran churches that there are currently that teach that God elected in view of faith, or with the foresight of faith?
What are the lutheran churches that there are currently that teach the true lutheranism?
vangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America is a synod that adheres to IF and rejects UOJ. However I do not know of anyone teaching "true" Lutheranism. I am not sure if the above synod has rejected Walther's teaching on church fellowship and ministry. I have not looked.
IF stands for Intuitu Fidei or in view of faith.
LPC
Hello Lito!
Again:
Thank you very much for your response.
Again:
It is written above in your subject "
Intuitu Fidei is just alright with me":
"So if you are a Lutheran and agrees with decreetal predestination, could you explain what lapsarian idea do you bring? My best wishes with that.
When Walther and his followers introduced this position into US Lutheranism, naturally there were those who saw it for what it was - Calvinism in Lutheran garb. The anti-Waltherians charged them of Calvinism and proceeded to explain that the Lutheran position is that of the old Lutheran theologians BoC and post-Boc some of which were even alive when they fought the Calvinism surrounding them. To name a few, they were Chytraeus, Andreae, Koerner, Hunnius, Hutter, Gerhard etc. Their position was that God elected in view of faith, or with the foresight of faith. This is called the Intuitu Fidei, which is a formula adopted by the BoC and Post-BoC Lutherna Fathers. Indeed these Fathers claim that Sola Fide and Intuitu Fidei go hand in hand that speaks of the same Gospel truth. Many I have come across start with Predestination. Yet that is not what the Scripture says."
Lito,
Why Walther and his followers believed in decreetal predestination?
They were convinced of the rationality of their position. Walther was the leader and they followed him. There was a cult of personality. Thus of course is my theory.
You must understand that Walther was poor when it came to the Biblical languages. He was good in quoting early Lutheran writers and he was quoting them out of context.
There were does who opposed him
See the book Errors of Missouri.
You can find this in the website The Lutheran Librarian, he digitised a copy of this and you can download for free.
In that book you will see those who opposed him.
Hello Lito!
I found the book The Error of Modern Missouri in The Lutheran Librarian (https://www.lutheranlibrary.org/titles/the-error-of-modern-missouri/):
featured_huf36e65c5551679b2c318c1fd9e2cbe1e_262831_720x0_resize_q75_lanczos.jpg
Thank you very much for your response!
Cheers!
Hello Lito "LPC"!
It is written in following site that C. F. W. Walther wrote extensively about slavery in Lehre und Wehre (Doctrine and Defense), published in 1863 (https://lcamyopinion.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/lutheran-church-says-slavery-is-good-and-godly-pt-2/):
"I mention this book because the writer, Dr CFW Walther, the first president of the Lutheran Church in America- Missouri Synod, wrote extensively about slavery in Lehre und Wehre (Doctrine and Defense), published in 1863."
Lito "LPC",
Please answer the following questions, if possible, please send detailed responses:
Did C. F. W. Walther approve the slavery?
If yes, what are the materials that shows that C. F. W. Walther approved the slavery?
If yes, what are the other false doctrines that C. F. W. Walther approved?
It seems Walther approved of slavery. See link below
https://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2012/12/walther-said-slavery-is-good.html
The other false doctrine at least I found suspicious of Walther was his teaching on Church Fellowship I do not have a detailed study on this and I cannot help you with your research. Since Walther is wrong with regards to his doctrine of justification, I could not dedicate energy pursuing all other false teachings he has propagated.
I cannot go into detail and you have to chase it up yourself, but in his Theses of Church Fellowship, he actually used vague undefined terms that on the surface sounded good but easily misinterpreted or abused. For example, he believed that the Lord's Supper is not to be used as a form of unity and that those who commune must have all doctrine lined up. That is impossible. The Lord's Supper is a proclamation of the death and resurrection of Jesus, no more, no less. It is unity on this proclamation, it is not a proclamation that you agree with those attending of their stance on issues etc etc.
See here.
https://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/WaltherCommunionTheses.pdf
I do not have time at the moment to spell them out.
LPC
Hello Lito "LPC"!
Thank you very much for your response!
Cheers!
God bless!
Hello Lito!
Did the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod write an response to the book The Error of Modern Missouri (https://www.lutheranlibrary.org/240-stellhorn-which-predestination-reformed-or-lutheran/)?
What are the other lutheran churches that wrote a response to the book The Error of Modern Missouri?
Jorge,
It was a like skirmish. As far as I know the LC-MS did not respond formally to this book but there was just a lot of name calling from the Waltherian side against these authors.
As you know, if you oppose Walther, you are called by his camp the one in error.
Just like the Pharisees calling Jesus the one who is demon-possessed, this is what these idol worshippers of Walther did, just name call.
From what I could gather these Synods who opposed Walther went through their own ways and got absorb etc etc.
Lito
Hello Lito!
Thank you very much for your response!
Please answer the following questions:
What are the materials that shows that there was just a lot of name calling from the Waltherian side against these authors?
What are the materials that shows that this is what these idol worshippers of Walther did, just name call?
What are the materials that shows that these Synods who opposed Walther went through their own ways and got absorb etc etc?
Jorge,
I cannot recall all the details but I heard Waltherians call for example, Hunnius, Hutter etc who were formulators of the Book of Concord as being in error.
Here is an example of how the name calling happens, they were called by Walther fanatics as synergists etc etc.
Here is an example I just found now, https://www.academia.edu/6989890/The_Election_Controversy_in_the_Synodical_Conference
This is a pro universal objective justification. This author is pro-Walther, you see they do not like faith ever being a condition for salvation, when in fact Scripture says in Romans 4:3, note there the IT pronoun, it refers to FAITH. Again in Romans 5:1, justified BY faith, again in Eph 2:8-9.
Their problem is that whenever faith is mentioned in Scripture they bthey think that this is a self-manufactured trust. No way. Scripture calls faith as always a grace.
The old Lutherans do not attribute faith any meritorious basis. They do not speak of it as a meritorious cause. No they don't. However, they DID teach that faith is an INSTRUMENTAL CAUSE. Therefore, it is a CAUSE, it CAUSES one to be justified though granted it is not a meritorious cause but a CAUSE nevertheless.
It is hard to get out a cult once you got into it. Even if you have left the group, the cultic mentality can still linger inside the brain.
Most people at that time came from I think Iowa and Ohio Synod, I do not know what came of them as they are not present anymore.
If you want to find people who adore Walther you can find them in the LC-MS and you can perhaps talk to Issues Etc host Todd Wilkin these are Walther loyalists and they will defend his position - so you can hear them for yourself. That is fair.
LPC
PS. Sorry, I cannot do more to help your research. We have to be busy following Jesus.
Hello Lito!
Thank you very much for your response!
God bless!
Cheers!
Lito!
I found the book "The Error of Modern Missouri" in following links:
[https://www.lutheranlibrary.org/239-schodde-the-error-of-modern-missouri/]
[https://www.lutheranlibrary.org/pdf/239-schodde-the-error-of-modern-missouri.pdf].
It is written in page 173 of the book "The Error of Modern Missouri":
"G. Comparative Summary
Before closing the discussion of the doctrine of predestination of the Missouri Synod, it appears to be in place to summarize briefly its chief peculiarities, and to compare them with the old Missourian, the genuinely
Lutheran, and the Reformed doctrine. This we here undertake. We choose
the form of questions and answers.
1. What Is Predestination?
Old Missouri:
“Predestination is that act of God in which, before the foundation of the
world, thus from all eternity, He determined, according to the purpose of
His will, to save eternally, for Christ’s sake and for the praise of His glorious grace, all those whose persevering faith in Christ He has foreseen. Eph.
1:4-6; 2 Tim. 1:9.” (Above p. 58; compare p. 64 and 82 sq. and 129.)
Modern Missouri:
“Election is the unalterable and eternal decree of God, by which, from the
entire human race (fallen by its own fault from its original state of innocence into sin and destruction), according to the free purpose of His will,
out of pure grace and mercy. He ordained unto salvation a certain number of
individual persons, neither better nor worthier than others, lying together
with them in the same universal destruction.” (Lehre und Wehre XIX,
p. 140; compare above p. 116.)
The Calvinists:
That is the strictest among them, who hold fast to the resolution of the
Synod of Dort, answer precisely as does modern Missouri (above p. 29)! Indeed, the answer of the latter seems to be a translation of the passage concerned from the Confession of Dort!"
Lito,
The following link is the link of Lehre und Wehre 1873: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=Ij4bAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=pt-BR&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
If I am correct, it is written in page 140 of Lehre und Wehre 1873:
"Darauf folgende
kurze Zuſammenfaſſung als Antwort : Die Erwählung iſt der unveränders
liche und ewige Beſchluß Gottes, da er aus dem ganzen menſchlichen Ge
ſchlecht (das aus der erſten Unſchuld in Sünde und Verderben durch eigne
Sduld gefallen ), nach dem freien Vorſag ſeines Willens aus lauter Gnade
und Erbarmen, eine beſtimmte Menge gewiſſer Menſchen, nicht eine beſſere und würdigere vor andern, ſondern im allgemeinen Verderben mit den andern liegenden, zur Seligkeit verordnet hat."
Please see page 140 of Lehre und Wehre 1873.
It is written in the article 7 of The Canons of Dort:
"Article 7: Election
Election is God’s unchangeable purpose by which he did the following:
Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, God chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery. God did this in Christ, whom he also appointed from eternity to be the mediator, the head of all those chosen, and the foundation of their salvation.
And so God decreed to give to Christ those chosen for salvation, and to call and draw them effectively into Christ’s fellowship through the Word and Spirit. In other words, God decreed to grant them true faith in Christ, to justify them, to sanctify them, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of the Son, to glorify them.
God did all this in order to demonstrate his mercy, to the praise of the riches of God’s glorious grace.
As Scripture says, “God chose us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, so that we should be holy and blameless before him with love; he predestined us whom he adopted as his children through Jesus Christ, in himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, by which he freely made us pleasing to himself in his beloved” (Eph. 1:4-6). And elsewhere, “Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30)."
The following link is the link of the Christian Reformed Church about The Canons of Dort: https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/canons-dort#toc-the-first-main-point-of-doctrine
Lito,
Please answer the following questions:
Is it truth that the Modern Missouri that I quoted above approved the calvinist doctrine of the election that it is written in The Canons of Dort?
Why the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod didn't wrote an response to the book "The Error of Modern Missouri"?
Hi Jorge,
Tha analysis that the Modern Missouri view is lifted out for the Calvinist Canon of Dort is true and correct!
Notice the old Missouri did not use the word "decree" in its understanding of predestination. In fact, it held to the "intuitu fidei" view until Walther came along to revise LC-MS.
Once a person views predestination as a decree then it is certainly becomes Calvinistic.
I do not know why the LCMS did not write any response to this - we can only guess. Probably because they consider themselves to have won the minds of their people by propaganda. The ones who opposed them were from Iowa and they separated from LCMS.
Heresies are like this, it separates people. It upsets the existing peace of the church.
LIto
Hello Lito!
Thank you for your response!
Cheers!
You are welcome God bless you.
The LCMS does not and has not ever agreed with the predestination of dort nor was Walther absolutely against in veiw of faith he was only against that which led to synergism because synergism is outright condemned in the book of Concord.
Thañk you for your comment.
Could you give a quote from Walther that illustrates your point?
Also, IF does not lead to synergism since faith in Christ is defined as it is defined Biblically.
Post a Comment