tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post7505829020233290713..comments2024-02-27T00:11:57.219+11:00Comments on Extra Nos: The Mess - is the pot calling the kettle...?LPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-27757668956275525632009-07-24T23:44:54.106+10:002009-07-24T23:44:54.106+10:00LPC,
Thanks for the encouragement. Due to much e...LPC,<br /><br />Thanks for the encouragement. Due to much encouragement from Steve, yourself, Dawn and some others I’m actually building a blog over on Word Press. I’m an amateur so it is what it is. My main goal is to hopefully be a helpful voice for the Gospel like you all are, I LOVE reading the discussions you all have and the input of many like AS. One cannot really speak the Gospel to one’s self, but when fellow brother and sister Christians talk the Gospel BACK to you – it IS powerful and almost makes you want to dance through your working day (and I’m a terrible dancer).<br /><br />It is interesting, you come FROM the Roman direction, I come from the evangelical/Baptist/Reformed direction and we’ve discovered the same thing.<br /><br />You said: “For Calvin's heirs and for his, the HS is not necessarily in the means of grace. For Rome, the means of grace is actually a means of work and not a gift. Hence, both do not have means. “Thus both Reformed and Romanists do not have a means of grace, there is no gift given in it. So both are the same. Lordship Salvation is an example as you stated.” That really is hitting nail on the head.<br /><br />Back in my Baptist days the common statement one hears in those circles, I use to say it myself, particularly SB is “RC believe they are saved by baptism (works).” As I struggled with the Baptist doctrine on baptism in terror for years to the point of contemplating suicide a lot (totally out of my normal character) and read more about Rome and the fall out of their doctrine something hit me in the face. I was walking with a Baptist pastor friend of mine one day and said, “You know it is utterly false that RCs believe they are saved because they are baptized. They are just like us regarding baptism and do not in the least believe baptism saves” (This was before my Luther days). “That’s why they suffer assurance doubts under their other works system. We, SB, just name our works different, like alter calls, pray the prayer again, rebaptism, have you given alllll your heart to Jesus, what are you holding back…etc. We just don’t have nice formal Latin names for ours and they are not written down somewhere, rather passed on by more or less oral tradition.”<br /><br />LAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-6551020037339411192009-07-24T09:43:31.491+10:002009-07-24T09:43:31.491+10:00Larry,
Some of the things you wrote at first look...Larry,<br /><br />Some of the things you wrote at first look may cause some wonderment but your exposition here adds points to what I have suspected before.<br /><br />When I was studying Calvin's take on repentance as his was being compared to Luther, I was semi-disgusted because Calvin's take on repentance was more Roman than Lutheran. Calvin gave me an impression that repentance for him was not the admission of you are a doomed sinner, but contains an area of improvement.<br /><br />I concluded that there is tint of Romanism in his since I was a child of Rome as a kid and was familiar to the catechism they gave me. I could recognize the meaning.<br /><br />Now, our Reformed friends will find this accusation of synergism a wonderment. I know they think that we are the one in synergy because of our Sacramental Theology.<br /><br />But if they stop for a moment and breath, Calvin was trying to be a via media between Lutherans and the Romans but there was no compromise, Luther saw this fundamental difference and presupposition right at the beginning. <br /><br />The shell in the Reformed masks its similarity with Rome but operationally and this is where things happen, operationally it is Roman in psyche.<br /><br />That is why for me, Lutheran doctrine between the two - Rome and Reformed is the only one that has the real means of grace.<br /><br />For Calvin's heirs and for his, the HS is not necessarily in the means of grace. For Rome, the means of grace is actually a means of work and not a gift. Hence, both do not have means.<br />Thus both Reformed and Romanists do not have a means of grace, there is no gift given in it. So both are the same. Lordship Salvation is an example as you stated.<br /><br />This is hard to swallow by the Reformed but, what we see today is the turmoil that the system was built on.<br /><br />Thanks for this, you ought to collect your thoughts and publish it somewhere.<br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-24439816155613083522009-07-24T01:25:44.580+10:002009-07-24T01:25:44.580+10:00LP,
That would be consistent with what I've r...LP,<br /><br />That would be consistent with what I've read and seen. I think I've read the Pieper one before.<br /><br />That's why though denied in words there IS IN FACT real and true synergism in Calvin. And if there's ultimately synergism then ultimately the IMMEDIATE implications are:<br /><br />1. There's no substantive difference in Calvin and Arminious, nor semi-pelagianism.<br /><br />2. And as semi-pelagianism is in finality no different than full blown pelagianism, so goes it with Calvinism. For there is absolutely no theological difference between "earning the grace of God" or "with a little of me + grace".<br /><br />3. Total Depravity is just, as many experentially detect, just high dollar works righteousness law to do. This is seen most dominantly in Reformed/Calvinistic Baptist realms (e.g. the John MacArthur Lordship salvation issue - in which he basically turns cheap grace into expensive grace we buy. His exposition of the RYR shows this most clearly).<br /><br />4. At the end of the day ALL these groups never really left Rome as to substance and content, just externals. Only Luther maintained the real and true reformation and in reality the real and true Word of God!<br /><br />It is ironic that assurance of salvation is a HUGE issue in ALL these groups, be it Wesley, Rome or the Reformed.<br /><br />LarryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-24140496848648223562009-07-23T09:27:34.793+10:002009-07-23T09:27:34.793+10:00Larry,
I think I found it, it was a documented qu...Larry,<br /><br />I think I found it, it was a documented quote from Ichabod...<br /><i>"As a matter of fact, however, also in the doctrine of predestination Zwingli and Calvin were just as far and as fundamentally apart from Luther as their entire rationalistic theology differed from the simple and implicit Scripturalism of Luther. Frank truly says that the agreement between Luther's doctrine and that of Zwingli and Calvin is 'only specious, nur scheinbar.' (1, 118.) Tschackert remarks: 'Whoever [among the theologians before the Formula of Concord] was acquainted with the facts could not but see that in this doctrine [of predestination] there was a far-reaching difference between the Lutheran and the Calvinistic theology.' (559.) F. Pieper declares that Luther and Calvin agree only in certain expressions, but differ entirely as to substance. (Dogmatics, III, 554.)"<br /><br />F. Bente, Concordia Triglotta, Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 209. </i><br /><br />I have not checked this as I do not have lost of Lutheran books.<br /><br />Terrible, no? I know.<br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-11354510478556861532009-07-23T00:09:33.820+10:002009-07-23T00:09:33.820+10:00LPC,
Great, if you find that quote definitely pos...LPC,<br /><br />Great, if you find that quote definitely post it.<br /><br />YOurs,<br /><br />LarryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-86366497850411488912009-07-22T11:50:03.311+10:002009-07-22T11:50:03.311+10:00Larry,
The problem with Calvin is that he uses al...Larry,<br /><br /><i>The problem with Calvin is that he uses all the same language as Luther but in most parts means something different</i><br /><br />Right on. Calvin and Calvinists placed their own spin on the terms used by Lutherans, they use the same words but they have their nuanced twist to them.<br /><br /><i>Example, what do the unworthy receive. Calvin must answer nothing, not the body and blood of Christ. Yet for Luther they do in fact receive the very body and blood of Christ unto wrath.</i><br /><br />Absolutely. Calvinists make this a small point but I now realize why it is a big issue with Lutherans.<br />The rejecting participant of the LS indeed is receiving the body and blood of Jesus but it is condemning him. Hence, so to speak - it is poison to the unbelieving participant not a healing balm.<br /><br />I asked one Calvinist friend on this as to why would scripture say - "for this reason many are sick and even died". He just ignored my point.<br /><br /><i>One cannot patch up a doctrine of non-real presence of the actual body and blood of Christ with all the theological patch work caveats in the world, not even the entire Institutes</i><br /><br /><br />Exactly, it is a patch up job if you want to defend Calvin. That is why I said to myself, this is just too much work trying to keep him from the frying pan. He is toasted on the Sacraments, hence, even new generation of Calvinists who see this are trying to patch their doctrine - see Federal Vision.<br /><br />On BoW, I read somewhere a quote by a Lutheran theologian of long ago that Calvin and Luther were not the same on this too. I am trying to get that quote but I lost it. Anyway I found his comment interesting.<br /><br />Blessings,<br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-6192582255499936212009-07-22T03:20:33.595+10:002009-07-22T03:20:33.595+10:00Part II of II
In BoW, and more so in Luther’s HD,...Part II of II<br /><br />In BoW, and more so in Luther’s HD, we see that Luther and Calvin are not near at all concerning BoW and what Calvinist call “Total Depravity”. For the unbeliever by his very nature as a religious “doer” cannot be a naked beggar for it is the very death of him, his crucifixion. This is what Luther saw, this is what the unbeliever ACTUALLY rejects in reality and not mere word, verbs and ideas. Again, look at the LS for the critical picture of this difference, the unbeliever REJECTS the body and blood of Christ but yet ACTUALLY can receive it unto his wrath. He does not just receive “a (philosophical sign = absence) sign”. We see this in Judas at the LS, Christ did not lie to Him nor offer him signage of bread and wine…what Judas rejected was the very reality of grace itself, the body and blood of Christ (the sacrament IS the Gospel –Luther) and when he did what does St. John say? Satan enter into him!<br /><br />What can never be forgotten is that all heresy uses the same language but means different things under and behind the words, THAT is what one must peal apart and ask “What does this mean”. Do not just be satisfied with “we both confess and say”. For men and theologians have long learned to confess correctly things their hearts do not really believe. And to NOT believe that the true body and blood is not present in the sacraments or to use cagey language that in reality confesses the absence of Christ’s actual body and blood, the whole Christ (it’s Christological at the end of the day) is just a fancy way of saying the obvious, unbelief.<br /><br />One cannot patch up a doctrine of non-real presence of the actual body and blood of Christ with all the theological patch work caveats in the world, not even the entire Institutes. Why? Because fundamentally Calvin denies that fundamental issue, not all the doctrinal gymnastics in the world can make “not-X” into “X”. Calvin misses his own logic here, there can BE no middle ground and this is what the Marburg Coll. Found out and settled long ago. That part has been settled and cannot be fixed for “not X” has nothing in common with “X” whereby there is a middle ground.<br /><br />LarryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-79854187426313555012009-07-22T03:19:56.944+10:002009-07-22T03:19:56.944+10:00Part I of II:
The problem with Calvin is that he ...Part I of II:<br /><br />The problem with Calvin is that he uses all the same language as Luther but in most parts means something different. For one he is systematic rather than centering on Christ and Him crucified. The insidious Order of Salvation finds its origins not in the Puritans POST Calvin but in Bucer PRE Calvin and Calvin’s “teacher more or less”. <br /><br />Nothing so shows Calvin’s egregious error like the Lord’s Supper. Example, what do the unworthy receive. Calvin must answer nothing, not the body and blood of Christ. Yet for Luther they do in fact receive the very body and blood of Christ unto wrath. This seemingly “small” point makes painfully obvious the two differing religions of the two. Remember Luther was not being mean when he refused Bucer (Calvin’s predecessor) and Zwingli the right hand of fellowship calling it of another spirit. For in the sacraments, both baptism and the LS, nothing is actually given but more or less only offered and that’s the difference between Luther and Calvin, an irreconcilable difference of which there can never be communion as the same orthodox religion. Luther makes a critical distinction that pulls apart Calvin and himself. A philosophical sign is a sign of something absent (e.g. Calvin and Zwingli on the LS), but in a theological sign it is the sign of something actually present (e.g. Luther).<br /><br />Furthermore, Calvin’s error reveals itself in that he cannot in ANYWAY answer the greatest trial a saint may go through, namely when God appears to be the enemy and forsakenness ensues. For nothing actually COMES to the man but is only more or less offered for faith to reach up to and grab. And here Calvin’s concept of faith differs from Luther’s. Both say it is required but both are not speaking of the same thing nor in the same way. Faith for Calvin is this thing otherwise given somewhere else that must “reach up and grab” what the absent philosophical sign only points to and offers, thus the Holy Spirit may or may not be operating in the Word and the Sacrament (yet another significant difference). Yet for Luther the sign of the real thing present actually comes down and bestows and gives a, the theological sign, whether faith is real, there, present or not. That’s why the unworthy ACTUALLY receive the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, while in Calvin’s rite called the Lord’s Supper they receive nothing but mere bread and wine (and so do believers according to the doctrine that says “this is NOT the true and real body and blood of Christ if we are doctrinally honest).<br /><br />Calvin’s concept of bondage of the will is not Luther’s. To be sure he set forth “total depravity” but it cannot be disconnected with its idea of “limited atonement” which even a Calvinist must admit or otherwise he does not even confess what he thinks he confesses. One cannot miss the fact that LA is linked again to the sacraments in which the unbeliever receives nothing in Calvin as opposed to Luther in which the unbeliever does receive what the believer received, again look at the Lord’s supper. So that because the unbeliever receives nothing in the sacrament, ultimately the believer receives that same nothing in the supper. The pastor cannot in one man in the same ritual event be putting into the mouth of the unbeliever only mere bread and wine and the very next guy, a believer the true body and blood of Christ (which they deny ANYWAY). Yet for Luther both receive the same and it is the sign of a real and true presence that actually GIVES its significance, and not just points elsewhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-69430942127508094432009-07-18T12:53:10.028+10:002009-07-18T12:53:10.028+10:00Although, Larry, I'm not sure if Calvin sought...Although, Larry, I'm not sure if Calvin sought to be a Lutheran. He was indebted to Luther, no doubt, and was sympathetic to Lutheranism on some counts, but the best place to find the commonality is in the Bondage of the Will. If you haven't read it, you should. I strongly recommend the book. The Bondage of the Will makes Luther sound like Calvin!Augustinian Successorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04701412663559781833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-71848172341125033762009-07-18T12:50:28.464+10:002009-07-18T12:50:28.464+10:00Larry,
It's good to know you're devouring...Larry,<br /><br />It's good to know you're devouring confessional Lutheran books. But you take it in chunks since you're a slow reader. Anyhow, take your time. No rush. As for me, I'm a pretty quick reader ...!Augustinian Successorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04701412663559781833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-79793507360403941442009-07-17T23:38:54.943+10:002009-07-17T23:38:54.943+10:00Dawn,
Your journey sounds exactly like mine, I pr...Dawn,<br /><br />Your journey sounds exactly like mine, I probably went to Calvinism "sooner" in the progression of things.<br /><br />AS,<br /><br />I just started reading Chemitz "The Lord's Supper & The Two Natures". Just finished up Sasse on "This is my body" (which I highly recommend to anyone, even if your not Lutheran - it frames the reality of the debate and issue back then and brings it forward to today). E.g. we tend to think that denominations more or less always exist as we perceive them today. Yet, Calvin sought to be a Lutheran. Getting a "feel" for the "atmosphere" is helpful, as opposed to reading "today" into 500 years ago. Most non-Lutheran protestants would be shocked to find that they actually hold Medieval RC positions on a LOT of issues, including the sacraments.<br /><br />There's another summary that is free for down load (pdf) on line entitled "The Lord's Supper In The Theology Of Martin Chemitz".<br /><br />Anyone looking to investigate these issues regarding the sacraments seriously (Lutheran or otherwise) or learn more of what treasures they are to us - would be doing themselves a favor reading these!<br /><br />It's a fair amount of reading to be sure, but just do like I do, take it in chunks you can manage, and digest it as you are able to. I'm a notoriously slow reader so I understand getting overwhelmed too much too fast.<br /><br />Blessings,<br /><br />LarryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-28030515597709193922009-07-17T21:50:42.019+10:002009-07-17T21:50:42.019+10:00LP,
"What you got involved with is what is c...LP,<br /><br />"What you got involved with is what is called the OSAS Arminianism, similar to Dave Hunt. OSAS - stands for once saved always saved.<br /><br />"May be you should post on OSAS Arminianism. It is in the web and they have apologists for this too."<br /><br />I may just do this at some point. I used to be a very strong proponent of OSAS myself.<br /><br />DawnDawn Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04015045022304909372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-24343407552452232172009-07-17T19:54:40.927+10:002009-07-17T19:54:40.927+10:00Ma Henderson,
It's funny you should say this ...Ma Henderson,<br /><br />It's funny you should say this ... as a matter of fact, I have Chemnitz's Two Natures in my personal "library", borrowed from a Christian resource centre. I had just returned the other two books, but the two books which I kept was McGrath's Luther's Theology of the Cross and Chemnitz's Two Natures.Augustinian Successorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04701412663559781833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-4643309508360255942009-07-17T18:02:08.187+10:002009-07-17T18:02:08.187+10:00As,
Yes, christological differences too...it'...As,<br /><br />Yes, christological differences too...it's all of a piece. Chemitz is very good to read on both these questions.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08978657816767706667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-91845690646881470552009-07-17T14:23:30.903+10:002009-07-17T14:23:30.903+10:00Dawn,
What you got involved with is what is calle...Dawn,<br /><br />What you got involved with is what is called the OSAS Arminianism, similar to Dave Hunt. OSAS - stands for once saved always saved.<br /><br />May be you should post on OSAS Arminianism. It is in the web and they have apologists for this too.<br /><br />Right. When we learn that again and again, the gift that Jesus gave us sinners - while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, that he came to give his life to the world, it happened outside us, without our consent, without any help from us nor suggestion from us, when we learn he did it all on his own accord, he laid his life down - there is the comfort and assurance. There is also faith.<br /><br />Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. St. Paul says we believe therefore we speak, faith blurts out in expressing as Peter did - Jesus is the Christ.<br /><br />Jesus is Lord, precisely because he is Savior (as Dr. Nagel said).<br /><br />This is why I see Christianity as a confession, we confess the Gospel, we confess Jesus as Messiah, the one who gave his life a ransom for man.<br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-33635135867046502672009-07-17T13:51:31.651+10:002009-07-17T13:51:31.651+10:00"...the Presbyterian knows he can't lose ..."...the Presbyterian knows he can't lose it but is afraid he hasn't got it.”<br /><br />This applies to the fundamentalist/evangelical dispensational baptist, as well. The system I was raised in was pretty much Arminian except for their belief in "eternal security." If you sincerely accepted Jesus as your personal Savior, it was argued, you could never lose your salvation. This sounds good on the surface but ultimately it rests on shaky ground since the basis for your assurance is a work that you did and the sincerity with which you did it.<br /><br />Thus I was always looking at my own faith and asking - was I really sincere when I prayed that prayer? Did I say everything in exactly the right way? Was I sorry enough? Am I committed enough to Christ to really be a Christian? When I discovered Calvinism, it shifted slightly to become, "Am I really one of the elect? Are my good works sufficient to prove that I am one of God's elect?" <br /><br />Eternal security and/or Perseverance of the Saints isn't worth a hill of beans if you don't know if you are saved in the first place and the only answer you get to this problem is to recommit yourself or somehow take comfort in your works or in the fact that God knows your heart. When I would share my concerns with various people, they would always tell me why they were convinced that I was saved - "look how much you love God." "Look how much you love the Scriptures." "Look what you do for people." Etc, etc, etc. But they can't see the inside of my heart. I can, and everything is tainted with sin. My only hope is Christ who lived a sinless life in my place. This is the difference with the Lutheran approach - we are to look to Christ, and not to ourselves. I have nothing to bring Him but my sin. But He took all of it upon Himself at the cross. And in the Sacraments Christ is saying, "What I did on the cross was for you. Yes, even for you."<br /><br />God bless,<br />DawnDawn Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04015045022304909372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-14725710664837941002009-07-17T13:13:29.242+10:002009-07-17T13:13:29.242+10:00“Methodist knows he's got it but is afraid he ...“Methodist knows he's got it but is afraid he might lose it; while the Presbyterian knows he can't lose it but is afraid he hasn't got it.”<br /><br />That’s a great way of putting it, and that’s were the synergism on both sides begins. Calvin would like to point you outward like Luther but due to his theology, ultimately, he cannot. Where this is most shown is the trial of “when God appears to be the enemy”, Calvin’s empty sacraments reveal themselves there and thus now “extra nos” to go to.<br /><br />But there’s a more dangerous thing here. Luther points out in his HD discussing mortal vs. venial sins, borrowing the Roman language and turning it against them says that (Rome constructed a mortal/venial sin scenario based on degrees of some sort, as to length and quality). But Luther said:<br /><br />(1) The only truly mortal or deadly sin or work (good or bad) that separates one from God is that sin in which it is not considered mortal or deadly.<br />(2) The only truly venial or forgivable sin or work (good or bad) is that sin which is considered deadly.<br /><br />In this we see that we confess as God says, “You O’Lord have right words”. Here’s the link and the big issue that is deadly in ANY “can’t fall away scenario”: Luther said to ever think a sin or work is only dead (dead here in the Roman system did not rise to the level of “deadly”) but not deadly (recall deadly means fall away from God eternally unto damnation) seems to be a perilous surrender of the fear of God. And to not have that, is to lead into damnation. Here’s the problem with ALL forms of “I’ve crossed the conversion line and cannot fall away”, that surrender of the fear of God. And by the way, the problem with ALL third use of the Law scenarios! Because it surrenders to that thought that this sin is not deadly. See THAT sin would be a truly mortal sin as it is thought to be venial. Recall a truly venial sin or work is that which is always considered DEADLY or mortal. That means one MUST be able to believe in reality one can fall away. To arrive at “I cannot fall away” one cannot have a true fear of God and to not have that is to lead unto damnation.<br /><br />The SURENESS we rest in is grace of God for those works (good are bad) and sins we always continually know are in fact and reality truly mortal sins. Such consideration of sin is to be IN continual repentance and faith and speaking thus, “You O’God have right words). That’s what it means to confess we are sinners, and what 1 John means when “we say we have no sin the truth is not in us”. <br /><br />Beware of “cannot fall away” pretend sin. We must know we are real and strong sinners (i.e. know our sins and works are truly mortal, so that they so confessed are truly venial)<br /><br />LarryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-81890793523687392122009-07-17T13:12:06.462+10:002009-07-17T13:12:06.462+10:00LP wrote:
"Calvinists rejoice in the Soverei...LP wrote:<br /><br />"Calvinists rejoice in the Sovereignty of God.<br /><br />"Lutherans rejoice in the Humility of God."<br /><br />Well said!<br /><br />DawnDawn Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04015045022304909372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-51097674288841786562009-07-17T12:18:52.905+10:002009-07-17T12:18:52.905+10:00Larry,
And within that consideration one communic...Larry,<br /><br /><i>And within that consideration one communicates, albeit mysterious to our reason, with the other without confusion</i>.<br /><br />As I was saying to JK, once Jesus took on humanity in his divinity, you can no more separate the two natures in one person. They are now united in his person without confusion. Where his divinity is, his humanity is there if we are to take Jesus' words at face value, in an unexplained but believed way as in the case Mt 18:20.<br /><br />It is more important to believe his words rather than explain it in fact, even Scripture says that faith precedes knowledge. Heb 11:3.<br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-76513627842224247842009-07-17T12:07:10.509+10:002009-07-17T12:07:10.509+10:00Joel,
Good way of putting it.
When I was Arminia...Joel,<br /><br />Good way of putting it.<br /><br />When I was Arminian (Pentecostal) - it was "faith got you in, faith will keep" you in (I heard my Penty pastor said this and I smile now each time I remember it).<br /><br />Then I toyed with Calvinism (4 years) in a Presby church so it got turned to "grace got you in, grace will keep you in".<br /><br />Now the more appropriate and accurate way as I see in Scripture and through the means of grace --<br />"the Gospel that got you in, is the same Gospel that keeps you in".<br /><br />In Lutheran talk - The same thing that God used to give you faith which is the Gospel is the same one he uses to keep you in the faith.<br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-13502244936528191262009-07-17T11:12:36.969+10:002009-07-17T11:12:36.969+10:00J.K.,
You asked an astute question:
"What’...J.K.,<br /><br />You asked an astute question: <br /><br />"What’s the practical difference between the Lutheran view of apostates losing salvation and the Calvinist view that apostates never had salvation to begin with?"<br /><br />Lutherans somehow avoid the Arminian/Calvinist dilemma: the Methodist knows he's got it but is afraid he might lose it; while the Presbyterian knows he can't lose it but is afraid he hasn't got it.<br /><br />I think it's because Lutherans are encouraged to focus on the objective word of the Gospel, which graciously declares, "Your sins are forgiven", that they are shielded from the usual Methodist/Calvinist agonies over assurance.joel in ganoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-10357036396612668882009-07-17T09:47:49.507+10:002009-07-17T09:47:49.507+10:00LPC,
That's what finally clicked for me too. ...LPC,<br /><br />That's what finally clicked for me too. When you dig, read deeper into the issue and think about the situation in which it arose - one's entire perspective and understanding changes. The link to christology is HUGE too.<br /><br />Sasse makes, among a million, point that the union of the two natures in the one person in Christ (the hypostatic union - $50 term) is NOT just a verbal one but real one. And within that consideration one communicates, albeit mysterious to our reason, with the other without confusion. But that the communication is REAL and not just a verbal description on paper somewhere. To this end Sasse points out that those who more or less understand and believe the true two nature in the one person, have no problem at all concerning the same in the sacramental union between the bread/wine - body/blood.<br /><br />I think if I might put it in a "nutshell" it is this: It's the principle underlying it all that is of issue. I'll use a good Reformed analogy. RC Sproul once said that "once the pulpit goes (meaning the lectern for a stage or glass stand or similar) it is not long before the theology and doctrine soon follow in going out the door". RC's point? Is there something "spiritual" about a wooden pulpit? Not at all. He was getting behind the presupposition and mindset change that has occurred that allowed for them to remove the pulpit, to wit; instead of the Word and Sacraments preached and distributed to build and feed the flock, even if all walk out the door on them, one gets 'starry eyed' over "growing the church". And in doing so, over time it manifests itself very slowly and insidiously. First the pulpit, then the style of the church, then the liturgy, then the message, etc...<br /><br />THAT is how the heresy insinuates itself into the church (e.g. Ablaze in the LCMS). The eye of the pastor and flock becomes bewitched in "growing the church" rather than preaching the Word in and out of season!<br /><br />The connection to the christology and the LS? It's that often more or less unspoken hidden under belly set of presuppositions and mind set that is REALLY driving the boat.<br /><br />This is why both Zwingli and Calvin if you read them they bring up the "other absurdities" regarding what such a view the LS (Luther's) brings in their opinion. Those absurdities are their rationalisms regarding their christology at the end of the day. Luther saw this, the issue was how/what one thought in principle that was driving the boat.<br /><br />That's why he could say that to deny the real presence is to ultimately deny the two natures and one person. Not overtly but subtle underlying presuppositions that seem to not but actually do. E.g. Not understanding the two natures in the one person MUST be real and not just a verbal discussion.<br /><br />Yours,<br /><br />LarryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-4675203508863834532009-07-17T09:23:45.475+10:002009-07-17T09:23:45.475+10:00Larry,
That was helpful exposition you gave on wh...Larry,<br /><br />That was helpful exposition you gave on why IS is IS in the Supper. It did not click with me that the Gospel is lost too if it were interpreted symbolically. What happened with me was that I went to Scripture 1 Cor 10:14-16 and frankly looked at it to test if the Lutheran teaching on this was true. That scripture convinced me and blew a hole that I cannot confess anymore what Calvinists on this confess. So I chucked it away, to follow where the Word leads.<br /><br />The nice thing about the internet is that you can read materials on this. I just went and read some quotes of Pieper, Krauth and Jacobs etc said about the Calvinistic view and their assessment is so perceptive. It went down to really: Christology. The Calvinist's view in so far as it uses rationalistic interpretations of Scripture has a tendency to slide into Unitarianism/Socinianism. <br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-22855880028252633472009-07-17T01:26:26.013+10:002009-07-17T01:26:26.013+10:00LPC,
Great info!!!
"Calvin threw the baby w...LPC,<br /><br />Great info!!!<br /><br />"Calvin threw the baby with the bath water"<br /><br />That's it in a nut shell as they say. Having been both ex-baptist and ex-Reformed, I began to see the baptistic arguments against baptism to be the same as the Reformed arguments regarding the LS. The content and context may have varied but the principle, basically forms of rationalism and "pulling the spirit apart from the earthly, and putting everything over in the wispy spiritual realm were all the same.<br /><br />I think that's why you can see more and more these ecumenical breaches among many Reformed and Baptist "pulling together" in various parachurch situations. <br /><br />I was talking to a good baptist pastor friend of mine about this and he was seeing it too, in principle he saw the problem even though as to content and detail we'd disagree. He did understand why we cannot mingle communions this way because at length one's confession on essentials like the sacraments mean nothing whatsoever and become effectually "non-confessions".<br /><br />He and I both agreed on this even though as to content we disagreed. He even said that even if I'm wrong as to the detail and content of our views on the sacrament/ordinances, that is better than this idea that we can accept each others opposing views as if there is no significant difference whatsoever such that the individual confessions really mean nothing and one is not confessing a thing in reality, except for "I don't know". For the mingled "I don't know" folks really are saying God's word is utterly uncertain and at length have a false idea of God's word. Thus, Paul's call to doctrinal purity is overthrown and this deluded idea that there is something pious about "just agreeing to disagree to get together" is the GREATEST offense against the Holy Word. It's tantamount to Pilate's "What is truth?" And the world's "truth is either relative or unknowable".<br /><br />Yours,<br /><br />LarryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-51639752052547699962009-07-16T21:09:35.809+10:002009-07-16T21:09:35.809+10:00I wish to add, clearly Calvin was speculating and ...I wish to add, clearly Calvin was speculating and was convinced of his speculation, hence, rationalism was taking over instead of the plain statements of Scripture. In fact his explanation is humanistic contrary to what the Bible insinuates i.e. a miracle, Jesus appeared and disappeared and showed himself to his disciples.<br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.com