Quote:

---

After regeneration, do you believe you choose to do the good things you do, at the prompting of the spirit, or do you believe God is doing the work through you?

---

Yes.

AgLiving06 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

I think most 'mega church' leaders wind up…getting sucked into the money/fame willfully or not (wait, is this a crossover into the 'free will' debate topic, LOL?). Most of that blog isn't particularly damning, but I do think he wound up committing plenty of bad acts at GTY etc. Hey, he was no Jimmy Swaggart, though (too soon?).

But part of that is also a reflection of having been an outspoken champion of a very unpopular theological position for decades, imho. One can see it in this thread, early on '…why Calvinism should have been abandoned from the start' etc.'

These topics are so sensitive/personal to many (at least, those who study them and take them seriously) that the differing ideas/theological positions drive very angry responses/debates/vitriol. The ideas/reasoning I still enjoy thinking through/discussing, but have come to accept that the 'hero's of the faith,' whether ancient such as Paul, Augustine, Origen etc. or much more current times are themselves quite acerbic men to read/think with, perhaps for a reason.

---

I suggested that Calvinism should have been abandoned from the start because it is literally a logcial contradiction. Not because MacArthur or RC or even Calvin himself are horrible, rotten people. What we can clearly see is that Calvin chose to interpret the bible in his own particular way. His particular way requires a logical contradiction. Rather than acknowledging that his particular interpretation might have reached a dead end, humbled himself, and considered an alternative, he plowed on ahead, certain that he had found the answer. It makes much more sense to me to abandon the illogical view than force a square peg into a round hole, but the reformers thought differently.

---

I used your explanatory judgment as to the tenets of Calvinism as an example of the attitude of some who take their faith seriously, but also have a lot of strong opinions/judgment about Calvinists and this set of doctrines. I frankly doubt you've read Calvin's Institutes though. Again, Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, Zwingli, and the leaders of the faith in both the Orthodox and Protestant/Reformed traditions are in my opinion often seen in their writings struggling with the details of their faith and beliefs as I expect 'good' Christians of all stripes do.

Luther would famously strike out words in his writings, and in the edges curse at the devil for having misled his thoughts. I enjoy the historical and theological debates but I don't dismiss Calvinism writ large as illogical, so we can continue to disagree, respectfully. Again, it's very difficult to paint Calvinists with such a broad brush anyway, as they wrestle with his ideas constantly (and notably of course TULIP is not a construct he literally used.). I think doing so, or espousing an idea that they are all believers in a logical contradiction reflects a low understanding/appreciation of the depth of the subject matter, which frankly is a challenge to explain briefly in a format as we have here.

---

Ironically, I think Calvin's system fails not because it's illogical, but because it tries to be too logical. In many ways, it's the same critique I have of Rome. Both systems seek to answer questions that the Bible is silent on.

The most obvious (to me) is the Lord's Supper.

Calvin sought to explain 'how" Jesus was found in the Lord's Supper and turned to logic to try and solve it. The historical critique from Lutherans has been that this actually changes the nature of Jesus as explained in the Scriptures by seeking a sort of "nestorian" divide. This is found in his [in]famous Consensus Tigurinus document Article 25:

Quote:

---

And that no ambiguity may remain when we say that Christ is to be sought in Heaven, the expression implies and is understood by us to intimate distance of place. For though philosophically speaking there is no place above the skies, yet as the body of Christ, bearing the nature and mode of a human body, is finite and is contained in Heaven as its place, it is necessarily as distant from us in point of space as Heaven is from Earth.

---

Likewise, Rome needed a philosophical answer to "how" the body and blood of Jesus was found in the Eucharist, which led them to transubstantiation as the answer.

It's the lack of comfort with mystery that seemingly led both groups down a path into error.

---

His idea of double predestination is highly logical. If God does all the saving then He also must do the not saving.

Where his logic fails is on why God doesn't just save everyone. God says He wants to save everyone, He does 100% of the saving, but He doesn't save everyone, despite the fact that He wants. This is a clear example of a logical contradiction. In my opinion, stating this as fact rather than humbly considering you've run into a brick wall is creating an unnecessary box to put God in.

I don't think the Catholic Church "needs" an answer to everything. But I would say that if an answer exists the Church can be gifted with the answer. I think you'd agree that if the answer does exist, we aren't required to not understand it. We aren't required to stay in the dark. For example, the teaching of the real presence was being doubted and Thomas was gifted with the ability to put it into better terms. It wasn't something that was "needed", but was revealed to assist the faithful. And even then, Thomas still has to appeal to mystery of God's power to do this thing that no human can do.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

After regeneration, do you believe you choose to do the good things you do, at the prompting of the spirit, or do you believe God is doing the work through you?

---

Yes.

---

No lol. We agree the good work is from God. But from there we have to ask: Do we freely consent to that good work or does He influence us so heavily so as that we can't resist it?

AgLiving06 said:

---

I agree.

It can be an unsettling thing to do, but finding comfort in the mystery or paradox of God is not easy. We always want the "why." In some cases, it can lead to a deeper understanding of the Scriptures. In others, it can lead to applying philosophical/logical systems to the text vs letting the text speak for itself.

---

It is generally agreed that this is impossible outside of the most basic of texts. Everyone is going to apply an exteriorly held framework to the texts they read. It's impossible to do otherwise.

The reformed doctrine of double predestination does not teach that God creates a hardened heart in the non-elect, to prevent them from being saved/believing.

Needless to say, this is difficult to put into a message board where many do not start from a similar viewpoint/interest/consideration as to the doctrines in question. It's a much more complex matter but that's it, in a 3 minute, non-hostile response.

Zero versions/flavors of Calvinism to my knowledge teach that God is the author of sin/pain/suffering. That's Stephen King stuff, and I don't believe he is a Calvinist/Christian.

nortex97 said:

---

The reformed doctrine of double predestination does not teach that God creates a hardened heart in the non-elect, to prevent them from being saved/believing.

Needless to say, this is difficult to put into a message board where many do not start from a similar viewpoint/interest/consideration as to the doctrines in question. It's a much more complex matter but that's it, in a 3 minute, non-hostile response.

Zero versions/flavors of Calvinism to my knowledge teach that God is the author of sin/pain/suffering. That's Stephen King stuff, and I don't believe he is a Calvinist/Christian.

---

Agree. But Reformed/Calvinist theology teaches that God chooses to save the elect but passes over the damned. He created the damned and foreknew they would be damned to ECT hell. Serious question Why create them only so they can suffer for eternity? What's the purpose? Ask MacArther, Piper, etc. and they will say to glorify God.
I reject that and find no Scriptural basis for that.

Arminian would still have to affirm that God knows who will choose God before the foundation of the world. God still creates them knowing they won't choose him and will be ultimately damned. Same problem.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Arminian would still have to affirm that God knows who will choose God before the foundation of the world. God still creates them knowing they won't choose him and will be ultimately damned. Same problem.

---

Not if you take ECT hell out of the equation.

I think the key point is 'passing over the damned.'

At the pinnacle of His anguish, he cried, "My God, my God why have you forsaken me" so that those who repent and believe in him might not "suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might" (2 Thess. 1:9). Here alone can the cup of eternal judgment be drained on behalf of sinners. There, is an escape from eternal punishment.

Although we rightfully feel unceasing anguish and great sorrow for those who never hide beneath the cross on this side of eternity (Rom 9:1-3), even this anguish will not last. We will celebrate God's eternal triumph over evil forever: "Once more they cried out, 'Hallelujah! The smoke from her goes up forever and ever'" (Rev. 19:3).

I believe that the judgement of God as most Calvinists understand it is not, actually, final. It may be in this world/time, but it is not for me to claim, let alone determine what the final answer will be. Again, I don't make any pretense of being a high Calvinist myself, however.

nortex97 said:

---

The reformed doctrine of double predestination does not teach that God creates a hardened heart in the non-elect, to prevent them from being saved/believing.

Needless to say, this is difficult to put into a message board where many do not start from a similar viewpoint/interest/consideration as to the doctrines in question. It's a much more complex matter but that's it, in a 3 minute, non-hostile response.

Zero versions/flavors of Calvinism to my knowledge teach that God is the author of sin/pain/suffering. That's Stephen King stuff, and I don't believe he is a Calvinist/Christian.

---

I don't think I've ever claimed that most reformed folks believe He creates a hardened heart. What I'm saying is that the clear conclusion of double predestination is that He creates the evil conditions of man, regardless of what the teachers on the subject want to acknowledge. I get why they wouldn't want to accept the claim, because it sounds awful. But if God is fully sovereign in the way that Calvin taught, then the original sin was done as a part of His plan. Therefore, He authored sin whether we like the conclusion or not.

Now if you want to say that God gave Adam and Eve the choice to fall away, I' agree. But this acts as a defeater for God disallowing free will in determining whether or not we ultimately believe, which is what double predestination centers around. So either we are active participants in our salvation, refuting Calvin, or God made people in order for them to sin and be left out of Heaven. I've yet to hear a way around this, as "passing over" is still only done in a world that God created with sin as an objective, not an option.

The Banned said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

The reformed doctrine of double predestination does not teach that God creates a hardened heart in the non-elect, to prevent them from being saved/believing.

Needless to say, this is difficult to put into a message board where many do not start from a similar viewpoint/interest/consideration as to the doctrines in question. It's a much more complex matter but that's it, in a 3 minute, non-hostile response.

Zero versions/flavors of Calvinism to my knowledge teach that God is the author of sin/pain/suffering. That's Stephen King stuff, and I don't believe he is a Calvinist/Christian.

---

I don't think I've ever claimed that most reformed folks believe He creates a hardened heart. What I'm saying is that the clear conclusion of double predestination is that He creates the evil conditions of man, regardless of what the teachers on the subject want to acknowledge. I get why they wouldn't want to accept the claim, because it sounds awful. But if God is fully sovereign in the way that Calvin taught, then the original sin was done as a part of His plan. Therefore, He authored sin whether we like the conclusion or not.

Now if you want to say that God gave Adam and Eve the choice to fall away, I' agree. But this acts as a defeater for God disallowing free will in determining whether or not we ultimately believe, which is what double predestination centers around. So either we are active participants in our salvation, refuting Calvin, or God made people in order for them to sin and be left out of Heaven. I've yet to hear a way around this, as "passing over" is still only done in a world that God created with sin as an objective, not an option.

---

Exactly.

dermdoc said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

The reformed doctrine of double predestination does not teach that God creates a hardened heart in the non-elect, to prevent them from being saved/believing.

Needless to say, this is difficult to put into a message board where many do not start from a similar viewpoint/interest/consideration as to the doctrines in question. It's a much more complex matter but that's it, in a 3 minute, non-hostile response.

Zero versions/flavors of Calvinism to my knowledge teach that God is the author of sin/pain/suffering. That's Stephen King stuff, and I don't believe he is a Calvinist/Christian.

---

Agree. But Reformed/Calvinist theology teaches that God chooses to save the elect but passes over the damned. He created the damned and foreknew they would be damned to ECT hell. Serious question Why create them only so they can suffer for eternity? What's the purpose? Ask MacArther, Piper, etc. and they will say to glorify God.
I reject that and find no Scriptural basis for that.

---

I've answered this multiple times, but maybe you didn't see it. There are only 2 ways God can ensure hell is empty:

1. Foresee who is not going to choose Him and not make those people.
2. Overrule those people's free choices and make them follow Him, in this life or the next
.

In each scenario, we don't have free will. Ultimately, Derm, you're going to have to choose between free will or no free will. Universalism came from Calvinism for a reason. And if you want to accept that type of sovereignty, you're making God the author of sin by necessity, no different than the Calvinists.

So why might God make these people despite their ultimate end? Love. He loves them enough to respect the autonomy He gifted them. Love is not love if it is compulsory. If He is making the choice for us to love Him, and we are not freely giving it back to Him in return for the loving grace He gives us, then it isn't love. We HAVE to be able to refuse Him in order to be able to accept Him. He knows some will choose against Him... and He loves them anyway. So Hell doesn't "serve a purpose". It's the end result for people who chose to reject their purpose: a life without God. The only difference between this life without God and the eternal life without God is how much more aware the person is that they are lacking connection with Him. We can numb that disconnect with all sorts of things in this life. In the next, those comforts don't exist. The empty feeling is as raw as raw can be. And that is hell

Quote:

---

I've answered this multiple times, but maybe you didn't see it. There are only 3 ways God can ensure hell is empty:

1. Foresee who is not going to choose Him and not make those people.
2. Remove ultimate free will and require that people choose Him.
3. Alter those people's life choices to ensure they pick Him.

In each of the scenarios, we don't have free will. Ultimately, Derm, you're going to have to choose between free will and or not. Universalism came from Calvinism for a reason. And if you want to accept that type of sovereignty, you're making God the author of sin by necessity, no different than the Calvinists.

---

Not quoting everyone here, just a summary response. Hell is a human construct (especially ECT), I believe. God is not limited to our world/time, nor the new and old Testaments. ECT itself is a bit of a 'club' of a doctrine used to beat/disabuse people with, imho.

Calvinism is at its core a maximalist view of God's power; to control even the dust/electrons etc. around us. This doesn't make God cruel, or power-hungry, but rather life-giving. God's sovereign choice raises questions among non-believers about moral agency.

If God predestines certain individuals for salvation, the question becomes how do human choices fit into that plan? Most Calvinists believe that human beings are still moral agents, able to make choices. Believers act as moral agents within the boundaries set by God's sovereignty. Their actions are significant, yet they remain part of God's plan. Both within, and outside of Calvin's views God's people ("New Testament people of God" to borrow a phrase from NT Wright) are unclear as to His elections and judgment in this world.

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Fair enough they may be taken out of context. I'll look more into it. I quoted Luther Himself, so I'd like to hear your perspective on that quote.

I have other quotes too, but rather that quote mine, maybe you'd like to respond to the conceptual line of questioning I posted earlier, when you have time.

---

Quote:

---

"When the Spirit of God begins to work faith in a person, the will is no longer in the same bondage as before. It is loosed from the chains of sin and death and becomes willing to follow God's commandments. But this willing is not of its own strength or nature; rather, it is moved, bent, and renewed by the Spirit, who causes the will to desire and do what pleases God.
Yet this new freedom of the will does not mean that the person is perfectly free from sin in this life. The will is still weak and inclined to evil, but it now strives against sin and cooperates in good works not by its own power but by the grace that the Spirit continually imparts.
Therefore, the will is truly free only insofar as it is governed by the Spirit and united to Christ. Apart from this union, the will remains captive and powerless."

---

I'd want to see where this quote is from. I'm assuming you pulled it from the Bondage of the Will, but in my book version, I can't find it.

Assuming that's true, I want to start by pointing out that the Bondage of the will isn't part of the Book of Concord. It's not even a scholarly work per se. Maybe the best comparison would be to say it's comparable to a letter/book from a Pope/Bishop/etc. We should read it seriously, but it's not Gospel.

To the quote though, your quibble seems to be with Original Sin, not with Luther.

What Luther is saying here is Romans 6.

That we/mankind are born "slaves of sin" and that it is only through the work of God that we come to know Him. Like I said above, it is through the work of God, not the Preacher, friend, etc that bring someone to God.

The next part talks about concupiscence, which again, Rome agrees with it. In Baptism, in coming to know the Lord, that does not mean we are free from the temptation. Our ungodly desires persist through the rest of this life.

Finally, note that Luther agrees that we can cooperate in good works, but our ability to overcome sin and temptation are not a power we naturally hold. That is to say, Luther isn't a "once saved, always saved" believer. If we choose to pursue sin, our heart turns that way. Rome of course believes in the same with their concept of mortal and venial sins. Said differently, it God pulled His grace from us, would you really want to stand up to Satan and evil on your own?

---

Yes, it was from Bondage of the Will. I thought about posting more of Luther's quotes on both this topic and his personal views on his particular accuracy on this topic despite he standing alone in his views, but I think it's more productive to go a different route. Of these two statements, which do you believe best represents the Lutheran view? Maybe both options are lacking, so if writing in an answer is best, that works for me.

A) After regeneration, the Spirit inspires/encourages/asks/leads us to know what the right thing to do is, and we make an active choice to assent our will to His influence. Sometimes we miss the mark. Regardless of good or bad, we are an active agent in assenting to the good action, or choosing the bad action.

B) After regeneration, our human nature is still hopelessly bound to sin, and the only reason we can do any good thing is because God's grace, working through the Holy Spirit, overwhelms our baser desires to ensure we do the good? In short, even after regeneration, we aren't actively choosing the good. We're only capable of choosing bad without the Spirit directly intervening.

---

I wouldn't be able to fully accept either, and honestly, I don't think you could either as a Roman Catholic.

So let me start with this. This is from the Augsburg Confession:

Quote:

---

[1] Concerning free will it is taught that a human being has some measure of free will, so as to live an externally honorable life and to choose among the things reason comprehends. [2] However, without the grace, help, and operation of the Holy Spirit a human being cannot become pleasing to God, fear or believe in God with the whole heart, or expel innate evil lusts from the heart. [3] Instead, this happens through the Holy Spirit, who is given through the Word of God. For Paul says (1 Cor. 2[:14*]): "Those who are natural do not receive the gifts of God's Spirit."

....

[8] Rejected here are those who teach that we can keep the commandments of God without grace and the Holy Spirit. For although we are by nature able to do the external works of the commandments, yet we cannot do the supreme commandments in the heart, namely, truly to fear, love, and believe in God

---

So clearly we see there is never a denial of man's ability to choose to do good or bad.

There are two additional points to consider.

Concupiscence. your scenarios don't factor it in, and it is something that both Rome and Lutherans agree exists. Rough definition being: the impure/evil desires associated with Original Sin that tempt man even after baptism and regeneration. This temptation will persist through the remainder of this life.

Rome and Lutherans will disagree over whether the very nature of concupiscence is a sin or not (Lutherans say yes, Rome says no), but the temptation towards sin never goes away. To not include that in your first option makes this invalid.

To your second one. No we aren't "hopeless bound towards sin" per se. The existence of concupiscence remains, but through prayer, Sacraments, study, and obedience, we can reduce that desire somewhat. That is to say, even in the most regenerate of men, from the Pope or Head of the LCMS, down to you and I, we can all fall back into temptation. We could all fall away.

Back to the first option. I would argue our works will always miss the mark in some way because we are always corrupted from Original Sin. The temptation is there, the desire is there. Did we give God the glory in everything we did? Or did we take a bit too much pride in the work we did? Did we curse at that driver who cut us off? Did we feel a little better watching someone lose an argument? Our works are always insufficient, but the good news it that Jesus was perfect and His works are more than sufficient for our salvation.

Hope that helps to start to clarify.

---

When I said we sometimes miss the mark, that was supposed to be the concession for concupiscence. I didn't intend to leave it out. I guess I'll ask it this way: After regeneration, do you believe you choose to do the good things you do, at the prompting of the spirit, or do you believe God is doing the work through you? Or how would you word it?

I'm still re-reading the book of cocord to try and find the most appropriate language for it.

---

This is why I've tried to really define things. concupiscence isn't just falling short. The way I typically see it defined is "evil lust."

In general, we fall short in every action we do. That's just a given imo. Nothing is done fully to the glory of God and so most everything falls short.

Concupiscence is so much more. It's the desire to look at porn or drink or cuss somebody out on the road for cutting you off. That's not simply falling short. The Bible would call that adultery or murder.

But to your question, the Reformers are clear on a couple things:

1. In the civil realm, we retain free will. We can choose to do "good" or "bad" in the conventional or external sense on our own. We aren't robots.

2. However, the "first table," that is to honor and fear God is not something we can rightly do without God's grace. And of course we know that because we can look clearly at many on this very board who deny God. Maybe they do good, but do they truly honor God in their actions? Of course not.

------------
I brought up the Augsburg Confession because Rome itself agreed with what I posted. They then added more that was later challenged by the Reformers, but honestly, this line of question wasn't particularly debated or challenged.

The apology does add this, which I think, given what I've posted above should give the Lutheran position:

Quote:

---

[4] Nor indeed do we deny that the human will has freedom. The human will possesses freedom regarding works and matters that reason can comprehend by itself. It can to some extent produce civil righteousness or the righteousness of works. It can talk about God and offer God acts of worship with external works; it can obey rulers and parents. By choosing an external work it can keep back the hand from murder, adultery, and theft. Because human nature still retains reason and judgment concerning things subject to the senses, it also retains the ability to choose in such matters, as well as the freedom and ability to achieve civil righteousness. For Scripture calls this the righteousness of the flesh, which carnal nature (that is, reason) produces by itself apart from the Holy Spirit. [5] To be sure, the power of concupiscence is such that people more often obey their evil impulses than sound judgment. Moreover, the devil, who is at work in the ungodly as Paul says [Eph. 2:2*], never stops inciting this feeble nature to various offenses. For these reasons even civil righteousness is rare among human beings. We see that not even the philosophers, who seemed to have aspired after this righteousness, attained it. [6] However, it is false to say that people do not sin when they do the works prescribed by the law outside of grace. Furthermore, they also add that the forgiveness of sins and justification are necessarily due for such works. For apart from the Holy Spirit human hearts lack the fear of God and trust in God. They do not believe that God hears their prayers, forgives them, or helps and preserves them. Therefore they are ungodly; for a bad tree cannot bear good fruit [Matt. 7:18*], and "without faith it is impossible to please God" [Heb. 11:6*].

---

Quote:

---

[7] Therefore, even though we concede to free will the freedom and power to perform external works of the law, nevertheless we do not ascribe to free will those spiritual capacities, namely, true fear of God, true faith in God, the conviction and knowledge that God cares for us, hears us, and forgives us, etc. These are the real works of the first table, which the human heart cannot produce without the Holy Spirit, just as Paul says [1 Cor. 2:14*]: "Those who are natural," that is, those who use only their natural powers, "do not perceive the things which are of God."

---

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

I've answered this multiple times, but maybe you didn't see it. There are only 3 ways God can ensure hell is empty:

1. Foresee who is not going to choose Him and not make those people.
2. Remove ultimate free will and require that people choose Him.
3. Alter those people's life choices to ensure they pick Him.

In each of the scenarios, we don't have free will. Ultimately, Derm, you're going to have to choose between free will and or not. Universalism came from Calvinism for a reason. And if you want to accept that type of sovereignty, you're making God the author of sin by necessity, no different than the Calvinists.

---

Not quoting everyone here, just a summary response. Hell is a human construct (especially ECT), I believe. God is not limited to our world/time, nor the new and old Testaments. ECT itself is a bit of a 'club' of a doctrine used to beat/disabuse people with, imho.

Calvinism is at its core a maximalist view of God's power; to control even the dust/electrons etc. around us. This doesn't make God cruel, or power-hungry, but rather life-giving. God's sovereign choice raises questions among non-believers about moral agency.

If God predestines certain individuals for salvation, the question becomes how do human choices fit into that plan? Most Calvinists believe that human beings are still moral agents, able to make choices. Believers act as moral agents within the boundaries set by God's sovereignty. Their actions are significant, yet they remain part of God's plan. Both within, and outside of Calvin's views God's people ("New Testament people of God" to borrow a phrase from NT Wright) are unclear as to His elections and judgment in this world.

---

If the bolded is true, the italicized, by definition, is impossible. If humans created the idea of ECT hell, then it's because God made us create it.

Calvinism is not a question of how powerful God is, and whether or not he can control the dust/electrons. It's a question of how does He choose to assert His power. One side says He wants us to freely choose to love Him because this is true love. The other side says there is no choice in the matter, and this very conversation has already been predetermined by Him to work according to His plan. We are not typing of our own accord, but only what He planned for us to type

No matter how much people say that people can still be moral agents with some semblance of free will, it doesn't work. It's avoiding the logical conclusion that every single choice we make, sinful or otherwise, was put in place by God. He could have changed it and He didn't. Not because He wanted us to be cooperators with Him and we failed, but because He planned for our bad actions to happen. We had no choice but to follow the evil nature He left us in, solely because He wanted us to do the bad thing. We quite literally are incapable of anything else, therefore, there is no choice. All attempts to say otherwise are born from the discomfort of how evil this makes God sound.

The good news is that there is an alternative that is more biblical, held by the vast majority of the first Christians, and allows us to see God for the truly loving creator He is.

The part that I am curious about is the part of the Church's response that was rejected. To paraphrase: man cooperates in his conversion. You would reject that, I assume?

Similarly, the Church's response to article XX on good works: Augsburg stays very generic and says works are a fruit of faith, without fleshing out what that means. The response says that man plays an active role in doing those works, and therefore, choosing to do or not do has implications on justification/salvation.

Because the article was a bit vague, all I can do is rely on Lutheran apologists I can find. Of course these guys aren't authoritative, I'd like to see where you fall. Do you think that you actively submit your will to God's and this leads to the good things you do? Or do you think that you stay passive in your will, which lets the Spirit do good works through you?

God clearly allows people to believe in things that are not correct. I'm not an ECT believer, so I'll just leave it there, and disagree as to the remainder.

The Banned said:

---

The part that I am curious about is the part of the Church's response that was rejected. To paraphrase: man cooperates in his conversion. You would reject that, I assume?

Similarly, the Church's response to article XX on good works: Augsburg stays very generic and says works are a fruit of faith, without fleshing out what that means. The response says that man plays an active role in doing those works, and therefore, choosing to do or not do has implications on justification/salvation.

Because the article was a bit vague, all I can do is rely on Lutheran apologists I can find. Of course these guys aren't authoritative, I'd like to see where you fall. Do you think that you actively submit your will to God's and this leads to the good things you do? Or do you think that you stay passive in your will, which lets the Spirit do good works through you?

---

this?

"[8] Rejected here are those who teach that we can keep the commandments of God without grace and the Holy Spirit. For although we are by nature able to do the external works of the commandments, yet we cannot do the supreme commandments in the heart, namely, truly to fear, love, and believe in God"

This is what Rome said in the Confutation on this article:

Quote:

---

In the eighteenth article they confess the power of the Free Will - viz. that it has the power to work a civil righteousness, but that it has not, without the Holy Ghost, the virtue to work the righteousness of God. This confession is received and approved.

---

------------------

The Augsburg was intentionally written to be short and a summation of the faith. It was not an apology or a polemic work, but articles where the Reformers believed they could find unity with Rome.

The Apology of the Augsburg is the treatise that significantly increases the response by like 10x. It's a monster document.

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

I think most 'mega church' leaders wind up…getting sucked into the money/fame willfully or not (wait, is this a crossover into the 'free will' debate topic, LOL?). Most of that blog isn't particularly damning, but I do think he wound up committing plenty of bad acts at GTY etc. Hey, he was no Jimmy Swaggart, though (too soon?).

But part of that is also a reflection of having been an outspoken champion of a very unpopular theological position for decades, imho. One can see it in this thread, early on '…why Calvinism should have been abandoned from the start' etc.'

These topics are so sensitive/personal to many (at least, those who study them and take them seriously) that the differing ideas/theological positions drive very angry responses/debates/vitriol. The ideas/reasoning I still enjoy thinking through/discussing, but have come to accept that the 'hero's of the faith,' whether ancient such as Paul, Augustine, Origen etc. or much more current times are themselves quite acerbic men to read/think with, perhaps for a reason.

---

I suggested that Calvinism should have been abandoned from the start because it is literally a logcial contradiction. Not because MacArthur or RC or even Calvin himself are horrible, rotten people. What we can clearly see is that Calvin chose to interpret the bible in his own particular way. His particular way requires a logical contradiction. Rather than acknowledging that his particular interpretation might have reached a dead end, humbled himself, and considered an alternative, he plowed on ahead, certain that he had found the answer. It makes much more sense to me to abandon the illogical view than force a square peg into a round hole, but the reformers thought differently.

---

I used your explanatory judgment as to the tenets of Calvinism as an example of the attitude of some who take their faith seriously, but also have a lot of strong opinions/judgment about Calvinists and this set of doctrines. I frankly doubt you've read Calvin's Institutes though. Again, Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, Zwingli, and the leaders of the faith in both the Orthodox and Protestant/Reformed traditions are in my opinion often seen in their writings struggling with the details of their faith and beliefs as I expect 'good' Christians of all stripes do.

Luther would famously strike out words in his writings, and in the edges curse at the devil for having misled his thoughts. I enjoy the historical and theological debates but I don't dismiss Calvinism writ large as illogical, so we can continue to disagree, respectfully. Again, it's very difficult to paint Calvinists with such a broad brush anyway, as they wrestle with his ideas constantly (and notably of course TULIP is not a construct he literally used.). I think doing so, or espousing an idea that they are all believers in a logical contradiction reflects a low understanding/appreciation of the depth of the subject matter, which frankly is a challenge to explain briefly in a format as we have here.

---

Ironically, I think Calvin's system fails not because it's illogical, but because it tries to be too logical. In many ways, it's the same critique I have of Rome. Both systems seek to answer questions that the Bible is silent on.

The most obvious (to me) is the Lord's Supper.

Calvin sought to explain 'how" Jesus was found in the Lord's Supper and turned to logic to try and solve it. The historical critique from Lutherans has been that this actually changes the nature of Jesus as explained in the Scriptures by seeking a sort of "nestorian" divide. This is found in his [in]famous Consensus Tigurinus document Article 25:

Quote:

---

And that no ambiguity may remain when we say that Christ is to be sought in Heaven, the expression implies and is understood by us to intimate distance of place. For though philosophically speaking there is no place above the skies, yet as the body of Christ, bearing the nature and mode of a human body, is finite and is contained in Heaven as its place, it is necessarily as distant from us in point of space as Heaven is from Earth.

---

Likewise, Rome needed a philosophical answer to "how" the body and blood of Jesus was found in the Eucharist, which led them to transubstantiation as the answer.

It's the lack of comfort with mystery that seemingly led both groups down a path into error.

---

His idea of double predestination is highly logical. If God does all the saving then He also must do the not saving.

Where his logic fails is on why God doesn't just save everyone. God says He wants to save everyone, He does 100% of the saving, but He doesn't save everyone, despite the fact that He wants. This is a clear example of a logical contradiction. In my opinion, stating this as fact rather than humbly considering you've run into a brick wall is creating an unnecessary box to put God in.

I don't think the Catholic Church "needs" an answer to everything. But I would say that if an answer exists the Church can be gifted with the answer. I think you'd agree that if the answer does exist, we aren't required to not understand it. We aren't required to stay in the dark. For example, the teaching of the real presence was being doubted and Thomas was gifted with the ability to put it into better terms. It wasn't something that was "needed", but was revealed to assist the faithful. And even then, Thomas still has to appeal to mystery of God's power to do this thing that no human can do.

---

I don't think it fails though.

Calvinists are most often going to point to Romans 9 as proof.

"Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
"Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?"

To be clear, I don't think they are correct in their interpretation, but when you apply the maximal philosophy, versus like this do support their claim.

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I agree.

It can be an unsettling thing to do, but finding comfort in the mystery or paradox of God is not easy. We always want the "why." In some cases, it can lead to a deeper understanding of the Scriptures. In others, it can lead to applying philosophical/logical systems to the text vs letting the text speak for itself.

---

It is generally agreed that this is impossible outside of the most basic of texts. Everyone is going to apply an exteriorly held framework to the texts they read. It's impossible to do otherwise.

---

this would be a whole other thread, but no I don't think it's impossible to do and there's some significant historical support that this was the method most frequently used by many of the Church Fathers.

Philosophy does have its purposes in trying to explain things, but when we take a philosophical base and use it to interpret Scripture beyond what we have available, that is when it becomes problematic.

Case in point, when you mention Thomas Aquinas essentially developing transubstantiation by applying a philosophical method to the text make a claim that historically wouldn't have been made.

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

The part that I am curious about is the part of the Church's response that was rejected. To paraphrase: man cooperates in his conversion. You would reject that, I assume?

Similarly, the Church's response to article XX on good works: Augsburg stays very generic and says works are a fruit of faith, without fleshing out what that means. The response says that man plays an active role in doing those works, and therefore, choosing to do or not do has implications on justification/salvation.

Because the article was a bit vague, all I can do is rely on Lutheran apologists I can find. Of course these guys aren't authoritative, I'd like to see where you fall. Do you think that you actively submit your will to God's and this leads to the good things you do? Or do you think that you stay passive in your will, which lets the Spirit do good works through you?

---

this?

"[8] Rejected here are those who teach that we can keep the commandments of God without grace and the Holy Spirit. For although we are by nature able to do the external works of the commandments, yet we cannot do the supreme commandments in the heart, namely, truly to fear, love, and believe in God"

This is what Rome said in the Confutation on this article:

Quote:

---

In the eighteenth article they confess the power of the Free Will - viz. that it has the power to work a civil righteousness, but that it has not, without the Holy Ghost, the virtue to work the righteousness of God. This confession is received and approved.

---

------------------

The Augsburg was intentionally written to be short and a summation of the faith. It was not an apology or a polemic work, but articles where the Reformers believed they could find unity with Rome.

The Apology of the Augsburg is the treatise that significantly increases the response by like 10x. It's a monster document.

---

The refutations from Rome more or less say "Yes! And also....". So yes, we can do no goo thing without the Holy Spirit, but we are still active agents in cooperating with the Holy Spirit after, which is where we get into what works are and do.

I'm trying to balance Augsburg with Luther's own writings in Bondage of the Will where he writes that after grace, any good work we do is God as active agent and us as passive agent that He is using. I know BotW is not dogmatic, so I am not trying to hold you to that. However, most Lutheran apologists I have come across teach this as truth. What are your thoughts? After initial justification, are we active agents in doing the good works (i.e. assenting our will to do the good) or are we passive agents (God is doing the work through us as a sort of vessel)

AgLiving06 said:

---

I don't think it fails though.

Calvinists are most often going to point to Romans 9 as proof.

"Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
"Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?"

To be clear, I don't think they are correct in their interpretation, but when you apply the maximal philosophy, versus like this do support their claim.

---

Here is why I think it fails:

1. God desires all men be saved
2. God does 100% of the act of saving man, and man has a passive role in being saved
3. God does not save all men. God gets what He wants, so He must not want to save everyone.

1 and 3 clearly contradict. I don't see how anyone can say otherwise. He both wants what He doesn't want and doesn't want what He wants. And they contradict because of number 2. The appeal to mystery here is because of an unwillingness to reconsider #2.

Curious your thoughts...

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I agree.

It can be an unsettling thing to do, but finding comfort in the mystery or paradox of God is not easy. We always want the "why." In some cases, it can lead to a deeper understanding of the Scriptures. In others, it can lead to applying philosophical/logical systems to the text vs letting the text speak for itself.

---

It is generally agreed that this is impossible outside of the most basic of texts. Everyone is going to apply an exteriorly held framework to the texts they read. It's impossible to do otherwise.

---

this would be a whole other thread, but no I don't think it's impossible to do and there's some significant historical support that this was the method most frequently used by many of the Church Fathers.

Philosophy does have its purposes in trying to explain things, but when we take a philosophical base and use it to interpret Scripture beyond what we have available, that is when it becomes problematic.

Case in point, when you mention Thomas Aquinas essentially developing transubstantiation by applying a philosophical method to the text make a claim that historically wouldn't have been made.

---

We can take it to another thread you'd like to go further. I doubt we'd want to go into a whole thread worth of detail, but I'm open to it. For now, I'll just say that linguists, philosophers, hermeneuticists, etc all agree that a neutral reading of text is impossible. If man reads a text, man exerts his own thoughts onto that text, unless it is something incredibly bland like "the sky is blue"

Example: Sola scriptura is not found in the bible. It's an extra-biblical teaching that sets up a philosophical framework on how to approach the bible. Anyone who reads the bible believing in sola scriptura is going to see any biblical text advocating for the Chair of Peter differently than someone who believes that there is an infallible Church authority alongside scripture. Same exact texts. Different interpretations. You don't have any more neutral of an interpretation than I do because there are external views being applied on both our parts. Your external view excludes the possibility of an infallible Church authority and mine includes it. The text can't speak for itself. It just doesn't work.

For a second example, you say:

Quote:

---

when you mention Thomas Aquinas essentially developing transubstantiation by applying a philosophical method to the text make a claim that historically wouldn't have been made.

---

What I said was that Thomas, as a member of the Church, was gifted with the ability and insight to understand how the real presence works. I didn't say he applied a philosophical method, but that the philosophical method was the avenue by which God helped him come to an answer. I would say that my meaning must not have been clearly expressed and, because of that, you misinterpreted me. But you can only know that I think you misinterpreted me because I'm still here to clarify. Had I been hit by a bus, you would be stuck with the above quote as final interpretation, despite it not accurately reflecting the author's intent.

And to be clear, I'm not offering any sort of proof that Thomas was correct. I'm merely showing that neutral reading of a text is impossible.

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I agree.

It can be an unsettling thing to do, but finding comfort in the mystery or paradox of God is not easy. We always want the "why." In some cases, it can lead to a deeper understanding of the Scriptures. In others, it can lead to applying philosophical/logical systems to the text vs letting the text speak for itself.

---

It is generally agreed that this is impossible outside of the most basic of texts. Everyone is going to apply an exteriorly held framework to the texts they read. It's impossible to do otherwise.

---

this would be a whole other thread, but no I don't think it's impossible to do and there's some significant historical support that this was the method most frequently used by many of the Church Fathers.

Philosophy does have its purposes in trying to explain things, but when we take a philosophical base and use it to interpret Scripture beyond what we have available, that is when it becomes problematic.

Case in point, when you mention Thomas Aquinas essentially developing transubstantiation by applying a philosophical method to the text make a claim that historically wouldn't have been made.

---

We can take it to another thread you'd like to go further. I doubt we'd want to go into a whole thread worth of detail, but I'm open to it. For now, I'll just say that linguists, philosophers, hermeneuticists, etc all agree that a neutral reading of text is impossible. If man reads a text, man exerts his own thoughts onto that text, unless it is something incredibly bland like "the sky is blue"

Example: Sola scriptura is not found in the bible. It's an extra-biblical teaching that sets up a philosophical framework on how to approach the bible. Anyone who reads the bible believing in sola scriptura is going to see any biblical text advocating for the Chair of Peter differently than someone who believes that there is an infallible Church authority alongside scripture. Same exact texts. Different interpretations. You don't have any more neutral of an interpretation than I do because there are external views being applied on both our parts. Your external view excludes the possibility of an infallible Church authority and mine includes it. The text can't speak for itself. It just doesn't work.

For a second example, you say:

Quote:

---

when you mention Thomas Aquinas essentially developing transubstantiation by applying a philosophical method to the text make a claim that historically wouldn't have been made.

---

What I said was that Thomas, as a member of the Church, was gifted with the ability and insight to understand how the real presence works. I didn't say he applied a philosophical method, but that the philosophical method was the avenue by which God helped him come to an answer. I would say that my meaning must not have been clearly expressed and, because of that, you misinterpreted me. But you can only know that I think you misinterpreted me because I'm still here to clarify. Had I been hit by a bus, you would be stuck with the above quote as final interpretation, despite it not accurately reflecting the author's intent.

And to be clear, I'm not offering any sort of proof that Thomas was correct. I'm merely showing that neutral reading of a text is impossible.

---

Agree with this completely. Once you get your lens based your view on atonement and soteriology, every Scripture you read is interpreted to fit your pre reading bias.

Quote:

---

Example: Sola scriptura is not found in the bible. It's an extra-biblical teaching that sets up a philosophical framework on how to approach the bible. Anyone who reads the bible believing in sola scriptura is going to see any biblical text advocating for the Chair of Peter differently than someone who believes that there is an infallible Church authority alongside scripture.

---

I think this is another fairly common misunderstanding from an RCC perspective. The sola's aren't intended, paradoxically, to operate on their own, but in conjunction. More. The dogmatic pinnacle is "All Glory to God."

Quote:

---

We like to think there's something for us to add to the satisfaction and obedience of Christ or to the inspired Word of the prophets and apostles, and even that God is wonderfully honored by our contribution. But the Reformers perceived that the perfect Word and work of Christprecisely because they are perfectneed nothing to supplement them. Anything that tries to supplement them, in fact, challenges their perfection and dishonors God's Word and work in Christ.

If the Roman Catholic doctrine of authority and doctrine of salvation are true, all glory thus does not belong to God alone. And God, Scripture tells us, will share his glory with no other (Isa. 42:8).

We might think of it in another way. By holding forth soli Deo gloria as the lifeblood of the solas, we remind ourselves that the biblical religion recaptured by the Reformation is not ultimately about ourselves, but about God. Our focus so easily becomes self-centered, even when we ask the same important questions that occupied the Reformers: Where can I find God's authoritative revelation? How can I escape the wrath of God? What must I do to be saved?

The other four solas provide necessary and life-changing answers to such questions, but soli Deo gloria puts them in proper perspective: the highest purpose of God's plan of salvation in Christ, made known in Scripture, is not our own beatitude, wonderful as that is. The highest purpose is God's own glory. God glorifies himself through the abundant blessings he bestows upon us.

---

A very important distinction, imho, in Calvinist/Reformist theology vs. others. I think dwelling on the fine line distinctions as to the Eucharist, ECT, high/low Calvinism etc. are very much so secondary to this.

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

Example: Sola scriptura is not found in the bible. It's an extra-biblical teaching that sets up a philosophical framework on how to approach the bible. Anyone who reads the bible believing in sola scriptura is going to see any biblical text advocating for the Chair of Peter differently than someone who believes that there is an infallible Church authority alongside scripture.

---

I think this is another fairly common misunderstanding from an RCC perspective. The sola's aren't intended, paradoxically, to operate on their own, but in conjunction. More. The dogmatic pinnacle is "All Glory to God."

Quote:

---

We like to think there's something for us to add to the satisfaction and obedience of Christ or to the inspired Word of the prophets and apostles, and even that God is wonderfully honored by our contribution. But the Reformers perceived that the perfect Word and work of Christprecisely because they are perfectneed nothing to supplement them. Anything that tries to supplement them, in fact, challenges their perfection and dishonors God's Word and work in Christ.

If the Roman Catholic doctrine of authority and doctrine of salvation are true, all glory thus does not belong to God alone. And God, Scripture tells us, will share his glory with no other (Isa. 42:8).

We might think of it in another way. By holding forth soli Deo gloria as the lifeblood of the solas, we remind ourselves that the biblical religion recaptured by the Reformation is not ultimately about ourselves, but about God. Our focus so easily becomes self-centered, even when we ask the same important questions that occupied the Reformers: Where can I find God's authoritative revelation? How can I escape the wrath of God? What must I do to be saved?

The other four solas provide necessary and life-changing answers to such questions, but soli Deo gloria puts them in proper perspective: the highest purpose of God's plan of salvation in Christ, made known in Scripture, is not our own beatitude, wonderful as that is. The highest purpose is God's own glory. God glorifies himself through the abundant blessings he bestows upon us.

---

A very important distinction, imho, in Calvinist/Reformist theology vs. others. I think dwelling on the fine line distinctions as to the Eucharist, ECT, high/low Calvinism etc. are very much so secondary to this.

---

Let's keep the exercise going:

Bolded #1. I didn't say this or intend this. You interpreted my words to mean this. A great example of how the plain meaning of words isn't always apparent. (And to be clear, I don't think you did so intentionally or mean to imply you are twisting my words).

Bolded #2: This would agree with what I was saying. It was the perception of the Reformers that formed their interpretation of scripture. The idea of the solas is not from scripture itself, but from the men who held to the solas. Why should I trust their framework and interpretation over that of anyone else? Either way, I am putting my trust in the method of interpretation given to me by others or of my own creation.

Bolded #3: This is personal interpretation by the author and/or reformers. Catholics certainly do not believe we are taking from God's glory. It's all His. We do believe we share in His glory, and there are a number of bible verses that express this. It's all His and He gives it to us to share in it with Him.

The interpretive framework you are espousing will lead you to interpret the following passage differently than me. What do you think Romans 8: 14-17 is saying here:

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. 15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, "Abba![m] Father!" 16 it is that very Spirit bearing witness[n] with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christif, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him

I don't think I misinterpreted anything (and try not to re-state/denigrate different beliefs, certainly here), but either way, Sola Scriptura is a significant doctrine, I would agree, in the reformed framework. I just don't think it's the 'most significant' one. The emphasis, or de-emphasis on the Word of God is a significant differentiator and I don't think it is Biblically unsupported.

Quote:

---

The doctrine of sola scriptura has shaped the course of Christian history and remains deeply influential today.

Whether you agree or disagree with the doctrine, it's clear that this principle has had a lasting impact on how Christians engage with the Bible.

It encourages personal Bible study, highlights the sufficiency of Scripture, and keeps believers focused on God's Word as the ultimate authority.

I personally don't think that there is any question whether or not the Bible is the one and only source of truth as John 1:1 says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

---

The poetic echos of Genesis in John's pre-amble strike me as true. More at the link, which while not perfect is a decent overview of textual support for the doctrine.

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

The part that I am curious about is the part of the Church's response that was rejected. To paraphrase: man cooperates in his conversion. You would reject that, I assume?

Similarly, the Church's response to article XX on good works: Augsburg stays very generic and says works are a fruit of faith, without fleshing out what that means. The response says that man plays an active role in doing those works, and therefore, choosing to do or not do has implications on justification/salvation.

Because the article was a bit vague, all I can do is rely on Lutheran apologists I can find. Of course these guys aren't authoritative, I'd like to see where you fall. Do you think that you actively submit your will to God's and this leads to the good things you do? Or do you think that you stay passive in your will, which lets the Spirit do good works through you?

---

this?

"[8] Rejected here are those who teach that we can keep the commandments of God without grace and the Holy Spirit. For although we are by nature able to do the external works of the commandments, yet we cannot do the supreme commandments in the heart, namely, truly to fear, love, and believe in God"

This is what Rome said in the Confutation on this article:

Quote:

---

In the eighteenth article they confess the power of the Free Will - viz. that it has the power to work a civil righteousness, but that it has not, without the Holy Ghost, the virtue to work the righteousness of God. This confession is received and approved.

---

------------------

The Augsburg was intentionally written to be short and a summation of the faith. It was not an apology or a polemic work, but articles where the Reformers believed they could find unity with Rome.

The Apology of the Augsburg is the treatise that significantly increases the response by like 10x. It's a monster document.

---

The refutations from Rome more or less say "Yes! And also....". So yes, we can do no goo thing without the Holy Spirit, but we are still active agents in cooperating with the Holy Spirit after, which is where we get into what works are and do.

I'm trying to balance Augsburg with Luther's own writings in Bondage of the Will where he writes that after grace, any good work we do is God as active agent and us as passive agent that He is using. I know BotW is not dogmatic, so I am not trying to hold you to that. However, most Lutheran apologists I have come across teach this as truth. What are your thoughts? After initial justification, are we active agents in doing the good works (i.e. assenting our will to do the good) or are we passive agents (God is doing the work through us as a sort of vessel)

---

Yes, which the Lutheran's in a sense agree with. Pointing out that that when understood correctly, they agreed as well. Again, I think you're trying to find disagreement in a place where there really just wasn't any. Even the apology's response is rather short when compared to other sections. There just isn't this vast disagreement you're after.


The problem with Bondage of the Will is not that it isn't a good work. When understood correctly, it's a great work.

The problem is it was written ahead of debates such as double predestination (it was written in 1525.
- 11 years before Calvin wrote the first "institutes" and over 30 years before what became the definitive version in 1559).
- 4-5 years before the Augsburg Confession was even written and presented.

So as tends to happen, when the future debate comes up, various groups, such as Calvinists, try to find support in Luther for their position and they think they find it in Bondage of the Will.

The problem they have is Luther wrote a lot on a lot of topics, and we know clearly from his writings that he never held to double predestination. Calvinists don't point to any other of his works to justify their position. Just this one because they are reading their theology back into his writings because similar words were used.
----------------------

Quote:

---

After initial justification, are we active agents in doing the good works (i.e. assenting our will to do the good) or are we passive agents (God is doing the work through us as a sort of vessel)

---

Again, as said above, it depends on what you mean by good works.

Good works as it relates to not stealing? or not murdering? We aren't robots. We have the ability to know "right" and "wrong" in the civil sense. Defined this way, we absolutely are able to assent and even freely choose to do good or bad.

Good works at it relates to God? No and Rome agrees:

"In the eighteenth article they confess the power of the Free Will - viz. that it has the power to work a civil righteousness, but that it has not, without the Holy Ghost, the virtue to work the righteousness of God. This confession is received and approved."

We cannot honor or fear God correctly without His grace. How could we?

Quote:

---

I personally don't think that there is any question whether or not the Bible is the one and only source of truth as John 1:1 says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

---

Is the suggestion here that "the Word" of John 1:1 is the bible?

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

I personally don't think that there is any question whether or not the Bible is the one and only source of truth as John 1:1 says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

---

Is the suggestion here that "the Word" of John 1:1 is the bible?

---

No, why do I feel like this is a trick question? The gospel of John must be viewed as a cohesive message, imho, and in this instance it is a reference via allegory to Genesis of course, as to Jesus' role/existence being existant prior to His life. God came to reside with his people after the temple's destruction. Water into wine, clearing the temple, Nicodemus etc.

None of this really plays into denominational debates, again my two cents, or deference to 'tradition' vs. the Word. Jesus was…the Word.

nortex97 said:

---

I don't think I misinterpreted anything (and try not to re-state/denigrate different beliefs, certainly here), but either way, Sola Scriptura is a significant doctrine, I would agree, in the reformed framework. I just don't think it's the 'most significant' one. The emphasis, or de-emphasis on the Word of God is a significant differentiator and I don't think it is Biblically unsupported.

Quote:

---

The doctrine of sola scriptura has shaped the course of Christian history and remains deeply influential today.

Whether you agree or disagree with the doctrine, it's clear that this principle has had a lasting impact on how Christians engage with the Bible.

It encourages personal Bible study, highlights the sufficiency of Scripture, and keeps believers focused on God's Word as the ultimate authority.

I personally don't think that there is any question whether or not the Bible is the one and only source of truth as John 1:1 says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

---

The poetic echos of Genesis in John's pre-amble strike me as true. More at the link, which while not perfect is a decent overview of textual support for the doctrine.

---

So you agree that it's the interpretation of scripture that we are following rather than "letting the text speak for itself"?

Thanks to Zobel for pointing to how this post suggests John 1:1 is saying something it isn't, and props to you for agreeing with him that is not what John 1:1 means. Now, if one simple statement could be taken so out of context, imagine how much interpretation is need for the entire work of the bible!!!

This seems fairly hostile. I am not sure what you are expecting me to respond with. I think we do better in this discussion of Calvinism with an ecumenical focus, vs. one that is more adversarial, which I have often withdrawn from.

John is a beautiful gospel/text that lays bare the need for the faithful to study the word, and understand the message in my opinion.

nortex97 said:

---

This seems fairly hostile. I am not sure what you are expecting me to respond with. I think we do better in this discussion of Calvinism with an ecumenical focus, vs. one that is more adversarial, which I have often withdrawn from.

John is a beautiful gospel/text that lays bare the need for the faithful to study the word, and understand the message in my opinion.

---

I don't mean to be hostile and apologize if I came across that way. You've been very gracious. I'm probably being too hurried in my reply. I will try to be more careful going forward

I think conversations can become much more ecumenical when we realize that sola scriptura ultimately results in sola interpretatio. Sola Scriptura is often used to shut down conversation between Catholic/EOs and Protestants because there is an assumption that the protestant stance is a simple reading of the text, while the Catholic/EO position is "adding" something. If we can all agree that everyone is using an extra-biblical framework to interpret the text, then we can have a better conversation over who's interpretation is correct.

But to your point prior, I agree sola scriptura is not the core tenet of Protestantism. That's why I started this thread about the Sovereignty of God being the core issue. We can all agree God is fully sovereign. The disagreement arises when we interpret the bible and arrive at differing conclusions on what God's sovereignty looks like. When sola scriptura is appealed to, it oftentimes doesn't realize that it's an appeal to sola interpretatio, which is an appeal to whatever authority we agree with. There is ALWAYS an authority running parallel to scripture we have to appeal to. There is no way around it.

I'm working my way through the Formula of Concord, where BotW is cited a number of times. I want to be fair in my understanding of it, so I'll refrain from quote mining here. I'll simply give my take on what I'm reading and ask for your input, and I'll keep my terminology very informal:
It seems to me that the Holy Spirit does the full reworking of man without our consent. After this is done, we have to do good works, even though these good works do nothing towards our salvation. But if we don't do good works, it's because we're fighting against the Spirit trying to get us to do good works. So if we don't do them, we're not saved.

The problem I have here is that it seems the Holy Spirit is very willing to overwhelm our conscience and force us into believing. So anyone who never believed is a person who the Spirit passed over (I guess this is where "single predestination" comes from??). And anyone who fell from the faith is a person the Spirit could have made maintain the faith (since He was the sole source of the person believing to begin with) and chose not to. This leaves us (in my estimation) two options to explain those that are saved:

1. The person who chooses to stay with the faith (which means the person who does the works the Spirit prompts) is saved. So we do have to actively choose to do the good works. In that sense, the good works save, because the good works come from our willing obedience. Or
2. The person who stays with the faith was continuously preserved by the spirit, who alone ensured that they did good works in willing obedience. This means the person's choice was never really a factor. The Spirit exerted enough influence to ensure the person would not fall.

I'm trying to find a 3rd option but don't see one. I'd like to get your opinion on this. I know the Catholic view is distorted all the time, so I'm doing my best to not return in kind.

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I don't think it fails though.

Calvinists are most often going to point to Romans 9 as proof.

"Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
"Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?"

To be clear, I don't think they are correct in their interpretation, but when you apply the maximal philosophy, versus like this do support their claim.

---

Here is why I think it fails:

1. God desires all men be saved
2. God does 100% of the act of saving man, and man has a passive role in being saved
3. God does not save all men. God gets what He wants, so He must not want to save everyone.

1 and 3 clearly contradict. I don't see how anyone can say otherwise. He both wants what He doesn't want and doesn't want what He wants. And they contradict because of number 2. The appeal to mystery here is because of an unwillingness to reconsider #2.

Curious your thoughts...

---

Again, just for clarity sake, I think Calvin is wrong. I do not hold to his standards or beliefs. Double predestination is wrong.

But here's their standard response:

In your scenario:

Your first and third premise don't just contradict themselves in in Calvinism, but in most views including yours and mine. Because if God desires something to happen who has the will or desire to overcome that? I believe Dermdoc has made a similar arguments for universalism, which is really the logical conclusion of your first statement.

Therefore, Calvinists claim when God refers to all, he must not mean all of creation, or all of humanity, but all of "His people." So your first premise can't actually mean what you want it to mean.

Again, I don't hold to this view. I think they are wrong on many fronts, but this is why they are logically consistent. They see those two points you make and use logic to reconcile it.