The Banned said:

---

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 FOC only references Bondage of the Will once as far as I know and doesn't quote it, but summarizes it as best.

But lets start with where Rome and Lutherans agree.

Quote:

---

n 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.

---

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

Now lets look at your premises.

"The problem I have here is that it seems the Holy Spirit is very willing to overwhelm our conscience and force us into believing."

You're drawing a conclusion that's not supported by Scriptures and/or anything Luther said. Nowhere are we "forced to believe." The very concept of Scripture and of Lutheranism is that we are never forced to believe, we only can reject, and clearly many reject. We can look to Luthers most controversial book about the Jews to see that his biggest frustration is that they could hear the Gospel and still reject Jesus.

However, is the Holy Spirit overwhelming? Sure! Is it passionate? Sure! We are hearing the Word of God, and yet we know from this very forum, that many have heard and yet reject God.

"So anyone who never believed is a person who the Spirit passed over (I guess this is where "single predestination" comes from??)."

No. As said above, it's a paradox. We don't choose or come to salvation of our own. We don't have that power or ability. But we can reject God (and in a sense we reject him every day). It's His grace that continues to draw us to him. So is someone passed over? No. Did they hear the Word of God and walk away or reject it? Unfortunately yes.

"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 viewpoint would ignore/dismiss the role of Original Sin and the work it does in trying to put us back in the chains of sin. In our fallen state, we naturally desire to sin. It's what comes most easy. It's always there tempting us to "put the chains back on."

"This means the person's choice was never really a factor. The Spirit exerted enough influence to ensure the person would not fall."

Based on the above, this conclusion becomes false.

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

Quote:

---

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.

---

Justification is monergistic. That is, my salvation is solely because of the works of Jesus. He is sufficient.

Sanctification is synergistic. I said it before, but there was no concept of "once saved, always saved" at this point. That came much later. Just because we are justified does not mean we are free to sin as we wish. We are never strong enough to stand up to sin or satan or his followers. So we absolutely work out our faith with fear and trembling. Not because it somehow contributes to our salvation, but because we are following the very Words of God, and the very reason we were created.

So I'm presuming you're trying to say option 2 is somehow the Lutheran position, but it's more closely related to option 1, with the proper understanding of justification and sanctification.

Hope that helps.

I will say that given everything going on, I've liked this chat as a distraction. I am however emotionally drained, so I may not respond to anything for the remainder of the night. I'll try and get to anything tomorrow.

that's why asked, because it seems to imply that Bible is the Word there. Otherwise I don't understand why they're using John 1 there.

AgLiving06 said:

---

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.

---

Edit because I responded hastily. I'll ask this instead: Does this mean that Calvinists are relying on interpretation of text, despite claiming they are taking the plain reading of the text? How can anyone be assured they are just reading the text versus bringing their own interpretation to it?


Second, I am saying 1 and 3 cannot coexist. It is incoherent as it is written. It's illogical. Logic, instead, works this way:

1. God desires all men be saved
2. ???
3. All men aren't saved

How some men fail to be saved is up for debate, but since we have not pre-filled #2 with "God does 100% of the saving", we have the opportunity to use the laws of logic He has given to parse out out.

Zobel said:

---

that's why asked, because it seems to imply that Bible is the Word there. Otherwise I don't understand why they're using John 1 there.

---

The word is of paramount importance though to the people of the book. Hence, the sola, highlighting the metaphorical parallel.

I'm no Greek expert but Logos was not equivalent to what we know as the Bible.

A note from the BLB: A Greek philosopher named Hera****us first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe.

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

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.

---

Edit because I responded hastily. I'll ask this instead: Does this mean that Calvinists are relying on interpretation of text, despite claiming they are taking the plain reading of the text? How can anyone be assured they are just reading the text versus bringing their own interpretation to it?


Second, I am saying 1 and 3 cannot coexist. It is incoherent as it is written. It's illogical. Logic, instead, works this way:

1. God desires all men be saved
2. ???
3. All men aren't saved

How some men fail to be saved is up for debate, but since we have not pre-filled #2 with "God does 100% of the saving", we have the opportunity to use the laws of logic He has given to parse out out.

---

Again the disclaimer. I'm not a Calvinist. I think they are wrong.

My personal take is that Calvinists are not taking the plain reading of the text approach to Scripture. I made that point earlier. Instead of letting Scripture interpret Scripture, which I would argue was the historical method, Calvin (being a lawyer) applied philosophy to Scripture (see my comments above on Consensus Tigurinus).

I'll reiterate why with the Lord's Supper. Their argument is typically that yes Jesus is in the Lord's Supper, but it is only his Spiritual body. Why? Because logically the physical human body of Jesus could not be there because as we all know, a physical body can only be in one place at one time. So the physical body must be at the right hand of the Father, but the Spiritual body can be everywhere.

That's certainly not utilizing a plain reading of the text because Jesus never makes that sort of distinction, and frankly there are real Nestorian concerns imo.

It's a philosophical argument not a Scriptural argument.
------------------------------

So that I understand your position,

Do you believe your first premise is incorrect? I.e. God does not desire that all men be saved?

Quote:

---

Do you believe your first premise is incorrect? I.e. God does not desire that all men be saved?

---

Nope. I definitely believe He wants all men to be saved. I must not have been clear. Let me reformulate.

All Christians agree: God desires to save all men

Almost all (not universalists) agree: Not all are saved.

How do we reconcile this? This is very simplistic, but to keep it simple, we have three options.

A) God allows us to choose or reject Him
B) God chooses not to give the saving grace to the lost, intentionally leaving them out
C) God doesn't have the power to save everyone.

A is a logical conclusion. He wants us to choose to follow Him, but not everyone does.

B creates a logical fallacy because we're saying that God both wants to save everyone and doesn't want to save everyone at the same time. He actively desires both at the same time. It's like God saying "I am that I am… and I am that I am not". It's not a mystery. It's just broken thinking.

C directly impugns the sovereignty of God, which is what most reformed folks think we're doing with A. A doesn't limit His sovereignty if He is the one allowing the choice to happen.

Hope that makes more sense

Quote:

---

"The problem I have here is that it seems the Holy Spirit is very willing to overwhelm our conscience and force us into believing."

---

To avoid quoting walls of text from the Book of Concord, I'm taking this from statements like (my paraphrasing) 'The Holy Spirit makes willing men of the unwilling', 'our cooperation is from the powers of the Holy Spirit' and others like it. It sounds like the Spirit comes in and changes you on His accord, correct? It seems like you are, at least initially, forced into knowing God, and He will keep you knowing Him unless you reject Him. The reason for accepting is all Him, but the reason for rejecting is all us/concupiscence?

Everything else I wrote is downstream from this, so I'd like to see how accurate or inaccurate I am here.

The Banned said:

---

Quote:

---

Do you believe your first premise is incorrect? I.e. God does not desire that all men be saved?

---

Nope. I definitely believe He wants all men to be saved. I must not have been clear. Let me reformulate.

All Christians agree: God desires to save all men

Almost all (not universalists) agree: Not all are saved.

How do we reconcile this? This is very simplistic, but to keep it simple, we have three options.

A) God allows us to choose or reject Him
B) God chooses not to give the saving grace to the lost, intentionally leaving them out
C) God doesn't have the power to save everyone.

A is a logical conclusion. He wants us to choose to follow Him, but not everyone does.

B creates a logical fallacy because we're saying that God both wants to save everyone and doesn't want to save everyone at the same time. He actively desires both at the same time. It's like God saying "I am that I am… and I am that I am not". It's not a mystery. It's just broken thinking.

C directly impugns the sovereignty of God, which is what most reformed folks think we're doing with A. A doesn't limit His sovereignty if He is the one allowing the choice to happen.

Hope that makes more sense

---

Do Calvinists really believe that God desires to save all men? The ones I know say that those verses mean "all types of men" or God's "elect men"

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Quote:

---

Do you believe your first premise is incorrect? I.e. God does not desire that all men be saved?

---

Nope. I definitely believe He wants all men to be saved. I must not have been clear. Let me reformulate.

All Christians agree: God desires to save all men

Almost all (not universalists) agree: Not all are saved.

How do we reconcile this? This is very simplistic, but to keep it simple, we have three options.

A) God allows us to choose or reject Him
B) God chooses not to give the saving grace to the lost, intentionally leaving them out
C) God doesn't have the power to save everyone.

A is a logical conclusion. He wants us to choose to follow Him, but not everyone does.

B creates a logical fallacy because we're saying that God both wants to save everyone and doesn't want to save everyone at the same time. He actively desires both at the same time. It's like God saying "I am that I am… and I am that I am not". It's not a mystery. It's just broken thinking.

C directly impugns the sovereignty of God, which is what most reformed folks think we're doing with A. A doesn't limit His sovereignty if He is the one allowing the choice to happen.

Hope that makes more sense

---

Do Calvinists really believe that God desires to save all men? The ones I know say that those verses mean "all types of men" or God's "elect men"

---

That's fair. I forgot that Calvin interpreted the passage that way. I guess it does "solve" the logical issue. We're back to interpretive authority then. Thanks for that

The Banned said:

---

Quote:

---

Do you believe your first premise is incorrect? I.e. God does not desire that all men be saved?

---

Nope. I definitely believe He wants all men to be saved. I must not have been clear. Let me reformulate.

All Christians agree: God desires to save all men

Almost all (not universalists) agree: Not all are saved.

How do we reconcile this? This is very simplistic, but to keep it simple, we have three options.

A) God allows us to choose or reject Him
B) God chooses not to give the saving grace to the lost, intentionally leaving them out
C) God doesn't have the power to save everyone.

A is a logical conclusion. He wants us to choose to follow Him, but not everyone does.

B creates a logical fallacy because we're saying that God both wants to save everyone and doesn't want to save everyone at the same time. He actively desires both at the same time. It's like God saying "I am that I am… and I am that I am not". It's not a mystery. It's just broken thinking.

C directly impugns the sovereignty of God, which is what most reformed folks think we're doing with A. A doesn't limit His sovereignty if He is the one allowing the choice to happen.

Hope that makes more sense

---

Thanks. Functionally I agree though I would clarify that we don't chose salvation, but possess the ability to reject it. But different debate.

But essentially what you are arguing about is the "step 2" because you, Calvinist's, and I have the same issue. If God desires something, how can that not take place?

You came up with a step 2 (and with my modification above, I agree) that while God desires it, he allows us the ability to not choose it.

Calvin looked at it, and said all must not mean the universal all, but instead all believers.

And that's how they avoid the logical contradiction you are arguing for.

Again, I don't believe this is correct. I think they misunderstand Romans 9 (specifically). I think they try to read Romans 9 into the Gospels and I wouldn't do that.

But from a logical standpoint, they say that since not all are saved, that must mean God truly never wanted to save all of humanity, but just all of his people.

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Quote:

---

Do you believe your first premise is incorrect? I.e. God does not desire that all men be saved?

---

Nope. I definitely believe He wants all men to be saved. I must not have been clear. Let me reformulate.

All Christians agree: God desires to save all men

Almost all (not universalists) agree: Not all are saved.

How do we reconcile this? This is very simplistic, but to keep it simple, we have three options.

A) God allows us to choose or reject Him
B) God chooses not to give the saving grace to the lost, intentionally leaving them out
C) God doesn't have the power to save everyone.

A is a logical conclusion. He wants us to choose to follow Him, but not everyone does.

B creates a logical fallacy because we're saying that God both wants to save everyone and doesn't want to save everyone at the same time. He actively desires both at the same time. It's like God saying "I am that I am… and I am that I am not". It's not a mystery. It's just broken thinking.

C directly impugns the sovereignty of God, which is what most reformed folks think we're doing with A. A doesn't limit His sovereignty if He is the one allowing the choice to happen.

Hope that makes more sense

---

Do Calvinists really believe that God desires to save all men? The ones I know say that those verses mean "all types of men" or God's "elect men"

---

Exactly the point I've been trying to make!

The Banned said:

---

Quote:

---

"The problem I have here is that it seems the Holy Spirit is very willing to overwhelm our conscience and force us into believing."

---

To avoid quoting walls of text from the Book of Concord, I'm taking this from statements like (my paraphrasing) 'The Holy Spirit makes willing men of the unwilling', 'our cooperation is from the powers of the Holy Spirit' and others like it. It sounds like the Spirit comes in and changes you on His accord, correct? It seems like you are, at least initially, forced into knowing God, and He will keep you knowing Him unless you reject Him. The reason for accepting is all Him, but the reason for rejecting is all us/concupiscence?

Everything else I wrote is downstream from this, so I'd like to see how accurate or inaccurate I am here.

---

From my perspective, what is in bold is different than what you wrote below. The key difference being "Force us into believing."

As I thought about that phrase, that is truly a Calvinist phrase of irresistible grace. That is not something Lutherans hold to, but more applicable to our other conversation going here.

In the FOC section on Election:

"41 For few receive the Word and follow it; the greatest number despise the Word, and will not come to the wedding, Matt. 22:3ff The cause for this contempt for the Word is not God's foreknowledge [or predestination], but the perverse will of man, which rejects or perverts the means and instrument of the Holy Ghost, which God offers him through the call, and resists the Holy Ghost, who wishes to be efficacious, and works through the Word, as Christ says: How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not! Matt. 23:37.

42 Thus many receive the Word with joy, but afterwards fall away again, Luke 8:13. But the cause is not as though God were unwilling to grant grace for perseverance to those in whom He has begun the good work, for that is contrary to St. Paul, Phil. 1:6; but the cause is that they wilfully turn away again from the holy commandment [of God], grieve and embitter the Holy Ghost, implicate themselves again in the filth of the world, and garnish again the habitation of the heart for the devil. With them the last state is worse than the first, 2 Pet. 2:10. 20; Eph. 4:30; Heb. 10:26; Luke 11:25."

--------------
In terms of the Holy Spirit, the work of the Holy Spirit, God's grace precedes any action of man because our fallen state only knows sin.

From the section on Free Will:

40 In the Small Catechism of Dr. Luther it is thus written: I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me through the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, and sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith, etc."

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

You have to balance the two concepts because Scripture balances the two concepts.

It is only because of God's grace that we come to know him and be saved. It is only through God's grace that we are freed to grow in faith.

It is only through man's corruption and concupiscence that we reject Him. It is only through this that we turn further into sin.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Exactly the point I've been trying to make!

---

You did put that in one of your replies and I just missed it. My bad

dermdoc said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I still don't understand the connection, I'm sorry. The Word is Jesus. The Bible is not Jesus.

---

Agree. There were no Bibles in the early church. And very few could read.

---

I think this is a misunderstanding, respectfully. First, John, or the evangelist who wrote the gospel here, was really a theologian par excellence in the New Testament, possibly second only to (and earlier than) Paul. I'll provide a couple snippets here, one from Garry Wills again and the other FF Bruce;

And yes, while the people of Israel/Syria etc. were largely illiterate (as were the disciples, fwiw), the Jewish people (and culturally born/raised Jews who were followers) to whom the Evangelist (and his awareness/elevation of John the Baptist) speaks were uniquely then the "People of the Book" who had festivals and limits around even, for instance, when certain rabbi/priests could read various parts of the book (including parts of Daniel, not just "YHWH"). Many even today denigrate Judaism for its legalistic nature, but this only flows from their steadfast literary focus which was even around 70AD an ancient truth. John is simply trying to pull more of them into his faith.

The use of 'Logos' in the poem while referencing Genesis (and inserting references to John the Baptist) are direct theological/textual references to Jesus and John the Baptist being the fulfillment of the book, from beginning to end. I think it's far too simplistic to sum it up as 'well that was just code-word for Jesus.' God did bring the Torah, including Genesis, into written form, regardless if one thinks it was Moses, J/P/E etc. The reference is an incorporation as to how the rest of the Gospel will show this fulfillment to his listeners/readers.

nortex97 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I still don't understand the connection, I'm sorry. The Word is Jesus. The Bible is not Jesus.

---

Agree. There were no Bibles in the early church. And very few could read.

---

I think this is a misunderstanding, respectfully. First, John, or the evangelist who wrote the gospel here, was really a theologian par excellence in the New Testament, possibly second only to (and earlier than) Paul. I'll provide a couple snippets here, one from Garry Wills again and the other FF Bruce;

And yes, while the people of Israel/Syria etc. were largely illiterate (as were the disciples, fwiw), the Jewish people (and culturally born/raised Jews who were followers) to whom the Evangelist (and his awareness/elevation of John the Baptist) speaks were uniquely then the "People of the Book" who had festivals and limits around even, for instance, when certain rabbi/priests could read various parts of the book (including parts of Daniel, not just "YHWH"). Many even today denigrate Judaism for its legalistic nature, but this only flows from their steadfast literary focus which was even around 70AD an ancient truth. John is simply trying to pull more of them into his faith.

The use of 'Logos' in the poem while referencing Genesis (and inserting references to John the Baptist) are direct theological/textual references to Jesus and John the Baptist being the fulfillment of the book, from beginning to end. I think it's far too simplistic to sum it up as 'well that was just code-word for Jesus.' God did bring the Torah, including Genesis, into written form, regardless if one thinks it was Moses, J/P/E etc. The reference is an incorporation as to how the rest of the Gospel will show this fulfillment to his listeners/readers.

---

But sounds like it was oral teaching from the Pentateuch and oral stories of the Gospel as they were not printed yet.
Very few people owned Scripture and verges could read. So it was primarily all oral. Granted it was from the Pentateuch, but I do not believe it was like the people went home and read Scripture.

When I say "forced to believe" in Lutheran sense (we both reject the Calvinist sense) I mean in the initial justification. God puts the saving grace in there, without our consent, to rework our will, and then switches over to a consent-based sanctification in which we choose to cooperate with Him. So while not Calvinism by any stretch, doesn't the initial monergism still apply "force" to get the faith started?

It's not "code word" for Jesus. The Word is a recurring "character" if you will in the OT. St John is identifying the Word of Yahweh as Jesus.

The Banned said:

---

When I say "forced to believe" in Lutheran sense (we both reject the Calvinist sense) I mean in the initial justification. God puts the saving grace in there, without our consent, to rework our will, and then switches over to a consent-based sanctification in which we choose to cooperate with Him. So while not Calvinism by any stretch, doesn't the initial monergism still apply "force" to get the faith started?

---

Justification isn't a one and done situation where you transition out of it.

We talk about Justification in all tenses. Past, Present and Future. We see that in how Luther talked about the benefits of Baptism.

From the Small Catechism:

"[12] What then is the significance of such a baptism with water? Answer:
It signifies that the old creature in us with all sins and evil desires is to be drowned and die through daily contrition and repentance,82 and on the other hand that daily a new person is to come forth and rise up to live before God in righteousness and purity forever."

Justification is an ongoing process where we are daily saved and daily justified through Jesus.

--------------
Sanctification is not related to our salvation, but about the process of becoming rightly ordered towards God. It's not a linear process, but a journey of peaks and valleys. Some moments we cooperate more with God, others we rebel. But our salvation is never contingent on these acts because it's been assured to us through our faith in Jesus as our savior.

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

When I say "forced to believe" in Lutheran sense (we both reject the Calvinist sense) I mean in the initial justification. God puts the saving grace in there, without our consent, to rework our will, and then switches over to a consent-based sanctification in which we choose to cooperate with Him. So while not Calvinism by any stretch, doesn't the initial monergism still apply "force" to get the faith started?

---

Justification isn't a one and done situation where you transition out of it.

We talk about Justification in all tenses. Past, Present and Future. We see that in how Luther talked about the benefits of Baptism.

From the Small Catechism:

"[12] What then is the significance of such a baptism with water? Answer:
It signifies that the old creature in us with all sins and evil desires is to be drowned and die through daily contrition and repentance,82 and on the other hand that daily a new person is to come forth and rise up to live before God in righteousness and purity forever."

Justification is an ongoing process where we are daily saved and daily justified through Jesus.

--------------
Sanctification is not related to our salvation, but about the process of becoming rightly ordered towards God. It's not a linear process, but a journey of peaks and valleys. Some moments we cooperate more with God, others we rebel. But our salvation is never contingent on these acts because it's been assured to us through our faith in Jesus as our savior.

---

I did my best to use what I perceived to be your terms, but I appreciate you showing where I missed the mark. Let's leave sanctification out.

I did say that initial justification (trying to imply that justification is an ongoing process as you have agreed) has an element of "force" (or whatever other term you would use). Man does not consent to this initial step, even if man must consent after this initial step. I would say that this means man is converted against his will, even if only momentarily. How would you phrase it?

Quote:

---

Justification isn't a one and done situation where you transition out of it.

---

This is a confusing statement, or it's just early.

I would say justification IS a one and done where you don't transition out of it.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

Justification isn't a one and done situation where you transition out of it.

---

This is a confusing statement, or it's just early.

I would say justification IS a one and done where you don't transition out of it.

---

Most high calvinists, at least, believe in 'once saved, always saved' or a variant thereof. It's also a way many Reformed church believers ask, 'when were you saved' because a specific date is often used to celebrate/identify believers.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Perseverance of the Saints
Perseverance of the Saints is a doctrine which states that the saints (those whom God has saved) will remain in God's hand until they are glorified and brought to abide with him in heaven. Romans 8:28-39 makes it clear that when a person truly has been regenerated by God, he will remain in God's stead. The work of sanctification which God has brought about in his elect will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life (Phil. 1:6). Christ assures the elect that he will not lose them and that they will be glorified at the "last day" (John 6:39). The Calvinist stands upon the Word of God and trusts in Christ's promise that he will perfectly fulfill the will of the Father in saving all the elect.

---

The above statements were taken from the following source: http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/ It is understood that not all Calvinists would agree completely with each of their statements.

Here Calvinism states that it is impossible to lose one's salvation. They use Romans 8:28- 39 as proof but if you read that passage, you will see that it has nothing to do with the inability to lose one's salvation. The context shows that nothing in God's creation will be able to separate us from God's love. Salvation is not even mentioned. God's love does not force us to stay in the Kingdom. However, there is nothing in all of creation that can stop His love. That is the point Paul was trying to make. Calvinism says that God saves us and He also keeps us because we had no part in our salvation. If it was all in God's power, then I would agree. However, God gave us a free-will and we can reject God if we choose. The Bible is very clear that it is possible to lose one's salvation and every Christian should be aware of that possibility.

---

As per above, there is some biblical support, imho.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

Justification isn't a one and done situation where you transition out of it.

---

This is a confusing statement, or it's just early.

I would say justification IS a one and done where you don't transition out of it.

---

The event, that is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus from the grave was a singular event.

But we are continually justified throughout our days. We are sustained by God's grace every day and our salvation is assured every day. Luther used to make the statement that when you're struggling with sin to remember your baptism because you can visibly see God's grace.

The point being that when we are in those valleys and sin seems overwhelming, we don't lose our justification because we are struggling. God's grace and Jesus life is sufficient even in those moments and we can cling to that.

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

When I say "forced to believe" in Lutheran sense (we both reject the Calvinist sense) I mean in the initial justification. God puts the saving grace in there, without our consent, to rework our will, and then switches over to a consent-based sanctification in which we choose to cooperate with Him. So while not Calvinism by any stretch, doesn't the initial monergism still apply "force" to get the faith started?

---

Justification isn't a one and done situation where you transition out of it.

We talk about Justification in all tenses. Past, Present and Future. We see that in how Luther talked about the benefits of Baptism.

From the Small Catechism:

"[12] What then is the significance of such a baptism with water? Answer:
It signifies that the old creature in us with all sins and evil desires is to be drowned and die through daily contrition and repentance,82 and on the other hand that daily a new person is to come forth and rise up to live before God in righteousness and purity forever."

Justification is an ongoing process where we are daily saved and daily justified through Jesus.

--------------
Sanctification is not related to our salvation, but about the process of becoming rightly ordered towards God. It's not a linear process, but a journey of peaks and valleys. Some moments we cooperate more with God, others we rebel. But our salvation is never contingent on these acts because it's been assured to us through our faith in Jesus as our savior.

---

I did my best to use what I perceived to be your terms, but I appreciate you showing where I missed the mark. Let's leave sanctification out.

I did say that initial justification (trying to imply that justification is an ongoing process as you have agreed) has an element of "force" (or whatever other term you would use). Man does not consent to this initial step, even if man must consent after this initial step. I would say that this means man is converted against his will, even if only momentarily. How would you phrase it?

---

I mean...functionally sure there is some sort of force in that the Holy Spirit is making God known.

Example that comes to mind.

We are on this very forum talking about God and Jesus. We know there are non-Christians on here reading what we talk about. If they read our words and feel moved to explore further, you could consider that "force" of the Holy Spirit working on their heart.

I guess I should have distinguished that when I think of "force" I'm not saying we have some massive hilltop burning bush experience that makes belief so reasonable that we must believe.

It's God working through everything to draw people to him.

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

When I say "forced to believe" in Lutheran sense (we both reject the Calvinist sense) I mean in the initial justification. God puts the saving grace in there, without our consent, to rework our will, and then switches over to a consent-based sanctification in which we choose to cooperate with Him. So while not Calvinism by any stretch, doesn't the initial monergism still apply "force" to get the faith started?

---

Justification isn't a one and done situation where you transition out of it.

We talk about Justification in all tenses. Past, Present and Future. We see that in how Luther talked about the benefits of Baptism.

From the Small Catechism:

"[12] What then is the significance of such a baptism with water? Answer:
It signifies that the old creature in us with all sins and evil desires is to be drowned and die through daily contrition and repentance,82 and on the other hand that daily a new person is to come forth and rise up to live before God in righteousness and purity forever."

Justification is an ongoing process where we are daily saved and daily justified through Jesus.

--------------
Sanctification is not related to our salvation, but about the process of becoming rightly ordered towards God. It's not a linear process, but a journey of peaks and valleys. Some moments we cooperate more with God, others we rebel. But our salvation is never contingent on these acts because it's been assured to us through our faith in Jesus as our savior.

---

I did my best to use what I perceived to be your terms, but I appreciate you showing where I missed the mark. Let's leave sanctification out.

I did say that initial justification (trying to imply that justification is an ongoing process as you have agreed) has an element of "force" (or whatever other term you would use). Man does not consent to this initial step, even if man must consent after this initial step. I would say that this means man is converted against his will, even if only momentarily. How would you phrase it?

---

I mean...functionally sure there is some sort of force in that the Holy Spirit is making God known.

Example that comes to mind.

We are on this very forum talking about God and Jesus. We know there are non-Christians on here reading what we talk about. If they read our words and feel moved to explore further, you could consider that "force" of the Holy Spirit working on their heart.

I guess I should have distinguished that when I think of "force" I'm not saying we have some massive hilltop burning bush experience that makes belief so reasonable that we must believe.

It's God working through everything to draw people to him.

---

It would seem to me that rather than offering two options like Calvinism, Lutheranism would offer three.

Calvinism:

Option 1: God, as monergistic actor, chooses to save you and there is nothing you can do about it

Option 2: God, as monergistic actor, chooses not to save you and leaves you to an eternity away from Him

Lutheranism:

Option 1. God, as monergistic actor, coverts your will to be able to align with His. He continues to call you and choose to stay in right relationship with God

Option 2. God, as mongergistic actor, converts your will to be able to align with His. He continues to call you and you choose to reject right relationship with God.

Option 3. God, as monergistic actor, never converts you and, therefore, leaves you to an eternity away from Him.

Option 2 in Calvinism is essentially identical to Option 3 in Lutheranism: God is setting some portion of the population up for failure. Using the bolded from your example, those readers on here that don't feel moved must not have had the Spirit working on them. He passed over them. There are plenty of agnostics/atheists that would say they've never felt any call to look into Christianity, not to mention all the people who never hear the gospel to begin with. I think we still have a problem of reconciling why God wants to save all people, He has the capacity to give them all a chance, but withholds the opportunity from some people.

Would you disagree?

No, I think we agree, maybe I picked the wrong emoji to say that.

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

When I say "forced to believe" in Lutheran sense (we both reject the Calvinist sense) I mean in the initial justification. God puts the saving grace in there, without our consent, to rework our will, and then switches over to a consent-based sanctification in which we choose to cooperate with Him. So while not Calvinism by any stretch, doesn't the initial monergism still apply "force" to get the faith started?

---

Justification isn't a one and done situation where you transition out of it.

We talk about Justification in all tenses. Past, Present and Future. We see that in how Luther talked about the benefits of Baptism.

From the Small Catechism:

"[12] What then is the significance of such a baptism with water? Answer:
It signifies that the old creature in us with all sins and evil desires is to be drowned and die through daily contrition and repentance,82 and on the other hand that daily a new person is to come forth and rise up to live before God in righteousness and purity forever."

Justification is an ongoing process where we are daily saved and daily justified through Jesus.

--------------
Sanctification is not related to our salvation, but about the process of becoming rightly ordered towards God. It's not a linear process, but a journey of peaks and valleys. Some moments we cooperate more with God, others we rebel. But our salvation is never contingent on these acts because it's been assured to us through our faith in Jesus as our savior.

---

I did my best to use what I perceived to be your terms, but I appreciate you showing where I missed the mark. Let's leave sanctification out.

I did say that initial justification (trying to imply that justification is an ongoing process as you have agreed) has an element of "force" (or whatever other term you would use). Man does not consent to this initial step, even if man must consent after this initial step. I would say that this means man is converted against his will, even if only momentarily. How would you phrase it?

---

I mean...functionally sure there is some sort of force in that the Holy Spirit is making God known.

Example that comes to mind.

We are on this very forum talking about God and Jesus. We know there are non-Christians on here reading what we talk about. If they read our words and feel moved to explore further, you could consider that "force" of the Holy Spirit working on their heart.

I guess I should have distinguished that when I think of "force" I'm not saying we have some massive hilltop burning bush experience that makes belief so reasonable that we must believe.

It's God working through everything to draw people to him.

---

It would seem to me that rather than offering two options like Calvinism, Lutheranism would offer three.

Calvinism:

Option 1: God, as monergistic actor, chooses to save you and there is nothing you can do about it

Option 2: God, as monergistic actor, chooses not to save you and leaves you to an eternity away from Him

Lutheranism:

Option 1. God, as monergistic actor, coverts your will to be able to align with His. He continues to call you and choose to stay in right relationship with God

Option 2. God, as mongergistic actor, converts your will to be able to align with His. He continues to call you and you choose to reject right relationship with God.

Option 3. God, as monergistic actor, never converts you and, therefore, leaves you to an eternity away from Him.

Option 2 in Calvinism is essentially identical to Option 3 in Lutheranism: God is setting some portion of the population up for failure. Using the bolded from your example, those readers on here that don't feel moved must not have had the Spirit working on them. He passed over them. There are plenty of agnostics/atheists that would say they've never felt any call to look into Christianity, not to mention all the people who never hear the gospel to begin with. I think we still have a problem of reconciling why God wants to save all people, He has the capacity to give them all a chance, but withholds the opportunity from some people.

Would you disagree?

---

I don't understand what you mean by 3 options for Lutheranism? Your options 1 and 3 (as I understand it) aren't options within Lutheranism.

Edit: As I thought about it, I want to make sure it's clear on option 2. Even that is incomplete.While might reject God (and arguably we do all the time), God doesn't just pass over or leave us alone. He continues to show His grace to everyone.

Quote:

---

There are plenty of agnostics/atheists that would say they've never felt any call to look into Christianity

---

This is why we hold to a monergistic view of salvation. The sin is so strongly engrained in man that they will do anything to avoid him. Few, if any atheist, if they are being honest can say they haven't heard of God or Jesus. That they harden their hearts against God is why we hold that what man does is reject God, not accept Him.

Quote:

---

not to mention all the people who never hear the gospel to begin with.

---

This is arguing like an atheist. It's materially no different a problem for Lutherans as it is for Rome. We believe that God is a loving God and whether it is a baby who dies in the womb or an infant or someone who hasn't heard of Jesus that God knows their heart and has a plan for them.

No different than your views.

I found this thread really interesting. It reminds me of a friend who as a young adult decided to start reading the Bible for himself. One day he said to me, "I'm confused; I thought I had my doctrine all figured out until I started reading the book, and I can't make it all fit together."

I thought that was an honest and somewhat profound response. There seems to be a subtext in this thread that my biblical doctrine needs to be logical, and if I can prove the other side less logical, then I have come closer to the truth.

Logic is simply a consistent pattern of reasoning, invented and systemized by ancient Greeks. It is a helpful creation of man, but it does not trump or transcend the teachings of scripture. Something can be true and not logical or logical and not true. The paradox of the Trinity is the most used example.

The "can God make a rock bigger than He can lift" arguments just don't work for me. I have to figure out how to let all scripture inform on this topic, and not just the ones that support my doctrinal stance. On these kinds of arguments it often seems that some sections of scripture are "more canonized" than others or if what the text says supports my side then it means what is says, and if not, then we get all scholarly and check out the church fathers.

The Lone Stranger said:

---

I found this thread really interesting. It reminds me of a friend who as a young adult decided to start reading the Bible for himself. One day he said to me, "I'm confused; I thought I had my doctrine all figured out until I started reading the book, and I can't make it all fit together."

I thought that was an honest and somewhat profound response. There seems to be a subtext in this thread that my biblical doctrine needs to be logical, and if I can prove the other side less logical, then I have come closer to the truth.

Logic is simply a consistent pattern of reasoning, invented and systemized by ancient Greeks. It is a helpful creation of man, but it does not trump or transcend the teachings of scripture. Something can be true and not logical or logical and not true. The paradox of the Trinity is the most used example.

The "can God make a rock bigger than He can lift" arguments just don't work for me. I have to figure out how to let all scripture inform on this topic, and not just the ones that support my doctrinal stance. On these kinds of arguments it often seems that some sections of scripture are "more canonized" than others or if what the text says supports my side then it means what is says, and if not, then we get all scholarly and check out the church fathers.

---

This is exactly the point. Your friend read the bible and realized it's not that easy. Some things don't make sense. Why do I believe in sola scriptura if it's not in the bible? Why do I believe in monergistic or synergistic salvation? Why do I believe in a literal vs symbolic Eucharist? Everyone is pulling from outside sources to arrive at their doctrinal views. Just because one group says sola scriptura doesn't mean they are actually doing it. It's impossible. Every text is interpreted, and therefore, needs a guide. Your friend is only acknowledging the obvious.

This is where logic can help us test the interpretations we've been given. I'm not saying logic is necessary per se. What I am saying that the correct view is going to be logical. I say this because I completely disagree (as does 99% of historical Christianity) that logic emanates from God. It isn't a human invention, but a human discovery of the laws God created. To say humans created logic is actually to take something from God and call it our own. This is why only atheists strongly hold to the idea that logic is a human construct.

I'm not saying Christianity can't have some mystery. I do not believe we can fully know who God outside of what He reveals of Himself. But I do stand firm that the faith can't be illogical, since logic comes from God. If we run into an illogical stance based on our reading of the bible, then we should inspect our interpretation of the text. SO when we run into something like:

1. God wants to save all men
2. God is the only actor in who is saved (monergism)
3. Not everyone is saved

We should inspect it for what it is. If 1 & 3 are true, then 2 isn't. If 2 & 3 are true, 1 isn't. If 1 & 2 are true, 3 isn't. This is why Calvin says God doesn't want to save all men. Or why universalists (a strain of calvinsim) says all men are eventually saved. Or you have Arminius who says #2 isn't true, and man must play some role in his salvation. Trying to hold all three together requires a believer to just appeal to mystery, when mystery isn't needed. The fact may be that the person is just misinterpreting the bible and has led themselves into error. I would say, depending on which stance you pick, potentially grievous error. This isn't an example of a paradox. It's an example of an illogical formula, and should be abandoned.

My understanding of lutheran teaching is that He clearly doesn't call everyone. The call is only done by hearing the gospel, and it's clear billions of people have never heard it. So in that case, people are being passed over/left out.

And it's easy to say they harden their hearts against God, but monergistic salvation means that He makes the initial step. He makes the unwilling into the willing without their consent. So for those that never have felt any conversion from unwilling to willing must never have received that grace to begin with. They never had a moment of willingness, which only comes from Him

The Banned said:

---

The Lone Stranger said:

---

I found this thread really interesting. It reminds me of a friend who as a young adult decided to start reading the Bible for himself. One day he said to me, "I'm confused; I thought I had my doctrine all figured out until I started reading the book, and I can't make it all fit together."

I thought that was an honest and somewhat profound response. There seems to be a subtext in this thread that my biblical doctrine needs to be logical, and if I can prove the other side less logical, then I have come closer to the truth.

Logic is simply a consistent pattern of reasoning, invented and systemized by ancient Greeks. It is a helpful creation of man, but it does not trump or transcend the teachings of scripture. Something can be true and not logical or logical and not true. The paradox of the Trinity is the most used example.

The "can God make a rock bigger than He can lift" arguments just don't work for me. I have to figure out how to let all scripture inform on this topic, and not just the ones that support my doctrinal stance. On these kinds of arguments it often seems that some sections of scripture are "more canonized" than others or if what the text says supports my side then it means what is says, and if not, then we get all scholarly and check out the church fathers.

---

This is exactly the point. Your friend read the bible and realized it's not that easy. Some things don't make sense. Why do I believe in sola scriptura if it's not in the bible? Why do I believe in monergistic or synergistic salvation? Why do I believe in a literal vs symbolic Eucharist? Everyone is pulling from outside sources to arrive at their doctrinal views. Just because one group says sola scriptura doesn't mean they are actually doing it. It's impossible. Every text is interpreted, and therefore, needs a guide. Your friend is only acknowledging the obvious.

This is where logic can help us test the interpretations we've been given. I'm not saying logic is necessary per se. What I am saying that the correct view is going to be logical. I say this because I completely disagree (as does 99% of historical Christianity) that logic emanates from God. It isn't a human invention, but a human discovery of the laws God created. To say humans created logic is actually to take something from God and call it our own. This is why only atheists strongly hold to the idea that logic is a human construct.

I'm not saying Christianity can't have some mystery. I do not believe we can fully know who God outside of what He reveals of Himself. But I do stand firm that the faith can't be illogical, since logic comes from God. If we run into an illogical stance based on our reading of the bible, then we should inspect our interpretation of the text. SO when we run into something like:

1. God wants to save all men
2. God is the only actor in who is saved (monergism)
3. Not everyone is saved

We should inspect it for what it is. If 1 & 3 are true, then 2 isn't. If 2 & 3 are true, 1 isn't. If 1 & 2 are true, 3 isn't. This is why Calvin says God doesn't want to save all men. Or why universalists (a strain of calvinsim) says all men are eventually saved. Or you have Arminius who says #2 isn't true, and man must play some role in his salvation. Trying to hold all three together requires a believer to just appeal to mystery, when mystery isn't needed. The fact may be that the person is just misinterpreting the bible and has led themselves into error. I would say, depending on which stance you pick, potentially grievous error. This isn't an example of a paradox. It's an example of an illogical formula, and should be abandoned.

---

Agree.
Scripture is clear that God desires all to be saved. So there are only 2 logical options, free will trumps God's desire or God saves all.

The idea that logic was some epistemological given that we "discovered" and is therefore, some kind of backdoor way to truth is a faith statement. I can't be supported by scripture itself.

I have nothing against logic any more than I have something against a printing press. I used to teach logic for the A.P. exam, but to limit the eternal God to the basic principles of logic is simply not the truth.

If we follow your faith assumption about logic, we are back to the "my doctrine is more logical than yours, and therefore truth" idea, and that's just not true.

How did we find correct doctrine before Aristotle came along and gave us logic?