Kindle Notes & Highlights
Read between
April 12 - April 23, 2017
It is an unfortunate truth of history that it is Calvinism rather than Lutheranism which has defined and shaped much of American Evangelical Christianity.
Though this avoidance has been positive, and Lutherans have been somewhat shielded from such theologically vapid material, it is unfortunate that the Lutheran tradition has not been able to proclaim its unique approach to law and gospel to Christians throughout America.
the Reformed church does focus much attention to the subject of predestination and the sovereignty of God. This flows from the Reformed tendency to view God’s glory as a central tenant of theology.
Luther argued that God’s election is the cause of man’s conversion and preservation in the faith. In an explanation of the election of Jacob in Romans 9, Luther writes that “God called Jacob before he was born, because He loved him, and that He was not loved by Jacob first, nor influenced by any desert on Jacob’s part.”16 This election is a free gift without any foreseen merit or faith on the part of man.
For the Waltherian party, election is unconditional. It is a free act of God wherein God elects certain individuals unto salvation. He argued that proposing anything else negated the principle of sola gratia, giving humans credit in some manner for personal salvation.24 Walther was accused of being a closet Calvinist, and Walther defended himself by demonstrating his rejection of double predestination and limited atonement, and by showing the continuity of his own view with that of Luther and the Confessions.25 This led some churches to split away from the Synodical Conference26 under
...more
The difference between a Reformed understanding of Total Depravity and the Lutheran perspective. Using Edwards as an example.
Edwards purports a pure determinism regarding every action of will rather than simply defending man’s inability to approach God due to sin.
The problem with Edwards’s argument is that it promotes a view of free will that goes beyond the intention of biblical statements on the topic.
Scripture emphasizes human lack of free will regarding conversion, but not as a general principle.
In contrast to Edwards’s approach, the Augsburg Confession states, “Concerning free will they [the Lutheran churches] teach that the human will has some freedom in producing civil righteousness, and choosing things subject to reason. However, it does not have the power to produce the righteousness of God or spiritual righteousness without the Holy Spirit” (AC XVIII.1–3).
Election is an unconditional act, wherein God freely gives salvation through faith, apart from any work on the part of man.
The purpose of the doctrine of election is to give assurance to God’s people and to serve as a reminder that salvation comes sola gratia and is not an abstract discussion regarding God’s sovereignty.37
Creation is a means to bring about the giving of life through election and death through reprobation.
God’s glory in damnation and salvation is thus the purpose of creation itself.
Amyraut argued that God’s decree of atonement precedes the decree of election and reprobation.
In the Lutheran perspective, election refers to the children of God alone and has no reference to the rejection of grace on behalf of the reprobate.
this discussion delves into areas of God’s eternal will and nature which are both theologically unnecessary and irrelevant to the central scriptural themes.
Scripture does not extensively discuss abstract truths about God or the nature of eternal decree, but speaks rather to that which affects the hearer.
Paul’s argument in Romans 8 regarding foreknowledge, election, justification, and glorification is not grounds for distinguishing eternal decrees. Paul does not contextually propound a logical order of God’s decrees, but gives assurance to his readers that they are elect and justified and will receive eternal life.
That which pertains to God’s decree is part of the “hidden God,” of the aspects of God not to be peered into by humans.
Another significant difficulty with the first two lapsarian approaches is that election necessarily becomes the central and primary soteriological category. In both approaches, the eternal decree of election and reprobation precedes that of the atonement. Thus, the cross and resurrection become a means to bring about election.
In the Reformed view, one could not be chosen “in Christ” because the decree of the incarnation is a response to election.
The above statement of Paul is not a ground for arguing that lapsarian approaches to sovereignty are valid; rather, it demonstrates that the biblical context of the doctrine of
God’s will is mysterious, and one must not go beyond the biblical testimony regarding the subject in an attempt to harmonize two truths which are seemingly in tension with one another.60
Sovereignty, election, and predestination are terms used in the context of salvation, giving encouragement to Christians and reminding them of their continual dependence on grace.
62 They are not used to describe the actions or fate of those who are damned. Rather, damnation is always a result of personal sin and rejection of Christ.
Election always results in salvation; however, grace is not limited to the elect. Regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, and other soteriological blessings are given through the means of grace indiscriminately. They are not the property of the elect alone.
Rejection of the gospel does not negate the power of the gospel.
Not merely common grace but grace which regenerates and justifies applies to more than the elect.
All who are baptized are regenerated. However, not all who are regenerated will remain in the Christian faith.
Thus, as in the Lutheran doctrine of predestination, perseverance is a divine monergistic work,91 but it is not universal with regard to everyone who has been regenerated.
However, there is no reason to believe that 1 John is written to ethnocentric Jews. This epistle is among the last to be written in the New Testament.
The thrust of the book is that those who are in the faith should not revert back to Judaism, because to do so would be denying the Savior who died on the cross for them and is their mediator. This admits the possibility of falling away for those who have been bought with Christ’s blood.
though rational argumentation is a valid enterprise for the theologian, it should never be a final appeal to establish doctrine. In this case, the logical argument seems to take precedence over biblical evidence to the contrary.
If the cross negates that God’s wrath can be placed upon those for whom Christ died, then eternal justification is a logical necessity.
Calvinism teaches that one can be under the wrath of God due to unbelief even though God’s wrath has already been propitiated on the cross for that person.
One of the major issues with many of the Reformed critiques of universal redemption is that they are founded upon a conviction that one has access to the nature of Christ’s intercession regarding the Father within the Trinitarian life. This is an aspect of the hidden God which need not be peered into except to assure the doubting Christian that Christ’s intercession is continual and exists for that person.
Perhaps this metaphor does refer specifically to the elect, but perhaps it refers to all who believe including those who will depart from the faith.
The extent of the atonement is irrelevant to the purpose of this text.
It is only these whom Christ ransomed, who have persevered in faith, in regard to whom praise is being sung. It is unlikely that heavenly praise would include mention of Christ’s death for those who rejected the grace thereby offered. The eschatological nature of John’s Revelation is evidence that Christ’s ransom will ultimately benefit only those who receive eternal life, but not that the offering was not universal in scope.
One who adopts a particularist approach to the atonement can never have the assurance that Christ’s death was for them.
The Calvinist must point one to the fruits of conversion for there to be assurance of election and Christ’s death for them. Faith can be false, and one must have a sincere faith in order to be sure of election.
One’s assurance is in one’s inner transformation, not in the gospel.
Calvinists may object that they believe in a “free offer of the gospel,” which is apparent in all but the hyper-Calvinistic system. Thus, one can trust in this universal offer. However, it must be asked, Is this really a universal offer? How can God offer something he has not actually paid for? Can he really tell one to accept the death of Christ while it in fact has never been paid for that person?
Thus an offer of the gospel which is not intended for the unbeliever is not a true offer.
If one perseveres in the faith, this is also the work of God, preserving one in saving faith.
It is not that the Christian is constantly falling in and out of grace, but that there is a possibility that one can lose faith and consequently, Christ.
This demonstrates the truth of perseverance only in the sense that God preserves those whom he elects.
God preserves man monergistically, through the means of word and sacrament, thus making perseverance the work of God rather than man.
some will fall away from the faith by rejecting the means of grace, refusing repentance, adopting heresy, and falling into unbelief.
