Confusion over Lutheran teaching on Salvation ... they come by it honestly

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I do not wish to be misinterpreted to be claiming that Lutherans are confused about what they believe. That I have no idea of, but assume that they understand how what they claim all fits together. I speak of the confusion felt by non-Lutherans who see what appears to be a question answered by Lutherans one way if asked from one perspective, and completely differently if the same question is asked from the opposite perspective. Seeking greater illumination led me to "A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod" which provided the following:

Of Conversion
We teach that conversion consists in this, that a man, having learned from the Law of God that he is a lost and condemned sinner, is brought to faith in the Gospel, which offers him forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation for the sake of Christ's vicarious satisfaction, Acts 11:21; Luke 24:46, 47; Acts 26:18.

All men, since the Fall, are dead in sins, Eph. 2:1-3, and inclined only to evil, Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 8:7. For this reason, and particularly because men regard the Gospel of Christ, crucified for the sins of the world, as foolishness, 1 Cor. 2:14, faith in the Gospel, or conversion to God, is neither wholly nor in the least part the work of man, but the work of God's grace and almighty power alone, Phil. 1:29; Eph. 2:8; 1:19; Jer. 31:18. Hence Scripture call the faith of men, or his conversion, a raising from the dead, Eph. 1:20; Col. 2:12, a being born of God, John 1:12, 13, a new birth by the Gospel, 1 Peter 1:23-25, a work of God like the creation of light at the creation of the world, 2 Cor. 4:6.

On the basis of these clear statements of the Holy Scriptures we reject every kind of synergism, that is, the doctrine that conversion is wrought not by the grace and power of God alone, but in part also by the co-operation of man himself, by man's right conduct, his right attitude, his right self-determination, his lesser guilt or less evil conduct as compared with others, his refraining from willful resistance, or anything else whereby man's conversion and salvation is taken out of the gracious hands of God and made to depend on what man does or leaves undone. For this refraining from willful resistance or from any kind of resistance is also solely a work of grace, which "changes unwilling into willing men," Ezek. 36:26; Phil. 2:13. We reject also the doctrine that man is able to decide for conversion through "powers imparted by grace," since this doctrine presupposes that before conversion man still possesses spiritual powers by which he can make the right use of such "powers imparted by grace."

On the other hand, we reject also the Calvinistic perversion of the doctrine of conversion, that is, the doctrine that God does not desire to convert and save all hearers of the Word, but only a portion of them. Many hearers of the Word indeed remain unconverted and are not saved, not because God does not earnestly desire their conversion and salvation, but solely because they stubbornly resist the gracious operation of the Holy Ghost, as Scripture teaches, Acts 7:51; Matt. 23:37; Acts 13:46.

As to the question why not all men are converted and saved, seeing that God's grace is universal and all men are equally and utterly corrupt, we confess that we cannot answer it. From Scripture we know only this: A man owes his conversion and salvation, not to any lesser guilt or better conduct on his part, but solely to the grace of God. But any man's non-conversion is due to himself alone; it is the result of his obstinate resistance against the converting operation of the Holy Ghost. Hos. 13:9.

Our refusal to go beyond what is revealed in these two Scriptural truths is not "masked Calvinism" ("Crypto- Calvinism") but precisely the Scriptural teaching of the Lutheran Church as it is presented in detail in the Formula of Concord (Triglot, p. 1081, paragraphs 57-59, 60b, 62, 63; M. p. 716f.): "That one is hardened, blinded, given over to a reprobate mind, while another, who is indeed in the same guilt, is converted again, etc. -- in these and similar questions Paul fixes a certain limit to us how far we should go, namely, that in the one part we should recognize God's judgment. For they are well-deserved penalties of sins when God so punished a land or nation for despising His Word that the punishment extends also to their posterity, as is to be seen in the Jews. And thereby God in some lands and persons exhibits His severity to those that are His in order to indicate what we all would have well deserved and would be worthy and worth, since we act wickedly in opposition to God's Word and often grieve the Holy Ghost sorely; in order that we may live in the fear of God and acknowledge and praise God's goodness, to the exclusion of, and contrary to, our merit in and with us, to whom He gives His Word and with whom He leaves it and whom He does not harden and reject...And this His righteous, well-deserved judgment He displays in some countries, nations and persons in order that, when we are placed alongside of them and compared with them (quam simillimi illis deprehensi, i.e., and found to be most similar to them), we may learn the more diligently to recognize and praise God's pure, unmerited grace in the vessels of mercy...When we proceed thus far in this article, we remain on the right way, as it is written, Hos. 13:9: 'O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in Me is thy help.' However, as regards these things in this disputation which would soar too high and beyond these limits, we should with Paul place the finger upon our lips and remember and say, Rom. 9:20: 'O man, who art thou that repliest against God?'" The Formula of Concord describes the mystery which confronts us here not as a mystery in man's heart (a "psychological" mystery), but teaches that, when we try to understand why "one is hardened, blinded, given over to a reprobate mind, while another, who is indeed in the same guilt, is converted again," we enter the domain of the unsearchable judgments of God and ways past finding out, which are not revealed to us in His Word, but which we shall know in eternal life. 1 Cor. 13:12.

Calvinists solve this mystery, which God has not revealed in His Word, by denying the universality of grace; synergists, by denying that salvation is by grace alone. Both solutions are utterly vicious, since they contradict Scripture and since every poor sinner stands in need of, and must cling to, both the unrestricted universal grace and the unrestricted "by grace alone," lest he despair and perish.



So it would seem that if our Lutheran brothers seem to have what appears to us as 'confusion' and an attitude of open rejection for both the Calvinism and Arminian branches of Reformed Theology ... they come by it naturally. I am honestly not even sure how to begin to discuss Theology with someone who will use one tactic against scripture supporting Calvinism, a different tactic against scripture supporting Arminianism and just refuse to discuss the self-contradictory nature of holding both of those positions at the same time.

It seems like very infertile ground for a conversation.
 
Last edited:

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
We reject also the doctrine that man is able to decide for conversion through "powers imparted by grace," since this doctrine presupposes that before conversion man still possesses spiritual powers by which he can make the right use of such "powers imparted by grace."
It may be a small point, but ... Wesleyan Arminianism presupposes no such thing. They claim TWO acts of grace by God, the first grants all men the ability to choose (negating the depravity of Romans 3:10-18 and overcoming the blinding of 2 Corinthians 4:4) and the second act of grace grants the transformation and Holy Spirit.
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
On the other hand, we reject also the Calvinistic perversion of the doctrine of conversion, that is, the doctrine that God does not desire to convert and save all hearers of the Word, but only a portion of them. Many hearers of the Word indeed remain unconverted and are not saved, not because God does not earnestly desire their conversion and salvation, but solely because they stubbornly resist the gracious operation of the Holy Ghost, as Scripture teaches, Acts 7:51; Matt. 23:37; Acts 13:46.
Would there be any point in presenting scripture verses that say otherwise, because Calvinism can rightly be accused of MANY things, but ignoring what scripture teaches is not one of them. Calvinism does not teach exactly what this claims it teaches. Calvin was just the last in a long line of theologians who read what the Bible actually says and chose to accept what God taught. It all comes down to just how Soverign do you really believe that God is? (And we agree that God is responsible for the sins and damnation of no one. People are guilty of their own sins and God's punishment of sin is part of his Justice.)
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,179
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I admit to rejecting Calvinism regarding its TULIP formulation of soteriology (maybe TULIP covers other things too but it appears that its theme is soteriological) and I never warmed very much to John Wesley's soteriology and now that I look at a Lutheran (Missouri synod) view of the same topic I feel no warmth towards it.

My perspective is this - we are saved by grace. Grace is more than "undeserved kindness" though it certainly is kindness and it is unearned and undeserved (that's redundant I know but if I don't say it somebody will assume I mean something that I do not mean). I hesitate to say that salvation is such and such from God's perspective because I am not God and what little of God's perspective is available from the holy scriptures does not tell me enough to know what God's perspective on human salvation is beyond the simple and explicit statements that amount to "we are saved by grace". From my very human perspective I rely on God's goodness for everything and seek to serve him even though I expect that I will think, do, and say things that are not what God wants from me. I do not expect forgiveness without repentance but I dare to hope for it. I do not think that anybody ought to expect forgiveness without repentance yet I believe that mercy will triumph over condemnation for the faithful. I do not want to presume God will do such and such or that God will refrain from this or that even if there is something in the holy scriptures to tell me that such may be the case. Nevertheless I rejoice in the promises of God and hope for their bounty to be given to me - miserable sinner that I am. I do not rely on my own understanding nor on my own deeds nor on my own worthiness for anything but I do not pretend that the Holy Spirit does not work the works of God in and through his people. I do not seek to prove everything to my own satisfaction but when I can understand and be satisfied I rejoice. Grace is internal and it works by the generosity of God. In the end, like Paul, I know that I live and move and have my being by God's grace.
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I admit to rejecting Calvinism regarding its TULIP formulation of soteriology (maybe TULIP covers other things too but it appears that its theme is soteriological) and I never warmed very much to John Wesley's soteriology and now that I look at a Lutheran (Missouri synod) view of the same topic I feel no warmth towards it.
That is probably a VERY good position for a Catholic. :)

There are those who argue that Calvinism encompasses more than sotierology, but unless you are speaking of the man John Calvin or the denomination that bears the name Calvinist, in common parlance Calvanism and Arminianism refer almost exclusively to sotierology. Anything beyond that is typically just a logical conclusion of that worldview, but not a core belief.

Even TULIP is usually misunderstood as to the definition of the terms ... hence the 'once saved, always saved' nonsense that gets bantered around the Internet.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,179
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
That is probably a VERY good position for a Catholic. :)

There are those who argue that Calvinism encompasses more than sotierology, but unless you are speaking of the man John Calvin or the denomination that bears the name Calvinist, in common parlance Calvanism and Arminianism refer almost exclusively to sotierology. Anything beyond that is typically just a logical conclusion of that worldview, but not a core belief.

Even TULIP is usually misunderstood as to the definition of the terms ... hence the 'once saved, always saved' nonsense that gets bantered around the Internet.

Slogan theology - like Once Saved Always Saved - is always going to fall far short of the mark. Nobody really understands a slogan the "right" way because slogans are not really coherent. They are supposed to be short pithy summaries of some more complex thing. If Calvinism is reduced to Once Saved Always Saved then it is no longer Calvinism. It has become something else.

I spent a good number of years as a Presbyterian but in all my time there never was Once Saved Always Saved used. Not as a slogan and not as a summary of Presbyterian theology. I may be mistaken but I think that OSAS is an Evangelical thing. A slogan-theological point borrowed from The perseverance of the Saints but divorced from everything that goes into making perseverance meaningful within the scheme of Calvinism.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,580
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Would there be any point in presenting scripture verses that say otherwise, because Calvinism can rightly be accused of MANY things, but ignoring what scripture teaches is not one of them. Calvinism does not teach exactly what this claims it teaches. Calvin was just the last in a long line of theologians who read what the Bible actually says and chose to accept what God taught. It all comes down to just how Soverign do you really believe that God is? (And we agree that God is responsible for the sins and damnation of no one. People are guilty of their own sins and God's punishment of sin is part of his Justice.)

Out of all your posts in this thread, the only question posed to Lutherans I could find is this one marked in bold above by me. Lutherans believe that God is sovereign and is responsible alone for man's salvation.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Lutherans believe that Jesus is the Savior and that Jesus does the saving.

The HOW is left to mystery.... It involves God's mercy (not getting what we deserve) and grace (God's unconditional, unearned, unmerited and usually unrequested love, favor, blessings, gifts).... it involves the incarnation, perfect life, sacrificial death and especially glorious resurrection of Jesus..... it involves the divine gift of faith given to us by God.... but how all of this "works" is left to God. Lutherans lift high the Cross (not our mirror), Lutherans lift high the Christ (not ourselves), Lutherans give all the credit and all the glory and all the thanks to Christ ALONE. Just as we physically live and breath because of the miracle of life God gave us to by grace, so we spiritually live and breath because of the miracle of spiritual life God gave to us. Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide! Soli Deo Gloria!!!


In His MERCY,



Josiah
 

TurtleHare

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2015
Messages
1,057
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
We Lutherans hold to salvation as being monergistic. “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him, but the Holy Spirit has called me by the gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith.”
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Out of all your posts in this thread, the only question posed to Lutherans I could find is this one marked in bold above by me. Lutherans believe that God is sovereign and is responsible alone for man's salvation.
Ironically, that was a rhetorical question, but so do Reformed Baptists.

The issue I (and from a spectator's view of conversations, others as well) was having was it was impossible to connect the dots on what Lutherans believe from the individual posts. I sought out and found a more comprehensive and systematic statement of Lutheran beliefs which I posted here to share with any non-Lutherans who might have been having as much trouble following your (Lutherans collectively, not necessisarily your's personally) comments and theology on other threads.

I had assumed that if any Lutheran disagreed with anything in the statements of the LCMS that they would speak up and correct what they thought was wrong with what I posted.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,580
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Thank you for qualifying all this.

The Book of Concord is also called the Lutheran Confessions and it's what we believe as a true exposition of the bible
http://bookofconcord.org/
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Lutherans believe that Jesus is the Savior and that Jesus does the saving.

The HOW is left to mystery.... It involves God's mercy (not getting what we deserve) and grace (God's unconditional, unearned, unmerited and usually unrequested love, favor, blessings, gifts).... it involves the incarnation, perfect life, sacrificial death and especially glorious resurrection of Jesus..... it involves the divine gift of faith given to us by God.... but how all of this "works" is left to God. Lutherans lift high the Cross (not our mirror), Lutherans lift high the Christ (not ourselves), Lutherans give all the credit and all the glory and all the thanks to Christ ALONE. Just as we physically live and breath because of the miracle of life God gave us to by grace, so we spiritually live and breath because of the miracle of spiritual life God gave to us. Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide! Soli Deo Gloria!!!

In His MERCY,

Josiah
I know.
The Statement from the LCMS explained it.

What I find most unique in the Lutheran Statement of Faith is that I don't remember ever seeing another Statement of Faith by any denomination that explicitly attacked the beliefs of other Christians in their statement of what they believe. The Lutherans, in contrast, make a special point to strongly condemn both 'synergism' (which despite its definition in the Luthearn Statement, I take to include the various forms of Wesleyan Arminianism) and 'Calvinism'. I was shocked to see the official Statement of Faith go as far as using terms like 'Calvinistic perversion' and 'utterly vicious'.

Surely you can see how a Calvinist could hear his interpretation of scripture described as a 'perversion' or 'utterly vicious' and begin to wonder if Lutherans even regarded someone like a Reformed Baptist as a Christian Brother. At the very least, it IS a deeply personal attack on my beliefs. I know of no Baptist Satement which refers to that 'Lutheran perversion' of scripture or the 'utterly vicious' Lutheran practice of sprinkling infants and filling them with a false hope that they are saved apart from the Salvation offered by Christ as recorded in Scripture.

I have been assured that I am reading personal malice in your posts where none is intended. Therefore, I am making a far greater effort to understand your terms and try to accept your passion as other than a personal attack. You need to be aware that your doctrinal statements are built on an element of personal attack and people will take offense to having their beliefs described as 'viscous' or a 'perversion'.
 
Last edited:

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,179
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I know.
The Statement from the LCMS explained it.

What I find most unique in the Lutheran Statement of Faith is that I don't remember ever seeing another Statement of Faith by any denomination that explicitly attacked the beliefs of other Christians in their statement of what they believe. The Lutherans, in contrast, make a special point to strongly condemn both 'synergism' (which despite its definition in the Luthearn Statement, I take to include the various forms of Wesleyan Arminianism) and 'Calvinism'. I was shocked to see the official Statement of Faith go as far as using terms like 'Calvinistic perversion' and 'utterly vicious'.

Surely you can see how a Calvinist could hear his interpretation of scripture described as a 'perversion' or 'utterly vicious' and begin to wonder if Lutherans even regarded someone like a Reformed Baptist as a Christian Brother. At the very least, it IS a deeply personal attack on my beliefs. I know of no Baptist Satement which refers to that 'Lutheran perversion' of scripture or the 'utterly vicious' Lutheran practice of sprinkling infants and filling them with a false hope that they are saved apart from the Salvation offered by Christ as recorded in Scripture.

I have been assured that I am reading personal malice in your posts where none is intended. Therefore, I am making a far greater effort to understand your terms and try to accept your passion as other than a personal attack. You need to be aware that your doctrinal statements are built on an element of personal attack and people will take offense to having their beliefs described as 'viscous' or a 'perversion'.

I am fairly sure that some very harsh words are directed at Catholic teaching and the Popes in the 1689 Baptist Confession. :p
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,179
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Some say:
Of Repentance.

1] Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted 2] and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these 3] two parts: One is contrition, that is, 4] terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of 5] the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ's sake, sins are forgiven, comforts 6] the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance.

7] They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such 8] perfection in this life that they cannot sin.

9] The Novatians also are condemned, who would not absolve such as had fallen after Baptism, though they returned to repentance.

10] They also are rejected who do not teach that remission of sins comes through faith but command us to merit grace through satisfactions of our own.​
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,580
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I know.
The Statement from the LCMS explained it.

What I find most unique in the Lutheran Statement of Faith is that I don't remember ever seeing another Statement of Faith by any denomination that explicitly attacked the beliefs of other Christians in their statement of what they believe. The Lutherans, in contrast, make a special point to strongly condemn both 'synergism' (which despite its definition in the Luthearn Statement, I take to include the various forms of Wesleyan Arminianism) and 'Calvinism'. I was shocked to see the official Statement of Faith go as far as using terms like 'Calvinistic perversion' and 'utterly vicious'.

Surely you can see how a Calvinist could hear his interpretation of scripture described as a 'perversion' or 'utterly vicious' and begin to wonder if Lutherans even regarded someone like a Reformed Baptist as a Christian Brother. At the very least, it IS a deeply personal attack on my beliefs. I know of no Baptist Satement which refers to that 'Lutheran perversion' of scripture or the 'utterly vicious' Lutheran practice of sprinkling infants and filling them with a false hope that they are saved apart from the Salvation offered by Christ as recorded in Scripture.

I have been assured that I am reading personal malice in your posts where none is intended. Therefore, I am making a far greater effort to understand your terms and try to accept your passion as other than a personal attack. You need to be aware that your doctrinal statements are built on an element of personal attack and people will take offense to having their beliefs described as 'viscous' or a 'perversion'.


I gave you the link to the Lutheran Confessions. They were written in 1580 and yes, language was often harsh then. The statement of faith took chunks of copy out of the Book of Concord. It is not written in modern language that would be considered politically correct in order to avoid feelings as people insist happens today.
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I am fairly sure that some very harsh words are directed at Catholic teaching and the Popes in the 1689 Baptist Confession. :p

True, but in 1689 the Pope was acting like a Jerk :)
I was referring to current statements of beliefs (latest printings).

I think some Baptists probably objected to bring burnt at the stake.
(As I suspect some Catholics objected to whatever the accepted method of killing Catholic heretics in Protestant areas was.)

My personal favorite was the Prebytrians who drown Baptists with the taunt ... If you want to be baptized again, then let's really baptize you.
Now there was Christian love at its best. ;)
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I gave you the link to the Lutheran Confessions. They were written in 1580 and yes, language was often harsh then. The statement of faith took chunks of copy out of the Book of Concord. It is not written in modern language that would be considered politically correct in order to avoid feelings as people insist happens today.

Perhaps, but I think a case can be made that both Calvinists and synergists are Christian and that sort of "biting and devouring" of fellow Christians is contra-Biblical. To preserve it in the name of not bowing to 'political correctness' is a policy whose wisdom you will need to take up with the God who commanded love. It is not my place to pass judgement on another man's servant, but it is my place to warn a brother/sister if they are in danger of trespassing the word of God.

I think your statement of faith (excerpted from the Book of Concord of 1580) is in danger of violating the eternal word of God in matters of Christian love for others for whom Christ has died.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,179
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
True, but in 1689 the Pope was acting like a Jerk :)

I am sure that in 1689 the pope was a kindly elderly gentleman :p

I was referring to current statements of beliefs (latest printings).

I think some Baptists probably objected to bring burnt at the stake.
(As I suspect some Catholics objected to whatever the accepted method of killing Catholic heretics in Protestant areas was.)

The English liked to pretend that being a Catholic was treason so they would hang, draw, and quarter them. Much meaner than merely burning.

My personal favorite was the Prebytrians who drown Baptists with the taunt ... If you want to be baptized again, then let's really baptize you.
Now there was Christian love at its best. ;)

That would have been Anabaptists that they drowned. Lutherans did it to them too. I think that Catholics may have burned them or maybe drowned them. Nobody was very kindly. Some Anabaptists spent a lot of effort torturing Lutherans and Catholics. Those Anabaptists were end-times types, living in Munster I think. John of Leiden was their leader.
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Thank you for qualifying all this.

The Book of Concord is also called the Lutheran Confessions and it's what we believe as a true exposition of the bible
http://bookofconcord.org/

I read through some of it. I was a bit disappointed by the lack of Scripture references in many of the points of the Small and Large Catechism. The Heidelberg Chatechism and the Westminster Confession of Faith are both chock full of scripture reference that you can look up for yourself to see where they drew every point from. There may be something similar in the volumes of Lutheran work contained in the Book of Concord or the other documents linked on that web page, but I didn't stumble across it in my brief scan.

I would return the favor and offer a link to the Westminster Confession of Faith, except I like you and that would not be an act of kindness. If God ever sends a second flood, I would probably stand on a copy of the WCF, since it is so dry that it would probably keep me safe. :)
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,179
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I read through some of it. I was a bit disappointed by the lack of Scripture references in many of the points of the Small and Large Catechism. The Heidelberg Chatechism and the Westminster Confession of Faith are both chock full of scripture reference that you can look up for yourself to see where they drew every point from. There may be something similar in the volumes of Lutheran work contained in the Book of Concord or the other documents linked on that web page, but I didn't stumble across it in my brief scan.

I would return the favor and offer a link to the Westminster Confession of Faith, except I like you and that would not be an act of kindness. If God ever sends a second flood, I would probably stand on a copy of the WCF, since it is so dry that it would probably keep me safe. :)

But, friend atpollard, nobody reads scripture passages for a position with which they disagree, right? ;)
 
Top Bottom