Why are Some Saved and Not Others?

[user1234]

So going by the above definitions, it appears that the Lutheran position supports osas, then, yes no?
Or are the saved 100% saved by God, but He is unable to keep that which He saved?

The opposition to osas kind of reminds me of a Seinfeld episode, where he made a reservation to rent a car at an airport.

When he got there, there was no car.
He stated, 'But I made a reservation'.

They replied, 'We know, we took the reservation, we know how to take reservations'.
Seinfeld says, 'You dont seem to know the purpose of taking a reservation'.

Airport: We know the purpose.
Seinfeld: Obviously you dont...if you did...I'd have a car!
You might know how to TAKE reservation,
but you dont seem to know how to HOLD one.
And THAT really is the purpose for taking one, isnt it? It's the holding!
Anybody can just TAKE em. (willy-nilly, lol)
But its the HOOLLLDDING that really is key, isn't it? ound:

It seems similar here. Some ppl know how to SAY God saved them (although some dont, it seems, so maybe they're not, but we can't assume that)
But they dont seem to BELIEVE God saved them...
They dont seem to trust that God will KEEP them (HOLD the reservation)

once saved ... maybe?... but not ALWAYS saved? ... maybe?

Ignored?

 

[Josiah]

Fact #1: God wants all men saved.
Fact #2: All unsaved men are spiritually dead.


CALVINISM:
Strength: God does 100% of the saving.
Weakness: Denies Fact #1.


ARMINIANISM:
Strength: Places fault for damnation with man, not God.
Weakness: Even if God does 99.999% of the work of salvation, it still requires some effort from a corrupt (dead) man to save himself so salvation is not 100% of God.


LUTHERAN :
God calls all and those who are saved are 100% saved by God.
Those who are damned are 100% responsible for their own sin and rejection of the Gospel.
The reason why some are not saved is a mystery that cannot be explained by logic without falling into error.
(The famous Lutheran "MYSTERY").


.

So going by the above definitions, it appears that the Lutheran position supports osas, then, yes no?

No (but you are off topic; this thread is not about the uber-Calvinist theory of OSAS).


Lutherans hold that OSAS is yet another new Calvinist theory that confuses Law and Gospel and tries to impose a certain human "logic" on God that ends up conflicting with Scripture and creating a horror. But again, off topic for this thread. IF you want to discuss this new Calvinist theory, I'd suggest starting a thread on that (but beware: Calvinist themselves have MUCH disagreement on this, indeed there are countless different versions of OSAS among them; but its a different discussion for a different thread).


Atpollard did a reasonably good job of sharing the problems with both new theories - both Arminianism and Calvinism. As well as a reasonable job of relating the Lutheran (and traditional, orthodox) view. I'd point all to the YouTube referenced in the opening post.

The issue here is the "cross of theology" of "Why are some saved and not others?" It's not the post-Calvin invention of OSAS. I note they aren't the same discussion in Calvinism either (being different parts of TULIP)

 

[Imalive]

Ignored?

snored

 

[MoreCoffee]

Fact #1: God wants all men saved.
Fact #2: All unsaved men are spiritually dead.

CALVINISM:
Strength: God does 100% of the saving.
Weakness: Denies Fact #1.

ARMINIANISM:
Strength: Places fault for damnation with man, not God.
Weakness: Even if God does 99.999% of the work of salvation, it still requires some effort from a corrupt (dead) man to save himself so salvation is not 100% of God.

LUTHERAN SOLUTION:
God calls all and those who are saved are 100% saved by God.
Those who are damned are 100% responsible for their own sin and rejection of the Gospel.
The reason why some are not saved is a mystery that cannot be explained by logic without falling into error.
(The famous Lutheran "MYSTERY").

Thanks for the pithy summary. I thought it would be possible to supply one. Thanks for doing the work.

 

[MennoSota]

It is a bit complex, I agree, but what you've said here is definitely not the case. Lutherans essentially say that we are lost without Christ but if given the gift of faith can still lose salvation.

Does God take His gift back?
If God saves us by grace alone, does He not keep us by grace alone...or can we abuse God's grace so that are abuse is greater than his grace? (See Romans 6)
What you share is a semi-pelagian position. A synergistic position.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Does God take His gift back?
If God saves us by grace alone, does He not keep us by grace alone...or can we abuse God's grace so that are abuse is greater than his grace? (See Romans 6)
What you [Albion] share is a semi-pelagian position. A synergistic position.

Okay, everything is semi-pelagianism ... Now what?

 

[Imalive]

nm

 

[MennoSota]

Okay, everything is semi-pelagianism ... Now what?

Not everything is semi-pelagian. Churches like Nazarene, Church of Christ, most Pentacostal churches and Wesleyan are straight-up pelagian.
Most Baptist, Lutheran and Roman churches as well as independent/free church are semi-pelagian. Both groups are synergistic in that they teach salvation by God's grace through human faith and effort.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Not everything is semi-pelagian. Churches like Nazarene, Church of Christ, most Pentacostal churches and Wesleyan are straight-up pelagian.
Most Baptist, Lutheran and Roman churches as well as independent/free church are semi-pelagian. Both groups are synergistic in that they teach salvation by God's grace through human faith and effort.

Okay, now what?

 

[MennoSota]

Okay, now what?

You tell me. You're the one running down another bunny trail...

 

[MoreCoffee]

You tell me. You're the one running down another bunny trail...

I'm wondering what all the labeling is aiming to achieve. What's it mean. What does it accomplish?

 

[MennoSota]

I'm wondering what all the labeling is aiming to achieve. What's it mean. What does it accomplish?

It allows us to recognize where our faith is placed and in whom we trust.
It helps us understand the presuppositions that inform our point if view toward God and His interactions with humanity.
It helps us identify fundamental errors that are not supported in scripture.
It allows us to correct and sharpen our faith.
It keeps heresy from creeping into the body of Christ.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It allows us to recognize where our faith is placed and in whom we trust.
It helps us understand the presuppositions that inform our point if view toward God and His interactions with humanity.
It helps us identify fundamental errors that are not supported in scripture.
It allows us to correct and sharpen our faith.
It keeps heresy from creeping into the body of Christ.

Oh. Okay

 

[Imalive]

-

 

[Josiah]

Not everything is semi-pelagian. Churches like Nazarene, Church of Christ, most Pentacostal churches and Wesleyan are straight-up pelagian.
Most Baptist, Lutheran and Roman churches as well as independent/free church are semi-pelagian. Both groups are synergistic in that they teach salvation by God's grace through human faith and effort.

I think you know nothing of Lutheranism (at least; maybe of other groups too).

Fact #1: God wants all men saved.
Fact #2: All unsaved men are spiritually dead.


CALVINISM:
Strength: God does 100% of the saving.
Weakness: Denies Fact #1.


ARMINIANISM:
Strength: Places fault for damnation with man, not God.
Weakness: Even if God does 99.999% of the work of salvation, it still requires some effort from a corrupt (dead) man to save himself so salvation is not 100% of God.


LUTHERAN:
God calls all and those who are saved are 100% saved by God.
Those who are damned are 100% responsible for their own sin and rejection of the Gospel.
The reason why some are not saved is a mystery that cannot be explained by logic without falling into error.
(The famous Lutheran "MYSTERY").


.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAqrIOchEN8


.

How you could have read my posts ...or watched the Lutheran prof in the video... and post what you did.... is amazing. But maybe you did neither.


I think you perhaps are just proving a point I've made about too much of uber-Calvinism apologetics: They like to pretend there are only two possibilities: Uber-Arminianism and Uber-Calvinism, and if you aren't one you HAVE to be other. Then they prove Arminianism wrong and shout "ERGO Calvinism is right!" It's absurd (and illogical). Friend, when you label ME a synergistic Arminian - well, most here know about absurd that is, what flawed apologetics that is: I think perhaps you are just doing what so many Calvinist apologetists and Calvinist websites try to do.




.

 

[MennoSota]

I think you know nothing of Lutheranism (at least; maybe of other groups too).






.

I think you cut and paste.
I know that you have been contradicting yourself by claiming a monergist position while teaching a synergist position. It's been odd to read.

 

[Imalive]

Is there even one good ism?
Baptism and prism.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Is there even one good ism?
Baptism and prism.

You forgot the ultimate goodness Catholicism.

 

[Pedrito]

Post # 37:

Is there even one good ism?
Baptism and prism.

Post #38:

You forgot the ultimate goodness Catholicism.

Pedrito would like to suggest something more certain – truism.

 

[Lamb]

I think you cut and paste.
I know that you have been contradicting yourself by claiming a monergist position while teaching a synergist position. It's been odd to read.

What is your definition of synergism then? Lutherans are monergists.