TULIP and why I disagree with it

The term "Calvinism" is used by some people who do not hold Calvin's teaching on predestination and do not understand exactly what Calvin taught.

Dr. Loraine Boettner in his book, 'The reformed Doctrine of Predestination', says, "The Calvinistic system especially emphasized five distinct doctrines. These are technically known as 'The Five Points of Calvinism.' And they are the main pillars upon which the superstructure rests."

Dr. Boettner further says, "The five points may be more easily remembered if they are associated with the word T-U-L-I-P;

I have heard people say, "I am a one-point Calvinist, a two-point Calvinist" and so on. Look at each one of these views as taught by Calvin and then see what the Bible has to say on each point. As with any Doctrine, it is no stronger than the foundation upon which it is built and it'll either be built upon sand or the Rock!

By total inability Calvin meant that a lost sinner could not repent and come to Jesus Christ and trust Him as Savior, unless he is foreordained to come to Christ. By total inability he meant that no man has the ability to come to Christ. And unless God overpowers him and gives him that ability, he will never come to Christ.

The Bible teaches total depravity. But that simply means that there is nothing good in man to earn or deserve salvation. The Bible says in Jeremiah 17:9,

While the Bible teaches the depravity of the human race, it no where teaches total inability. The Bible never hints that people are lost because they have no ability to come to Christ. The language of Jesus was (John 5:40),

Notice, it is not a matter of whether or not you CAN come to Christ; it is a matter of whether or not you WILL come to Him.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem. . how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, AND YE WOULD NOT!" (Matt 23:37).

Here again notice, He did not say, "How often I would have gathered you together, but you COULD not." No. He said, "Ye WOULD not!" It was not a matter of whether they could; it was a matter of whether they would.

"And the Spirit and the bride say, COME. And let him that hearth say, Come. And let him that is thirsty come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."

If it is true that no person has the ability to come to Christ, then why would Jesus say in John 5:40, "Ye will not come to me?" Why didn't He simply say, "You cannot come to me"?

Some Calvinists use John 6:44 in an effort to prove total inability. Here the Bible says,

But the Bible makes it plain in John 12:32 that Christ will draw all men unto Himself,

All men are drawn to Christ, but not all men will trust Christ as Savior. Every man will make his own decision to trust Christ or to reject Him. The Bible makes it clear that all men have light. (Jn 1:9) Rom. 1:19, 20 indicates that every sinner has been called through the creation about him. Romans 2:11-16 indicates that sinners are called through their conscience, even when they have not heard the gospel.

So in the final analysis, men GO to Hell, not because of their inability to come to Christ, but because they will not come to Him - "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."

The teaching that men, women and children are totally unable to come to Christ and trust Him as Savior is not a scriptural doctrine. The language itself is not scriptural. The foundation of this doctrine is very shaky when looked at in light of what the Scriptures say and not what some men have said.

By unconditional election Calvin meant that some are elected to go to Heaven, while others are elected to go to Hell, and that this election is unconditional. It is wholly on God's part and without condition. By unconditional election Calvin meant that God has already decided who will be saved and who will be lost, and the individual has absolutely nothing to do with it. He can only hope that God has elected him for Heaven and not for Hell.

This teaching so obviously disagrees with the oft-repeated invitations in the Bible to sinners to come to Christ and be saved that some readers will think that I have overstated the doctrine. So I will quote John Calvin in his "Institutes, Book III, chapter 23,"

"...Not all men are created with similar destiny but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say, he is predestined either to life or to death."

So Calvinism teaches that it is God's own choice that some people are to be damned forever. He never intended to save them. He foreordained them to go to Hell. And when He offers salvation in the Bible, He does not offer it to those who were foreordained to be damned. It is offered only to those who were foreordained to be saved.

This teaching insists that we need not try to win men to the Lord because men cannot be saved unless God has planned for them to be saved. And if God has planned for them to be eternally lost, they will not come to Christ.

There is the Bible doctrine of God's foreknowledge, predestination and election. Most knowledgeable Christians agree that God has His controlling hand on the affairs of men. They agree that according to the Bible, He selects individuals like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David as instruments to do certain things He has planned. Most Christians agree that God may choose a nation - particularly that He did choose Israel, through which He gave the law, the prophets, and eventually through whom the Savior Himself would come - and that there is a Bible doctrine that God foreknows all things.

God in His foreknowledge knows who will trust Jesus Christ as Savior, and He has predestined to see that they are justified and glorified. He will keep all those who trust Him and see that they are glorified. But the doctrine that God elected some men to Hell, that they were born to be damned by God's own choice, is a radical heresy not taught anywhere in the Bible.

In the booklet entitled TULIP by Vic Lockman, Lockman attempts to prove the five points of Calvinism. Under the point, Unconditional Election, he quotes Ephesians 1:4, but he only quotes the first part of the verse: "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world." However, that is not the end of the verse. Mr. Lockman, like most Calvinists, stopped in the middle of the verse. The entire verse reads:

"According as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love."

The verse says nothing about being chosen for Heaven or Hell. It says we are chosen that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.

Again, Mr. Lockman, like most Calvinists, stops in the middle of the verse. The entire verse reads:

"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."

The verse says nothing about being chosen for Heaven or Hell. It says we are chosen to go and bring forth fruit, which simply means that every Christian is chosen to be a witness for Him and to practice soul winning. Proverbs 11:30 says,

Nowhere does the Bible teach that God wills for some to go to Heaven and wills for others to go to Hell. NO. The Bible teaches that God would have all men to be saved. 2 Pet. 3:9 says that He is

"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

Those who teach that God would only have some to be saved, while He would have others to be lost are misrepresenting God and the Bible. Does God really predestinate some people to be saved and predestinate others to go to Hell, so that they have no free choice?

Absolutely not! Nobody is predestined to be saved, except as He chooses of his own free will to come to Christ and trust Him for salvation. And no one is predestined to go to Hell, except as he chooses of his own free will to reject Christ and refuses to trust Him as Savior. John 3:36 says,

"He that believes on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on Him."

Nothing could be plainer. The man who goes to Heaven goes because he comes to Jesus Christ and trusts Him as Savior. And the man who goes to Hell does so because he refuses to come to Jesus Christ and will not trust Him as Savior.

By limited atonement, Calvin meant that Christ died only for the elect, for those He planned and ordained to go to Heaven: He did not die for those He planned and ordained to go to Hell. Again I say, such language is not in the Bible, and the doctrine wholly contradicts many, many plain Scriptures.

"He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

The teaching of Calvinism on Limited Atonement contradicts the express statement of Scripture. First Timothy 2:5-6 says,

"and said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world."

"and we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world."

"For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved."

No man will ever look at Jesus and say, "You didn't want to be my Savior." No! No! Jesus wants to be the Savior of all men. As a matter of fact, I Timothy 4:10 says,

"For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those who believe."

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.:

There are two "ALLS" in this verse. The first "ALL" speaks of the universal fact of sin -

The "ALL" in the first part of Isaiah 53:6 covers the same crowd that the "ALL" in the last part of that verse covers. If we all went astray, then the iniquities of all were laid on Christ.

Not only did He bear the sins of us all, but the Bible plainly teaches that He died for the whole world. Look at I John 2:2,

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

If that isn't plain enough, the Bible says His death was for every man; (Hebrews 2:9)

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for EVERY MAN" .

Nothing could be plainer than the fact that Jesus Christ died for every man. First Timothy 2:5-6 says,

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all. . . ."

"He that spared not His own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?"

"that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man"; "Who gave himself a ransom for all"; "delivered him up for us all."

John 3:16 has been called "the heart of the Bible." It has been called "the Bible in miniature." "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Jesus died for the whole world. He suffered Hell for every man who has ever lived or ever will live. And no man will look out of Hell and say, "I wanted to be saved, but Jesus did not die for me.

Some argue that if Jesus died for the whole world, the whole world would be saved. No. The death of Christ on the cross was sufficient for all, but it is efficient only to those who believe. The death of Jesus Christ on the cross made it possible for every man everywhere to be saved. but only those who believe that He died to pay their sin debt and who trust Him completely fro salvation will be saved.

Everybody is potentially saved, but everybody is not actually saved until he recognizes that he is a sinner, believes that Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the sin debt, rose from the grave on the third day, and trust Him completely for salvation.

"all we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

The fourth point of Calvinism is irresistible grace. By irresistible grace, John Calvin meant that God simply forces people to be saved. God elected some to be saved, and He let Jesus die for that elect group.

And now by irresistible grace, He forces those He elected, and those Jesus Christ died for to be saved.

The truth of the matter is, there is no such thing as irresistible grace. Nowhere in the Bible does the word "irresistible" appear before the word "grace." That terminology is simply not in the Bible. It is the philosophy of John Calvin, not a Bible doctrine. The word "irresistible" doesn't even sound right in front of the word "grace."

Grace means "God's unmerited favor." Grace is an attitude, not a power. If Calvin had talked about the irresistible drawing power of God, it would have made more sense. But instead, he represents grace as the irresistible act of God compelling a man to be saved who does not want to be saved, so that a man has no choice in the matter at all, except as God forcibly puts a choice in his mind. Calvinism teaches that man has no part in salvation, and cannot possibly cooperate with God in the matter. In no sense of the word and at no stage of the work does salvation depend upon the will or work of man or wait for the determination of his will.

Does the Bible say anything about irresistible grace? Absolutely not! The Scriptures show that men do resist and reject God. Prov.29:1 states,

"He, that being often reproved hardens his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy."

Notice the word "OFTEN" in this verse. If God only gave one opportunity to be saved, then man could not complain. But here the Bible says, "He, that being often reproved. . . ." This means the man was reproved over and over again. Not only was he reproved many times, but he was reproved often.

But the Bible says he "hardens his neck" and "shall suddenly be destroyed, and without remedy." That certainly doesn't sound like irresistible grace. The Bible teaches that a man can be reproved over and over again, and he can harden his neck against God, and as a result will be destroyed without remedy.

"Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would have none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear comes."

Here the Bible plainly says, "I have called, and ye have refused. . .but ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would have none of my reproof." That doesn't sound like irresistible grace. God calls, and men refuse. Is that irresistible? God stretches out His hand and no man regards it?

Is that irresistible grace? No. The Bible makes it plain that some men do reject Christ, and they refuse His call. John 5:40 says,

That verse plainly teaches that men can and do resist God and refuse to come to Him. In Acts 7, we find Stephen preaching. He says in verse 51,

"Ye stiff necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye."

To these Jewish leaders, Stephen said, "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost." So here were people; some of whom had seen Jesus and heard Him preach; others who had heard Peter at Pentecost; others who had heard Stephen and other Spirit-filled men preaching with great power. And what had they done? They were stiff necked and uncircumcised in their heart and ears. That is, they were stubborn and rebellious against God. The Bible plainly says, "They resisted the holy Ghost."

Notice the words of Stephen in verse 51, "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." Here the Bible teaches that not only were these Jewish leaders resisting the Holy ghost, but that their fathers before them had also resisted the Holy Spirit. Stephen says that all the way from Abraham, through the history of the Jewish nation, down to the time of Christ, unconverted Jews had resisted the Holy Spirit.

But man must make his own choice. He must either receive or reject Christ. John 1:12 says,

"But as many as received Him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name."

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

Here again the Bible clearly indicates that God would have gathered them together as a hen gathers her brood, but they would not. That certainly shows that they could reject and resist Christ. "I would, but ye would not" does not fit the teaching of irresistible grace. So people do resist the Holy Spirit. They do refuse to come to Christ. They do harden their necks. They do refuse when God calls.

That means that those who are not saved could have been saved. Those who rejected Christ could have accepted Him. God offers salvation to those who will have it, but does not force it upon anyone who doesn't want it.

The Bible teaches, and I believe in, the eternal security of the born-again believer. The man who has trusted Jesus Christ has ever- lasting life and will never perish. But the eternal security of the believer does not depend upon his perseverance.

I do not know a single Bible verse that says anything about the saints' persevering, but there are several Bible verses that mention the fact that the saints have been preserved. Perseverance is one thing. Preservation is another. No. The saints do not persevere; they are preserved.

"Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ. . . ."

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly: and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The Bible makes it plain that the believer is kept. He does not keep himself. First Peter 1:4-5 states:

"To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fades not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life: and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."

Now that doesn't sound like the PERSEVERANCE of the sheep or the saints. Here the sheep are in the Father's hand, and they are safe - not because they persevere, but because they are in the Father's hand.

"I do not believe in the PERSEVERANCE of the saints. I believe in the PERSEVERANCE of the Savior."

To be sure, the Bible teaches the eternal security of the believer. But the believer's security has nothing to do with his persevering. We are secure because we are kept by God. We are held in the Father's hand. And according to Ephesians 4:30, we have been sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption.

So I disagree with all 5 points of Calvinism as John Calvin taught it. There is a belief that if one does not teach universal salvation, he must either be a Calvinist or an Arminian. In his book, "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Dr. Loraine Boettner says on page 47,

"There are really only three systems which claim to set forth the way of salvation through Christ [And he names them]:

"(1) Universalism, that all will be saved. (2) Arminianism, which holds that Christ died equally and indiscriminately for every individual. . ., that saving grace is not necessarily permanent, but those who are loved of God, ransomed by by God, and born of the Holy Spirit may (let God wish and strive ever so much to the contrary) throw away all and perish eternally; and,

"Only two are held by Christians." That is Calvin's position and Arminius' position."

Calvinists would like to make people believe that if one does not teach universal salvation, he must either be a Calvinist or an Arminian. And since the Arminian position does such violence to the grace of God, many preferred to call themselves Calvinists. But a person doesn't have to take either position.

I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist. I believe in salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ. I believe in the eternal security of the believer. I believe that Jesus Christ died for all men, and I believe what the Bible says,

In conclusion, let me say that Calvin and those who followed him claimed to believe and follow the Bible. They claimed to find at least a germ of the Calvinist doctrine in the Scriptures. But a careful student will find that again and again they go beyond the Scripture, and that Calvinism is a philosophy developed by man and depending on fallible logic and frail, human reasoning, with the perversion of some Scriptures, the misuse of others, and the total ignoring of many clear Scriptures. Calvin did teach many wonderful, true doctrines of Scripture.

It is true that God foreknows everything that will happen in the world. It is true that God definitely ordained and determined some events ahead of time and selected some individuals for His purposes.

It is certain that people are saved by grace, and are kept by the power of God. That far Calvinists may well prove their doctrines by Scriptures. but beyond that, Calvinism goes into a realm of human philosophy.

It is not a Bible doctrine, but a system of human philosophy, especially appealing to the scholarly intellect, the self-sufficient and proud mind. Brilliant, philosophical, scholarly preachers are apt to be misled on this matter more than the humble-hearted, Bible-believing Christian.

By attacking all points of TULIP, you've also attacked Lutheranism and other confessional Protestant churches.

We Lutherans have our strongest disagreements with our Calvinist brothers and sisters on unconditional election and limited atonement, not to mention the nature of the Lord's Supper -- in, with, under -- though I imagine we'd both disagree with your position for some of the same reasons.

Everything boils down to two main areas of scripture: law and gospel. Law tells us what to do. Gospel tells us what has been done for us in Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Nobody is saved under the law since we cannot keep it. Only gospel saves, for the sake of Christ's work alone.

You've certainly pointed out some important verses with respect to total depravity (or inability). The thing is, you don't find many instances of people responding to such calls to salvation in the Scripture under the law. The verses you use are all law: do this, do that, you come to Me. You only find people responding as a matter of gospel. "No man cometh to the father but by me," and "No man cometh unless the Holy Ghost draw him," and "No man sayeth Jesus Christ is lord but by the Holy Ghost." If you get law and gospel wrong, everything else will be wrong. On this our churches agree.

As I noted, we disagree with our Calvinist brethren about election and predestination -- but to a degree. We, too, agree the Bible contains doctrines of election and predestination. They're both good Bible words and sound doctrine. So don't be too excited because we both disagree with you.

As for our differences, the scripture does not say, "God is not willing that the elect should perish..." but rather than ANY. Nor does the Bible say, "For God so loved the elect," rather he loved the world. We accept that grace is available to both the elect (who were predestined) and to those who aren't (though we disagree that they're predestined to hell). The Calvinist position is, we believe, an attempt to rationalize incongruent teachings from Scripture rather than leaving it to the unsearchable knowledge and purposes of God.

I hope you noted that I still refer to Calvinists as my brethren. They truly are. They believe and trust in Christ alone for their salvation, and they're drawn to faith by the same Holy Spirit working through word and sacrament. BTW, sacraments are all gospel. Your position is most likely that they're all law, which is why we would disagree with your views about them. Let me know if you'd like to discuss the matter fully so you can understand our position accurately.

Let me also remind you that Calvin and his colleagues, like Luther and his colleagues, faced penalty of death for proclaiming salvation by grace alone through faith alone for the sake of Christ alone. I urge you to read the Belgic Confession, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Heidelberg Catechism to see what Calvinists believe and confess and then decide if Calvinism is of the Bible or of man. Though I'm not Calvinist, I know the answer's not man.

That being said, Luther, himself, was a Double Predestinarian. It was the later Lutherans who denied the predestination of the reprobate.

Please cite some evidence of this, especially from the man himself. Like this one: "I care nothing about the disputation concerning predestination" (citation in link below).

I've already read one analysis by a Brian Mattson, and his analysis of Lewis Spitz (Spitz wrote, "[Luther] left the question of why some were lost open," to which Mattson calls "unfortunate") makes the case against himself. Judging one's words across milieus often leads to big misunderstandings. I think this is certainly the case with respect to Mattson, Allister McGrath, et al. Read all of Luther's works and you will not find that he held to double predestination at all; read a few items from his prolific writings and you come away with a rather small picture -- and quite likely an incomplete one -- of what he believed.
Here's a quick source from me.

Now, however, many Lutherans deny Reformational predestination all together.

Many people in one particular church body call themselves Lutheran while denying the Lutheran confessions, sola fide, sola gratia, inerrancy, the Trinity, and other doctrines of the Christian faith. My synod (denomination) remains true and faithful to her calling, though not without occasional turmoil. The large synod to which I referred consists of a number of those who voluntarily left mine in the 1970s when our synod affirmed traditional, historic Christianity.

"I've already read one analysis by a Brian Mattson, and his analysis of Lewis Spitz (Spitz wrote, "[Luther] left the question of why some were lost open," to which Mattson calls "unfortunate") makes the case against himself. Judging one's words across milieus often leads to big misunderstandings"

This quote would support my contention that "official" Lutheran theology does not believe that men are predestined to condemnation -actively or passively.

This quote mentions Luther's position only with respect to the unregenerate. Furthermore, it doesn't state ~his~ position at all, only that ~he~ is willing to leave it an open issue. One can hold a specific position and at the same time one can hold that there is room for dissenting views on that opinion.

On the issue of the evidence of Luther's double predestination, see Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination by Brian Mattson

Regards,

Jean

Whooops!

I missed your mention of Mattson's article.

Could you explain your statement "I've already read one analysis by a Brian Mattson, and his analysis of Lewis Spitz (Spitz wrote, "[Luther] left the question of why some were lost open," to which Mattson calls "unfortunate") makes the case against himself" a little more clearly?

I will also note that Mattson quotes Spitz as saying:

St. Augustine was a high double predestinarian. . . .Luther found assurance in the belief that the faith of the elect was determined by God's eternal counsel and did not depend upon man's own weak will, but, except for some polemical passages in his treatise On the Bondage of the Will in which he overstated his own case, he left the question of why some were lost open. . . ."[

At the very least, Spitz acknowledges that Luther held to at least the "Single Predestination" view. The Single Predestination view, in reminder, believes that God foreordains/predestines the "elect" to salvation apart from their "wills". In other words, "Single Predestinarians" are not remotely "Arminian", they do not believe that "election" is based on "foreseen faith". They readily acknowledge God unconditionally elected certain men to salvation. This is precisely the "official" Lutheran version I mentioned in my #8.

Thanks,

Jean

One can hold a specific position and at the same time one can hold that there is room for dissenting views on that opinion.

Yes, and this is why I'm tolerant to my reformed brethren. :-)

Let me briefly expand my remarks about the Mattson piece. I'm not sure I agree that Luther adopted all of Augustine's views so reflexively (and other scholars, as Mattson notes, don't either); I don't want to get into an "Augustine says, Luther says" discussion. Spitz was correct in noting that Luther leaves open the question of the lost since Luther avoids the subject throughout his writing, urging the Christian to look to Christ and the cross for a sign of their eternal security. As Matzat notes in his article, the doctrine of predestination was not central to Luther and he wrote about the mystery between divine election and universal grace, "We are not allowed to investigate, and even though you were to investigate much, yet you would never find out."

I'll consider your posts fully over the next couple days. I also want time to run over to the seminary library and check over a few things before responding more fully. Thanks for replying.

Here's where I stopped reading, Ed...

"However, that is not the end of the verse. Mr. Lockman, like most Calvinists, stopped in the middle of the verse. The entire verse reads..."

"Again, Mr. Lockman, like most Calvinists, stops in the middle of the verse. The entire verse reads..."

"The Bible teaches that God would have all men to be saved. 2 Pet. 3:9 says that He is 'not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.'"

Unlike most Calvinists, Mr. Hossack STARTS in the middle of the verse. The entire verse reads:

"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

Certainly if you choose to ignore the context of the verse the first part means little, but seeing as the author's foundational premise for that section is that there is no sovereign election I think the first part of the verse has considerable bearing.

The rest of the article appears to be of the same consistency...sludge.

Regarding the Mattson quote:

I wanted fuller explanation of how you think Mattson "makes the case against himself".

To quote you one more time:

I've already read one analysis by a Brian Mattson, and his analysis of Lewis Spitz (Spitz wrote, "[Luther] left the question of why some were lost open," to which Mattson calls "unfortunate") makes the case against himself.

First, you have incorrectly identified what Matsson "calls 'unfortunate'". Mattson does not question Spitz statement "[Luther] left the question of why some were lost open".

What Mattson calls "unfortunate" is "That Spitz makes this claim apart from any analysis of Luther". That is a different thing all-together.

Furthermore, you didn't post the quote in its entirety:

St. Augustine was a high double predestinarian. . . .Luther found assurance in the belief that the faith of the elect was determined by God's eternal counsel and did not depend upon man's own weak will, but, except for some polemical passages in his treatise On the Bondage of the Will in which he overstated his own case, he left the question of why some were lost open. . . ."[30]

Mattson then goes on to comment on Spitz's comment that "[Luther] overstated his own case":

That Spitz makes this claim apart from any analysis of Luther is unfortunate, considering his good reputation as an historian. He here seems embarrassed for Luther by claiming he "overstated his own case." While this is quite an admission regarding the contents of Luther's work, Spitz's editorialism is simply untrue. Did the great author himself believe he had "overstated" his case? On the contrary, in 1537, writing to Wolfgang Capito concerning a plan to publish his complete works, he states, "I would rather see them [his books] devoured. For I acknowledge none of them to be really a book of mine, except for perhaps the one On the Bound Will, and the Catechism."[29] It is clear that twelve years following its publication, Luther claimed the book as his most important, hardly as an overstatement of his case for predestination. Furthermore, it would seem as though Luther held his "overstated" double predestinarian views not simply at the time of, or after, the publication of The Bondage of the Will, but years prior as well. In his Commentary on Romans, written around 1515, he wrote,

All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned.[30]

Rather than Mattson "mak[ing] the case against himself", I see that it is Spitz who makes the case against himself with the admission that Luther "overstated his own case" on Predestination in Luther's On the Bondage of the Will.

All this is really mute, afterall, because either Luther held to the "Single Predestination" view with Concord or he held to the "Double Predestination" view with Calvin.

My original point in response to your Post #3 was to comment on the point that I thought you were making regarding your (Lutheran's) disagreement with Calvinists on "Unconditional Election".

In reality, whether of the "Single Predestination" position or of the "Double Predestination", the Lutherans agree with the Calvinists on "Unconditional Election". "Unconditional Election" is not a statement on Reprobation (that the unregerate were predestined to condemnation), but is a statement on how the Elect come to Salvation. (Remember, Mattson is discussing whether Luther was a Single Predestinarian or a Double Predestinarian, not whether or not Luther believed in "Unconditional Election" -that Luther believed in Unconditional Election seems to be a given by both Mattson and Spitz)

Your statements left that unclear and they could have been interpreted that Lutherans deny that by the fall of our first parents man was so corrupted that in divine things pertaining to our conversion and the salvation of our souls he is by nature blind, that, when the Word of God is preached, he neither does nor can understand it, but regards it as foolishness; also, that he does not of himself draw nigh to God, but is and remains an enemy of God, until he is converted, becomes a believer [is endowed with faith], is regenerated and renewed, by the power of the Holy Ghost through the Word when preached and heard, out of pure grace, without any cooperation of his own.

Jean

Here's where I stopped reading, Ed... "However, that is not the end of the verse. Mr. Lockman, like most Calvinists, stopped in the middle of the verse. The entire verse reads..." "Again, Mr. Lockman, like most Calvinists, stops in the middle of the verse. The entire verse reads..." "The Bible teaches that God would have all men to be saved. 2 Pet. 3:9 says that He is 'not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.'" Unlike most Calvinists, Mr. Hossack STARTS in the middle of the verse. The entire verse reads: "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." Certainly if you choose to ignore the context of the verse the first part means little, but seeing as the author's foundational premise for that section is that there is no sovereign election I think the first part of the verse has considerable bearing. The rest of the article appears to be of the same consistency...sludge.

Amazing!

Calvin himself thought the 'all' men meant all men as does Cunstance!

This is from the Calvinist Lightner,

The question is " is it scripturally and logically sound always to retrict every usage of the words 'all' 'whosoever' and 'world, when they occur in the salvation context? This is precisly what the limited redemptionist always does and must do. There may not be a single exception if the limited viewpoint is to stand. The basis for this restriction rests upon the fact that in some instances, which are unrelated to the work of Christ on the Cross, the words are thus restricted. But is this a valid reason for always restricting them in salvation passages? We say no, and we say it emphatically...(Robert P. Lightner, The Death that Christ Died, p.69)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.