Was Martin Luther Wrong?

antithesis.com ^ | 10/31/01 | R. C. Sproul

[AnalogReigns]

There is no such thing as merit;
but all who are justified
are justified for nothing (gratis),
and this is credited to no one
but to the grace of God. . . .

For Christ alone it is proper
to help and save others
with His merits and works.

Martin Luther

Justification is conferred in baptism,
the sacrament of faith.
It conforms us to the righteousness of God,
who makes us inwardly just
by the power of his mercy.

The New Catechism (of the Roman Catholic Church)

I have found that my beliefs are essentially the same as those of orthodox Roman Catholics.

Billy Graham

Was Martin Luther Wrong?

Since the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, “by faith alone” (sola fide) has been the defining doctrine of evangelical Christianity — and the way of justification the defining difference between Roman Catholics and evangelicals. But in recent years these differences seem to be increasingly ignored by evangelical leaders such as Billy Graham, Charles Colson, Bill Bright and others. A noticeable trend has been developing.

Most so-called “Christian booksellers” carry books from both evangelical and Roman Catholic publishing houses, with little differentiation. A leading evangelical recording artist, Michael Card, recently recorded and toured with Roman Catholic monk/musician John Michael Talbot. Evangelicals and Catholics are found praying together, worshipping together, and studying the Bible together. While these things have not gone without criticism, their widespread acceptance has led a number of evangelicals to ask:

Whatever happened to the Reformation?
Was Martin Luther wrong, after all?
Or does it really matter?

Today marks the 484th anniversary of Luther's famous posting of 95 Theses on the church door at Wittenburg — a move seen as the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. It seems fitting, therefore, to ask this crucial question as we commemorate his revolutionary act. After all, to Luther it was the Gospel itself that was at stake... no less so today as then.

The gospel according to Rome is the "good news" that a sinner may be justified if he or she receives the sacraments, has faith, and cooperates with grace to the point of becoming inherently righteous. That justification is effective as long as the believer refrains from mortal sin. If the person loses justification by mortal sin, he or she may be restored to justification by the sacrament of penance. If the person dies not in mortal sin but with impurities, he or she can get to heaven after being cleansed in purgatory.

Was Luther wrong in standing against this "gospel"? If not, shouldn't the fact that so many evangelicals are acquiescing to Roman Catholicism disturb us?

Using the Bible as your guide — setting your emotions and prejudices aside, while engaging the mind — you be the judge...

Rob Schläpfer : Editor
editor@antithesis.com

What Was Wrong with Luther?

What was the matter with Martin Luther? some might ask. The matter with Luther was a matter of the greatest possible urgency.

The matter with Luther was that sin matters.
The matter with Luther was that salvation matters,
ultimately and eternally.

Luther felt the weight of these matters to a degree few people, if any, have felt them in human history. These issues mattered enough to Luther to compel him to stand against the authority of church and state in a lonely and often bitter contest that made him Luther contra mundum. [=against the world]

Following the ancient Aristotelian form-matter schema, historians have pinpointed the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide) as the material cause of the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation. It was the chief matter under dispute. Luther considered it "the article upon which the church stands or falls." At a personal level he understood that it was the article upon which he himself stood or fell.

Thus, since the Reformation the doctrine of sola fide has been the defining doctrine of evangelical Christianity. It has functioned as a normative doctrine because it has been understood as essential to the Gospel itself. Without sola fide one does not have the Gospel; and without the Gospel one does not have the Christian faith. When an ecclesiastical communion rejects sola fide, as Rome did at the Council of Trent, it ceases being a true church, no matter how orthodox it may be in other matters, because it has condemned an essential of the faith. Whereas at Worms Luther stood, at Trent Rome fell and remains fallen to this day.

The Character of God
The dilemma Luther experienced in the anguish of his soul was related in the first instance to his correct understanding of the character of God. One of the essential attributes of God (essential in that without it God would not be God) is his justice. The Scriptures clearly reveal that the God of heaven and earth is just. This means far more than that the judgment he renders is equitable. It is not only that God does what is just, but that he does what is just because he is just. His righteous actions flow out of his righteous character.

That God is eternally and immutably just posed for Luther (as it should also pose for us) the ultimate dilemma, because we are not just. We are sinners lacking the perfect justness of God. Our sin violates the supreme standard of righteousness found in God's character. This is the burden Luther felt so keenly, but which we tend to treat lightly. We are inclined to think that God is so merciful that his mercy will annul or cancel out his justice. We assume that God will grade us on a curve and that he is quite willing to negotiate his own righteousness.

As sinners with recalcitrant hearts, human beings have no fear of the justice of God, in part because they are ignorant of his law and additionally because, when they are aware of it, they hold it in contempt. We have all become, as Jeremiah said of Israel, like a harlot who has lost the capacity to blush (Jer. 6:15; 8: 12). We assume that our works are good enough to pass the scrutiny of God at the final tribunal. And we do this despite the apostolic warning that by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified (Rom. 3:20).

People who consider themselves just enough in their own goodness do not tremble before the law and feel no need for the Gospel. For such, the matter of justification is not of great importance. It is merely a "doctrine," and to the contemporary church few things are deemed less important than doctrine. "Doctrine divides," we are told. "What matters is that we have a personal relationship with Jesus. The doctrine of justification doesn't save us; it is Christ who saves us."

Doctrines Unite
Certainly doctrines do divide. Certainly doctrines do not in themselves save us. Certainly we are called to have a personal relationship with Christ. However, doctrine also unites. It unites those who share one Lord, one faith, one baptism. And though doctrines do not save us, they correctly inform us of how we are saved.

It must be added, too, that having a personal relationship with Jesus does not save us unless it is a saving relationship. Everyone has a personal relationship with Jesus. Even the devil has a personal relationship with Christ, but it is a relationship of estrangement, of hostility to him. We are all related to Christ, but we are not all united to Christ, which union comes by faith and faith alone.

Luther understood what David understood when he asked the rhetorical question,

If you, O LORD, kept a record of sins,
O LORD, who could stand? (Ps. 130:3)

The question is rhetorical because no explicit answer is given. The answer is nevertheless obvious:

No one.

No one by himself can stand before a God who takes note of our iniquities, for we are all sinners. The problem is that the Lord does mark iniquities and promises to bring every one of them into judgment. Moreover, as long as we remain outside of Christ we are continually heaping up judgment against the day of wrath.

The only way an unjust person can escape the day of God's wrath is to be justified. Only the justified will stand in that day That is why the matter of justification is so vital. It is not a mere theological abstraction or a petty doctrine. The struggle of the Reformation was not a contest of shadowboxing, nor was it a tempest in a teapot. It is perilous to think it was much ado about nothing or simply a misunderstanding among theologians and clerics. To be sure there were issues that were confused and obscured in the heat of the debate. But it was crystal-clear that the core issue was the way of justification, and the two sides took not only differing positions but mutually exclusive and irreconcilable positions in the debate.

What Is Justification?
Justification refers to a legal action by God by which he declares a person just in his sight. The Protestant view is often described as "forensic justification," meaning that justification is a "legal declaration" made by God.

What is often overlooked in discussions about justification is that the Roman Catholic communion also has its version of forensic justification. That is, Catholics agree that justification occurs when God declares a person just. However, when evangelicals speak of forensic justification, the phrase is used as a kind of theological shorthand for sola fide, and what is tacit is the assumption that God declares people to be just who in themselves are not just. Rome teaches that God declares people just only when they are in fact just. They are declared to be just only if and when justness inheres within them. Both sides see justification as a divine declaration, but the ground for such a declaration differs radically.

Rome saw justification as meaning "making just," based on the Latin roots for the word justificare (Justus and facio, facere), which in Roman jurisprudence meant "to make righteous." For Rome, God only declares to be just those who have first been made just...

***

The differences between these two "gospels" is in grave danger of being lost in our day. Efforts to heal the breach between Rome and the Reformation have yielded confusion among many. The issue cannot be resolved by studied ambiguities or different meanings attached to the same words. The crucial issue of infusion versus imputation remains the irreconcilable issue. We are either justified by a righteousness that is in us or by a righteousness that is apart from us. There is no third way.

R. C. Sproul

[AnalogReigns]

Not wrong -- just a potty mouth.

Or maybe just constipated.

Good guess--they may be related--biographers confirm Brother Martin had terrible life-long afflictions of both.

[RnMomof7]

"I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ."
"I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"-St. Pauls 1st letter to the Corinthians
Seems St. Paul is saying that the Jews ate and drank a supernatural food, and that food was Christ. It wasnt 'the word' it was a food, a food from heaven, a supernatural food.

Yes it was supernatural food,as is communion.

Do you believe the manna was the physical body of Christ or a sign? I believe that communion is a supernatural meeting with Christ.I believe that communion is a "participation" in the body of Christ...It is a sacred time...but it is a rememberance.

I repeat for you the following Capt.

Over and over the OT prefigures Christ.

He was standing there in their midst..He was alive ,not dead when the Passover meal was celebrated.

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. John 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. John 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

Jesus spoke to his disciples in symbols they understood...the bread....the Manna.....the blood...the sacrifices offered in the temple........The Shepherd an "unclean" individual in Jewish Law..also used as an OT example of the corrupt teachers and priests....the vine,the symbol of Israel,found over the door of the temple and on the coins
Eat my body.The Manna was a symbol of Me,He was saying..I sustained them in their wandering,I will give you eternal life He was the Blood about to be poured out as the sacrifice for their sins...He was the Blood of the Lamb on the altar......He called Himself living waters....like the water that flowed from the rock in the desert that was Christ..
He was showing Himself to a blind people . He was the Messiah written about in their sacred writings We are to consume him.....we are to be filled with Him..not in a superstitious ritual,but in a daily communion with Him....."eat the scroll" (the word) take it into you "My word is life"

Just one follow up question..if Catholics really believed that they could take the physical body of Christ into themselves...how is it the same mouths are often so vile after Mass..how could it be there is no change in the relationship with Christ because of it.This is not intended as a slap..just an observeation...how would you behave if Jesus sat in your livingroom..how much more should communion cause a change?

[RnMomof7]

An interesting side note here for the various Wesleyans (Methodists, Nazarenes, etc.) is that despite his rather vehement rejection of Calvinist teaching, Wesley upheld the central tenet of the Reformation: justification by faith. In this sense, orthodox Wesleyans are not Arminian, a distinctive that should be noted. In this sense and on this central issue, Wesley did stand firmly with the great Reformers. I never realized some of these more subtle doctrinal distinctives until some vicious arguments passionate theological discussion threads here at FR.

After all these centuries, it is interesting to see how Calvinism and justification by faith alone is still the central theological dispute among Christian churches.

You are soooooooo sutble LOL...indeed Wesley did agree with Calvin on may points..justification by faith..total depravity,what he called the "quicking" ( in reformend circles regeneration).he taught Salvation was fully of God,and the infallibility of Scripture..mostly that Salvation was fully of God

I recently quoted Wesley to make a very Calvinist point on a Wesleyan form and I was quickly told that Weslsy was often "Calvinist",and thus I was dismissecd and the thread was pulled LOL

After much study I have come to think the difference between Wesley and Whitefield was not all that great..Wesley with his measure of grace..and quicking.....and Whitefield with election and regeneration.....it was the method of Gods action that differed..

[winstonchurchill]

Your insults don't reflect the love of Christ which you claim to defend by putting down those who honestly understand the Bible differently than you.

Let me start by saying there are many Christians in Calvinist churches, because by and large they preach the Bible and ignore their Calvinist overlay.

Those Calvinists who accept the construct for what it is, a nifty little intellectual game which cannot be allowed to affect their Christian life, will not display the haughty, prideful, "we are the elect" of some of the foolish posters here who say things like "there aren't any non-Calvinists in Heaven."

True Christians of Calvinist background are always embarassed by the viciousness of the construct on innocents and respond with some cop-out along the lines of "well, we can't understand the great mystery of it, yada yada". Well, there are many, many things about God's plan and salvation we can't (and don't need to) understand. But man-made intellectual devices are not in the same category. When a man creates a theological construct that is congruent with the Gospel at some points and not others, that's not a "mystery", that's error.

Calvin's problem was his training as a lawyer (I am also a lawyer and have the same temptations). He was rigorously logical and his problems came about when he connected some of the dots of the Gospel and then extrapolated to his predestination theories which condemn innocents. Jesus didn't do that and that should have set off warning bells for Calvin.

He was in many instances a wise and skillful expositor, but he let his love for logic carry him to unsustainable extremes. Those of his current-day followers who exalt his extrapolations of the Gospel to the level of the Gospel itself make the same errors for the same reasons.

When the construct starts to be taken seriously and placed on a par with the Gospel (or even, as some here, above it), then it is dangerous. It does then lead to prideful, haughty, legalistic behavior. And that is what (and that is all) I condemn.

In short, one can admire the skill with which Calvin assembled his construct (and I do), but when one starts to act on its presuppositions, it becomes dangerous indeed. Just stick to the Gospel, put the construct in your back pocket and forget it for now. If you really mean what you say about evangelism, you don't need it now anyway. Even if you were right about the construct, (given the 'obedient evangelist' gloss) it should make no difference in the way you live. It is only when Calvinists start to behave as though the construct were true and they were the only 'elect' and they can do anything they darn well please and they will still be the 'elect' and everyone else is damned and never had a chance and never deserved a chance at salvation anyway -- that's when the dangerous aspects of the construct raise their not-so-lovely heads.

So, let's read the Gospel together and just keep the construct in your pocket (and show it only to the fellow members of the construct club on Sunday mornings). That way you can congratulate each other on how right you are and not be a stumbling block to those non-believers who might, just might, (to your everlasting surprise) become part of the 'elect'.

[mo'shea]

When I said "Sola Scriptura", I actually meant "Sola Fide". Anyway, the notion of man having no free will, and its corollary, the idea of predestination, are truly sad perversions of Sacred Scripture, and very likely have jeopardized the salvation of many, many a soul since the Reformation, due to presumption.

Despair is presumption's antithesis, and it haunted Martin Luther's earlier outlook, fueled by his supercharged scrupulosity, so he invented Sola Fide to keep himself from going batty. In no way, however, am I suggesting that he didn't correctly identify and justly decry some abuses that he observed within the Church.

My young sons, too, are wont to misbehave, but I work to correct them, not to lobotomize them, which is akin to the utterly false sola fide view of salvation.

[George W. Bush]

I recently quoted Wesley to make a very Calvinist point on a Wesleyan form and I was quickly told that Weslsy was often "Calvinist",and thus I was dismissecd and the thread was pulled LOL

Making friends everywhere you go! Sometimes, you just can't win.

It is droll to hear of Wesley being branded Calvinistic by modern "Wesleyans". I find that a little humorous. But then, we have modern "Calvinists" (Dallas Theological Seminary and their ilk) who contend that Calvin did not believe in Limited Atonement (the L of the Dordtian TULIP).

I still say that Whitefield was sounder than Wesley theologically. But perhaps not the better pastor or preacher, something we can't know with certainty in modern times. Whitefield is a lot sounder and more thorough on paper with well-developed and scriptural arguments but Wesley may have had some very winning ways as a speaker and a pastor. We can see in modern times that a lot of very unscriptural TV preachers are the best-known and most popular of Christian leaders so we shouldn't be too surprised.

I see in both Wesley and Whitefield a real passion for personal holiness and righteous living. Wesley's error was in trying to develop a sort of systematic theology around it, an endeavor that led him to introduce some unscriptural notions. But in demanding personal holiness from their foloowers, the two men were very similar and were both sincere reformers of the straying church of their time.

[George W. Bush]

In short, one can admire the skill with which Calvin assembled his construct (and I do), but when one starts to act on its presuppositions, it becomes dangerous indeed. Just stick to the Gospel, put the construct in your back pocket and forget it for now. If you really mean what you say about evangelism, you don't need it now anyway. Even if you were right about the construct, (given the 'obedient evangelist' gloss) it should make no difference in the way you live. It is only when Calvinists start to behave as though the construct were true and they were the only 'elect' and they can do anything they darn well please and they will still be the 'elect' and everyone else is damned and never had a chance and never deserved a chance at salvation anyway -- that's when the dangerous aspects of the construct raise their not-so-lovely heads.

You still misrepresent the position of Calvinists in many ways. Why is it so necessary to villify us in this way? You read what you believe are the logical extensions of Calvinism into our remarks and then try to paint us with a brush of cruelty and un-Christian thought and behavior.

You would be hard-pressed to make that case against the vast and broad majority of Calvinists. You might credibly make such claims against a very very few.

Your class action against Calvinism is frivolous, counselor.

[winstonchurchill]

Wesley upheld the central tenet of the Reformation: justification by faith.

Duh. Wesley (and other non-Calvinist evangelicals) never have had any hesitation with 'justification by faith'. Their problem has always been with the Calvinist construct which purports to limit 'justification by faith' to the Calvinists -- and, by the way, to preclude it for the vast majority of mankind.

Just so lurkers here might have one simple explanation of what all this Calvinist recrimination is directed upon, here it is. Evangelical Christians believe that sin afflicts every man, but that God sent His Son, Jesus, as a remedy. Not a remedy for some who belong to some single human organization or to some few selected before the foundation of the world, but to all who will believe on His Son. This is THE central point: Christ died for all.

In doing this, He (God) made sure that He gave each man just a sufficient amount of grace (theologians call it 'pre-venient grace', i.e. 'going-before' grace) so that each man would have no excuse for not accepting His Son.

Thus, no man can blame his eternal fate on his surroundings, his parentage, his 'tough breaks' in life or (unless he is a Calvinist) God.

This doesn't mean that the man who accepts Christ has 'earned' his salvation, for his decision of the will adds no 'weight' to eternal balance scales whatsoever. That was all done by God in the death of His Son.

But it does mean that no man has an excuse. None of this "I must have been one of those damned from the foundation of the world. I just never got a break." That bitter pill of Calvinism is wrong and an invention of a man (a very intelligent and well-meaning 16th century man, but a man nonetheless).

Every man has this choice -- and will be held accountable -- for it. Choose Christ and live or refuse Him and die. Is that an important decision? None bigger.

This is 'justification by faith'. It is the "faith" of the believer that triggers God's provision of His 'justification'. And it is His Will -- He predestined it -- that all who will believe in His Son shall not perish but shall have eternal life.

Now, the Calvinist's little intellectual construct takes that away and says that God decided before the foundation of the world that a certain few would be saved (they call them "the elect") and everyone else was damned ("the reprobates"). No choice, no decision, no faith (except rote 'faith' -- see below). Oh, (they say) it may look like people are being given a choice and it may look like they are deciding for Christ, but that is all play-acting, not reality. In reality it was all decided before the foundation of the world and those seated comfortably in Calvinist churches were the winners of the eternal lottery. What we see is just people going through motions over which they do not have (and have never had) any control at all. It is just actors reading pre-scripted lines which they can't change.

Oh, did you have a baby or young child who died or a retarded son or daughter who died? Too bad, his or her chances were also determined in the eternal lottery and, while it is possible that they were among the small group of winners, the odds are definitely against them. Hell fire awaits.

All of this perversity in the Calvinist construct is 'necessary' (according to its proponents) so as to insure God's 'sovereignty'. See, if He had to wait for puny little men to decide whether to accept Christ or not, He wouldn't be sufficiently 'sovereign' (in the view of the construct's proponents).

Over this nifty little intellectual theory, wars have been fought and churches divided and -- worst of all -- non-believers misled to believe that Christ died for some not all.

Why has it persisted? Because it is, in some ways, a 'comfortable' faith. No wrestling with a sin nature yourself, and no concern with the fate of those unbelievers around you. They either won or lost the eternal lottery before the foundation of the world, so whatever happens, happens. Sit back and enjoy the ride.

Oh, and best of all, if you know the secret mysteries of the construct, you are probably a lottery winner. After all God wouldn't waste the knowledge of His secret construct on a 'reprobate' now would He?

It is intellectually satisfying for some. Even reassuring for some. But, the construct is not the Gospel. Here's the Gospel in a few words, "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

[George W. Bush]

I didn't propose to debate this matter again. I think we are both quite aware of each other's position. I'd rather read more about Luther nad not hijack this thread.

Nevertheless, your caricature of Calvinism is wildly exaggerated when applied to the vast majority of Calvinists.

[zadok]

"predestination theories which condemn innocents"

None are innocent before a Holy God. All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God.

Romans 9 says

10: And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11: (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

12: It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13: As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14: What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

When Paul was writing this epistle, he knew that there would be those that would view limited atonement and predestination as unfair, hence the question "Is there unrighteousness with God?"

Why else would he bring that question into the discussion?

15: For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16: So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

The predestinarian view is not a Calvinist nor Lutheran view, it is the Biblical view.

The fact of the matter is that all deserve to go to hell. No one is innocent.

[Romestamo]

Their problem has always been with the Calvinist construct which purports to limit 'justification by faith' to the Calvinists

This is the central problem with your understanding of Calvinist theology. "Limited Atonement" is purported, not "Atonement Limited to Calvinists." When others in this thread say "there are no non-Calvinists in heaven," it is a semantic point to the effect of the following syllogism:

True things will be known to you when you arrive Heaven.
Calvinism is a True thing.
Calvinism will be known to you when you arrive in Heaven.

They are not saying "Only those who believe in Calvinism on Earth will be saved." So if you disagree with what they are saying, argue against the contention that "Calvinism is a True Thing," not against "Only those who believe in Calvinism on Earth will be saved," because then you are only fighting a strawman.

[Romestamo]

I agree, Dubya. This thread is sitting on a tarmac in Lebanon, waiting for the negotiators to arrive. If you wish to continue, winston, flag me down in the Chronicles.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Perhaps one of you could explain to me the need to come on Christian threads with the intent of arguing about a fellow Christian's beliefs. It is mind boggling to me that a number of people who have determined themselves to be the utmost authority on Christ and Christian practices spend their time ridiculing fellow Christians. It is baffling and I am going to avoid these threads unless they are non-argumentative.

I really have to wonder about some people's motives and desperate need to assault another's denominaton. FWIW, I think you are both very, very wrong about infant baptism but unlike you I don't make a habit of nitpicking fellow believers. As a Missouri Synod Lutheran, I don't believe that there will only be Lutherans in Heaven. Perhaps your time would be better spent pleasing God than berating His children.

[rwfromkansas]

It is pure nonsense that Calvinism leads to not wresting with sin. God to a Calvinist church adn you will see that we hate sin more than most Arminians I can think of.

God is God. You may have a problem with that, but I do not. He determines things, not me.

Also, how on Earth do you expect Christ to "die" for all, and yet have God say it is his will to save everyone....when only some come? GOD FAILED AND CHRIST DIED IN VAIN if you are correct. I believe God did not fail. Christ's death was not in vain and the will of God is accomplished ALWAYS. How is it possible that man, loving his sin and TOTALLY UNABLE to love or even understand the things of God, can come to faith in Christ without the Holy Spirit first bringing him? You see, it is not possible for him to understand the Gospel at all. It is not possible for him to come to faith. God has to take the first step. Scripture says it is predestination. The Holy Spirit then converts those who were predestined.

[winstonchurchill]

How is it possible that man, loving his sin and TOTALLY UNABLE to love or even understand the things of God, can come to faith in Christ without the Holy Spirit first bringing him? You see, it is not possible for him to understand the Gospel at all. It is not possible for him to come to faith. God has to take the first step.

As I said in #228 above, "In doing this, He (God) made sure that He gave each man just a sufficient amount of grace (theologians call it 'pre-venient grace', i.e. 'going-before' grace) so that each man would have no excuse for not accepting His Son."

God wants our love, not just a bunch of mindless automatons. He carefully balances the scales for each of us, so every man -- every one reading these words -- has a real and present opportunity to meet the Master and gain eternal life. Anything less isn't the Good News of the Gospel.

[winstonchurchill]

I had previously said in #134:

Now along comes the construct and it neatly consigns the vast majority humanity to Hell (from the foundation of the world) without any opportunity to choose and including large numbers of children and even infants who never heard the Gospel.

Now, that, my friend, is a viciousness inconsistent with Christ and inconsistent with His express teaching. Were it otherwise, He would have threatened with a worse-than-millstone future those who hindered "only those of all these little ones who are predestined from the foundation of the world to be saved." And, BTW, such a statement would be deprived of meaning in any event since (if the Calvinist construct were true) there would be nothing His hearers could do to "hinder" the little children anyway

Then you said in #160:

That would be true, if Jesus had produced for us the list of the Elect. Because he didn't, anyone who claims God's Election as cause for rolling over others is breaking God's command to not take his name in vain in the worst way. That was the point of my first post. As for consigning people to Hell, a consistent point of the Gospel is that we deserve it.

But you didn't explain why Christ Himself would say in reference to a small child, "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." And worse yet (from the perspective of the construct), "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish."

Christ obviously didn't think that children 'deserve [Hell].' Why would you take the reasonings and logical extrapolations of a man (albeit a very intelligent 16th century man) over the express statements of the Saviour?

And don't forget, if the little child before Him was (as the Calvinists would have it) 'predestined' personally to either Heaven or Hell (and while we might not know, Jesus certain would), why would Jesus talk of 'causing him to stumble." After all, if Calvin's nifty little concept of 'effectual election' (aka "irresistible grace') were true, no one could cause them to stumble.

If the construct is right, Jesus' statement are 'causing them to stumble' is foolishly inaccurate and His statement about the Will of the Father for children not to perish is just plain wrong.

I am sure you can understand why I would rather have Jesus than Calvin.

[Deanna Knapp]

A wonderful post!! And said so much better than I seem to be able to say it. It is hard for people to separate themselves from what they are used to and feel safe in. But God said His people do separate themselves and that they are a parculiar (sp) people...a remnant. I think about the people who died and the terrible way they died getting free from the bondage of Roman Catholism, 65 million from the beginning of popery up to the mid 1800's. I know in Revelation the martyred souls who died for what they believed in cry for vengence. God doesn't tell them to forgive, He tells them to wait till the full number of martyrs is complete. Then He pours out his judgement. I would be insane to sit in an RCC and accept her doctrines of devils. Revelation 17 describes her to the tee!! Even in the fact they call Mary the Queen of Heaven, that same figure is mentioned in Rev. 17. God will destroy the Roman Catholic Church and any daughters she has produced also. We believers do live in perilous times. "In the last days if it were possible even the very elect of God will be deceived." That is how good and right it will look, but "There is a way that seems right unto man that leads to destruction." ALL I have is the blood of Christ, there is nothing more powerful. There is no other way by which men may be saved. I don't care how pretty or good it looks. Satan masqarades as an angel of light and he is very religious. He is not ugly, he was an arch-angel for petesake, and he knows scripture well and how to put people in his control with it.

[Tares]

God is clearly letting all people here know that just believing in Jesus once does not guarantee salvation.

Once saved, always saved. What is so difficult to understand about the phrase "everlasting life"? You cannot loose "everlasting life", otherwise it wouldn't be everlasting.

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. - John 10:27-28

[CCWoody]

Wesley did agree with Calvin on may points..justification by faith..total depravity,what he called the "quicking" ( in reformend circles regeneration).he taught Salvation was fully of God,and the infallibility of Scripture..mostly that Salvation was fully of God

Hmmm! From the little I've read of both Calvin and Wesley, I'd say that Wesley denied Total Depravity (or man's total want to not repent), Regeneration as an act prior to man's confession of Christ with His lips, and that Salvation was fully (I'd say solely) of God.

I'd be happy to pull one, say Regeneration, and use a Spurgeon sermon I've read in the last month to start a thread. You can then try to find Wesley material to support their agreement. I'd say it would be a good exercise.

[CCWoody]

And yet, there are a great many Christian's like myself and my wife, who without ever reading a single "Calvinist" word, manage to agree completely with them on the Doctrines of the Bible.

Furthermore, after interacting with them, I find that they are not a gloom and doom hellfire and damnation we are the elect sort, but a refreshingly passionate group of thoughtful Christians.

And yes, for those of you who really are chosen by God and merely act otherwise, you will learn the correct beliefs when you get to Heaven.