I am an old Baptist seminarian and the reason I admire Dr Cooper is because he focuses his apologetic on the centrality of Jesus Christ the living Word of God and in the Scripture the living written word of God, so when he teaches the centrality of Jesus Christ, the gift to us, and the role of sacraments as the continuation of Gods gifts to us by the Holy Spirit moving and stirring the water and the wine for those with faith to take it by faith, I say yes to Jesus in ways that transcend the ordinary. The gifts of God for the people of God, thanks be to God.
Hi. That is suposed way of doing theology among lutherans. Now I'm lutheran, born baptist. But lutheran theology thinking is veeery diffrent from evangelicals and reformed.
Reformed and Lutheran both call baptism a "means of grace," but I think we speak past each other because we mean different things. Reformed typically mean that it's a conditional means of grace (conditional upon whether the recipient receives God's electing grace) whereas Lutherans seem to indicate it's conveyed without conditions other than not actively rejecting that grace. This grace is not limited to the elect as Reformed believe. If I misunderstood or mischaracterized the Lutheran view, please correct me.
Thank you! I would like to ask for you to address a question in an upcoming video. I am hopeful you can (at the very least) point us to a resource. I understand we've upheld Theotokos but Lutheran focused literature is very slim. At issue (at least as I understand) is our Sola Scriptura versus Lutheran Confession in the Book of Concord. IF it is true that Lutheran's hold the Augsburg Confession, the Book of Concord, and the Smallcald Articles as true, then how do we reconcile Theotokos.
Per the Book of Concord. Article III. "...the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that there are two natures, the divine and the human, inseparably enjoined in one Person, one Christ, true God and true man, who was born of the Virgin Mary,..." Part I. "That the Son became man in this manner, that He was conceived, without the cooperation of man, by the Holy Ghost, and was born of the pure, holy [and always] Virgin Mary." Article XXI "This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers" "When Lutherans confess Mary as Virgin, it is meant that Mary is virgin, not that she was virgin" (Carlson, n.d.).
Per Scripture Mary was a sinner who recognized sinners need a savior (Luke 1.47); Mary was an unclean sinner who needed purification (Luke 2.22) according to Levitical instruction (Lev 12.1-7); Mary had 6 children (Mark 6.3), of which they belong to Mary (Psalm 69.8); and lastly, the last time the Mary was mentioned or seen in the bible is at a prayer meeting and no one consulted her (Acts 1.14) At issue then, that I do not understand, is how do Lutheran's (orthodox) groups square Sola Scriptura with the confessions? How do we get those biblical texts to mean Mary was ever virgin? Might you give a treatment to this?
Sources. Carlson, Kristofer. (n.d.) The Book of Concord on Mariology. Retrieved from: wmm.dormitionpress.org/archives/33 Book of Concord. Article III. Of the Son of God. Retrieved from: thebookofconcord.org/augsburg-confession/article-iii/ Book of Concord. Part I. Retrieved from: thebookofconcord.org/smalcald-articles/part-i/ Book of Concord. Article XXI. Of the Worship of the Saints. Retrieved from: thebookofconcord.org/augsburg-confession/article-xxi/
A question that has been bothering me that this video touches on: What's wrong with considering the means of grace "magic?" Certainly they are not black magic or witchcraft, but they are most certainly human practices and signs which are supernaturally efficacious. What's the distinction? Thanks!
Oftentimes, magic is presented in modern literature as a sort of mechanical impersonal skill that you can learn. Obviously, if you call the sacraments "magic", this may confuse the people who focus on the "personal relationship" aspect of faith, as it feels like God becomes reduced to this impersonal automaton dispenser of Grace. That and the fact most of modern Christianity is influenced by Pietism, which came to be as a reaction to cold and overtly intellectual state churches, where many individuals go through the motions of participation in Sacraments, but don't actually believe in God. So everyone tries real hard to qualify against a "mechanical" understanding of faith. So perhaps with a precise definition of "magic", it would work, but it would probably cause massive misunderstandings.
We need to be careful when we say "magic" or that humans "practice" the sacraments so as to not confuse others or ourselves. We humans do practice the sacraments, but it is God's work that is efficacious, just as in prayer or any other Christian practice. I don't think it's helpful to think of prayer or the sacraments as magic, but instead, as God's promesd gifts are real, and they are effective for those who believe. Magic has the connotation of human works and divorcing the spiritual from the physical, and God works to unite the two. I know that's not what you mean, but I think generally people will be confused because of how they have been taught to understand the word "magic."
The sacraments are divine magic, which is not prohibited by scripture. It's really a matter of the source of the power and the will to act. If God is simply using the priest as a conduit, there is no sin. This according to Valentin Thomberg.
@@joabthejavelin5119 I think that the only way to convince the youth that there remains something of substance with protestantism is to risk calling things what they are. You may choose a different term, but stripping the "magic" out of Christianity is what has led to so much deconversion amongst the youth. If all the Church remains only as a collection of theological abstractions, the game is already over, and you lost.
Acts is full of magicians who try to use the power of the Holy One for selfish means, and Paul forbids sorcery in almost every epistle he writes. We are mystical not magical. The prophets of Baal used magic and failed, but Elijah walked with God and prevailed.
I don't deny that the Holy Spirit works through the Gospel and baptism but I don't accept that the Spirit always works through these means so that everyone who hears the Gospel and is baptised can receive the Holy Spirit and faith. I agree with Luther’s interpretation of John 6:44 which is that the Father doesn't pour out the Holy Spirit on everyone who hears the Gospel but that He only gives the Holy Spirit to those who He wills to convert to Christ and that when the Father does this the recipient is irresistibly regenerated and given faith. (See pages 285-286 in Vol 33 of Luther's Works) Also in his Large Catechism he says with respect to infant baptism: “We bring the child with the purpose and hope that he may believe, and we pray God to grant him faith.” and “That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from his own work. God has sanctified many who have been thus baptized and has given them the Holy Spirit.” One can see from this that Luther held that only some infants are given the Holy Spirit and faith through baptism and that it depends upon whether God wills to give them the Holy Spirit and faith. Luther rejected that the Holy Spirit operates universally in the Word. This is what the Formula of Concord teaches but it’s not taught in Scripture, and neither did Luther teach it. It's simply an assumption which has no basis in Scripture and which goes against Scripture. Christ explained why people are unbelievers in John 6:64-65 where he said that they're not drawn by the Father and granted the ability to believe. This means the Father made no attempt to give them the Holy Spirit through the Word so that they would be converted. The idea that the Father attempts to convert everyone through the Holy Spirit working through the Word and that people can resist conversion is false. That's not taught anywhere in Scripture. When Stephen said that the Pharisees resisted the Holy Spirit he wasn't meaning that they resisted being converted but simply that they refused to accept the teaching of the Holy Spirit that God doesn't live in man-made temples. (Acts 7). Luther in his reply to Erasmus argued that people are predestined to be saved and damned, and that those who are predestined to be saved are irresistibly converted by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel whilst those who are predestined to be damned aren't given the Holy Spirit through the Gospel. He maintained that this is the teaching of Scripture and I agree, which is why I don't accept that the Formula of Concord is correct when it denies the truth of double predestination.
Also the Augsburg Confession which is the central confession of Lutheranism doesn't teach that the Holy Spirit is always active and efficacious through the Word. Article 5 says that "To obtain such faith God instituted the office of the ministry, that is, provided the Gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit, who works faith, when and where he pleases, in those who hear the Gospel” (Tappert). According to this God only gives the Holy Spirit and faith where He pleases or in other words to whom He pleases, which is the teaching of Christ in John 3 as He says the wind blows where it wishes i.e. not on everyone. Martin Chemnitz on the other hand decided that God must try to give everyone the Holy Spirit and faith through the Gospel as otherwise it wouldn't be true that He desires to save everyone. But this is purely an assumption which has no basis in Scripture and which both Scripture and the Augsburg Confession are opposed to. Also on the back of this Chemnitz denied that God has predestined anyone to hell despite the fact that this is contrary to Paul's teaching in Romans 9 where God is likened to a potter who forms both vessels of honour and dishonour corresponding to the saved and the damned. Also if the universal operation of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel and sacraments was true it would be impossible for God to predestine anyone to be saved. The only way that God can predestine only certain people to be saved is if the Holy Spirit irresistibly converts them. If God attempted to create faith in everyone by the Holy Spirit then God couldn't predestine only certain people to be saved, which is contrary to Scripture. It follows therefore that the Formula of Concord isn’t teaching the truth when it teaches the universal operation of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel and sacraments. The FC's teaching doesn't represent genuine Lutheranism. Luther affirmed that God has predestined people to both heaven and hell in The Bondage of the Will, and he regarded this book as his best writing. So since those who subscribe to the FC are opposed to double predestination it follows they aren't in reality Lutherans. They say that they don't have to believe what Luther wrote in The Bondage of the Will, so by saying that they're in effect saying they're not Lutherans. The world always presents a false front. Roman Catholics aren't true Catholics but rather followers of the popes, and Lutherans aren't Lutherans but rather followers of Chemnitz.
@@wetfart420 Luther was a Calvinist on predestination. In his conclusion to his reply to Erasmus he wrote that there’s no free will because God has willed, foreknown and predestined everything that happens, and he said that if a person rejects this (after reading his book and understanding it) he's being obstinate: “I will here bring this little book to an end, though I am prepared if need be to carry the debate farther. However, I think quite enough has been done here to satisfy the godly and anyone who is willing to admit the truth without being obstinate. For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it (as reason itself is forced to admit), then on the testimony of reason itself there can't be any free choice in man or angel or any creature.” (p. 293, Vol. 33, Luther's Works) He also commented in one of his lectures on Genesis 26.9 that he’d written (i.e. in The Bondage of the Will) that “everything is absolute and unavoidable.” (p.50, Vol 5, Luther's Works). This shows that Luther was a Calvinist on predestination because he was claiming that all things are predestined by God to happen, which means that those who are saved and damned are willed and predestined by Him to be saved and damned. Chemnitz's rejection of double predestination in the Formula of Concord doesn't represent genuine Lutheranism. Luther and the early Lutherans, like Nicholas Amsdorf, held that the Scriptures teach double predestination. That Luther's alleged followers subsequently rejected double predestination was in large measure due to Melanchthon who in later life rejected that all things are predestined by God. Chemnitz was Melanchthon’s pupil and he also rejected absolute predestination, with the result that he constructed an unscriptural and illogical statement of belief in the Formula of Concord which unfortunately captured the minds of a lot of those who claimed to be Luther's followers. Chemnitz managed to convince people that theology doesn't need to be logically coherent and that God can somehow do things which defy explanation. In this make-belief world God can elect and predestine only some people to be saved without excluding the others from being saved. They have an equal chance of being saved because the Holy Spirit doesn't differentiate between people, and He attempts to regenerate everyone through the Gospel. The reason why people are damned in this make-believe world isn't because God didn't elect to save them, but is because they resisted being saved. This is illogical and unscriptural nonsense. It’s a delusion which has captured people's minds. It's due to Chemnitz being able to browbeat people into mental submission by the clever use of argument and Scriptural misinterpretation. It will remain forever true that God determines what happens and that all people have been predestined to be either saved or damned, and that this is what Luther held. The fact that God through the Gospel desires to save everyone doesn't invalidate the truth of double predestination. Luther rightly said that God has two wills and that although God has determined everything that happens by His omnipotent hidden will, He also desires to save everyone through His revealed will.
@@wetfart420 Why do you use such a disgusting name? Those who claim to be Christians should present a wholesome image not one that arouses disgust. Paul says: “Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving” (Ephesians 5:4 ESV). Your name is crude and out of place. You should change it otherwise people will assume you're a crude joker who shouldn't be taken seriously. Maybe you don't want to be taken seriously, but in that case you're not a Christian because a Christian should always want to be taken seriously as he should want to spread the truth. I guess some who claim to be Lutheran think it clever to use crude language because they have the idea that Luther was like that. However, that's not the case. He wasn't like that. Ephesians 5:15-17: “Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.”
@@Edward-ng8oo It strikes me the correct way to read the documents is that the other writings of Luther must be read through the lens of the FC , not the other way around. That makes one a "Confessional" Lutheran. You might be some other kind of "Lutheran" but not a Confessional Lutheran.
@@gumbyshrimp2606 Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: I'm sorry no, water baptism is unto repentance. Baptism of the holy Ghost is being born again
Mark 16:15-16 ESV And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Gotta be baptized, with faith. The water is the means of the grace of salvation, but without faith it is just a ceremony as you suggest.
I have to say it was this kind of Protestantism that drew me away from the particular baptists and into Rome. The Lutherans practice the sacraments, but their soteriology is unbalanced without a good nail to hang works on, and their doctrine of God is unbalanced because they banished Marian devotion. I've heard educated Lutherans admit that their best work in theology was published in the 17th century. When this happens, especially after a major theological shakeup like the reformation, it's because something vital was severed that prohibits further development. Yet Catholicism continues to develop, and the counter-reformation, the council of trent, the discovery of the new world, the enlightenment, and modernity combined have not caused the type of terminal stagnation we see in the mainlines. This is why so many do not make camp for very long at the Rhine. They seek the dynamism which lies beyond the Tiber.
@@magnobraga4619 Mary is the human analog for the Holy Spirit, and without her, the masculine elements of the Trinity become diluted and effeminate. The Catholic Church is capable of endlessly mining scripture and tradition to face any future. Meanwhile the Lutherans are stuck in a 16th century protest.
I am an old Baptist seminarian and the reason I admire Dr Cooper is because he focuses his apologetic on the centrality of Jesus Christ the living Word of God and in the Scripture the living written word of God, so when he teaches the centrality of Jesus Christ, the gift to us, and the role of sacraments as the continuation of Gods gifts to us by the Holy Spirit moving and stirring the water and the wine for those with faith to take it by faith, I say yes to Jesus in ways that transcend the ordinary. The gifts of God for the people of God, thanks be to God.
Hi. That is suposed way of doing theology among lutherans. Now I'm lutheran, born baptist. But lutheran theology thinking is veeery diffrent from evangelicals and reformed.
This is how all of us Lutherans frame everything. It is all from Christ.
The fruit of the tree of life from the garden is such an obvious example that I had never thought of
Just ordered the sacred meditations book from just and sinner, can't wait for it to get here. Jesus bless you and the work you do!
Reformed and Lutheran both call baptism a "means of grace," but I think we speak past each other because we mean different things. Reformed typically mean that it's a conditional means of grace (conditional upon whether the recipient receives God's electing grace) whereas Lutherans seem to indicate it's conveyed without conditions other than not actively rejecting that grace. This grace is not limited to the elect as Reformed believe.
If I misunderstood or mischaracterized the Lutheran view, please correct me.
Thank you! I would like to ask for you to address a question in an upcoming video. I am hopeful you can (at the very least) point us to a resource. I understand we've upheld Theotokos but Lutheran focused literature is very slim. At issue (at least as I understand) is our Sola Scriptura versus Lutheran Confession in the Book of Concord. IF it is true that Lutheran's hold the Augsburg Confession, the Book of Concord, and the Smallcald Articles as true, then how do we reconcile Theotokos.
Per the Book of Concord.
Article III. "...the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that there are two natures, the divine and the human, inseparably enjoined in one Person, one Christ, true God and true man, who was born of the Virgin Mary,..."
Part I. "That the Son became man in this manner, that He was conceived, without the cooperation of man, by the Holy Ghost, and was born of the pure, holy [and always] Virgin Mary."
Article XXI "This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers"
"When Lutherans confess Mary as Virgin, it is meant that Mary is virgin, not that she was virgin" (Carlson, n.d.).
Per Scripture
Mary was a sinner who recognized sinners need a savior (Luke 1.47);
Mary was an unclean sinner who needed purification (Luke 2.22) according to Levitical instruction (Lev 12.1-7);
Mary had 6 children (Mark 6.3), of which they belong to Mary (Psalm 69.8);
and lastly, the last time the Mary was mentioned or seen in the bible is at a prayer meeting and no one consulted her (Acts 1.14)
At issue then, that I do not understand, is how do Lutheran's (orthodox) groups square Sola Scriptura with the confessions? How do we get those biblical texts to mean Mary was ever virgin? Might you give a treatment to this?
Sources.
Carlson, Kristofer. (n.d.) The Book of Concord on Mariology. Retrieved from: wmm.dormitionpress.org/archives/33
Book of Concord. Article III. Of the Son of God. Retrieved from: thebookofconcord.org/augsburg-confession/article-iii/
Book of Concord. Part I. Retrieved from: thebookofconcord.org/smalcald-articles/part-i/
Book of Concord. Article XXI. Of the Worship of the Saints. Retrieved from: thebookofconcord.org/augsburg-confession/article-xxi/
A question that has been bothering me that this video touches on: What's wrong with considering the means of grace "magic?" Certainly they are not black magic or witchcraft, but they are most certainly human practices and signs which are supernaturally efficacious. What's the distinction? Thanks!
Oftentimes, magic is presented in modern literature as a sort of mechanical impersonal skill that you can learn. Obviously, if you call the sacraments "magic", this may confuse the people who focus on the "personal relationship" aspect of faith, as it feels like God becomes reduced to this impersonal automaton dispenser of Grace.
That and the fact most of modern Christianity is influenced by Pietism, which came to be as a reaction to cold and overtly intellectual state churches, where many individuals go through the motions of participation in Sacraments, but don't actually believe in God. So everyone tries real hard to qualify against a "mechanical" understanding of faith.
So perhaps with a precise definition of "magic", it would work, but it would probably cause massive misunderstandings.
We need to be careful when we say "magic" or that humans "practice" the sacraments so as to not confuse others or ourselves. We humans do practice the sacraments, but it is God's work that is efficacious, just as in prayer or any other Christian practice. I don't think it's helpful to think of prayer or the sacraments as magic, but instead, as God's promesd gifts are real, and they are effective for those who believe.
Magic has the connotation of human works and divorcing the spiritual from the physical, and God works to unite the two. I know that's not what you mean, but I think generally people will be confused because of how they have been taught to understand the word "magic."
The sacraments are divine magic, which is not prohibited by scripture.
It's really a matter of the source of the power and the will to act. If God is simply using the priest as a conduit, there is no sin.
This according to Valentin Thomberg.
@@joabthejavelin5119 I think that the only way to convince the youth that there remains something of substance with protestantism is to risk calling things what they are.
You may choose a different term, but stripping the "magic" out of Christianity is what has led to so much deconversion amongst the youth.
If all the Church remains only as a collection of theological abstractions, the game is already over, and you lost.
Acts is full of magicians who try to use the power of the Holy One for selfish means, and Paul forbids sorcery in almost every epistle he writes. We are mystical not magical. The prophets of Baal used magic and failed, but Elijah walked with God and prevailed.
Baptism is the result of the work of the spirit of God, not the cause
Strongly disagree. John 3:8.
Algorithm
I don't deny that the Holy Spirit works through the Gospel and baptism but I don't accept that the Spirit always works through these means so that everyone who hears the Gospel and is baptised can receive the Holy Spirit and faith. I agree with Luther’s interpretation of John 6:44 which is that the Father doesn't pour out the Holy Spirit on everyone who hears the Gospel but that He only gives the Holy Spirit to those who He wills to convert to Christ and that when the Father does this the recipient is irresistibly regenerated and given faith. (See pages 285-286 in Vol 33 of Luther's Works)
Also in his Large Catechism he says with respect to infant baptism:
“We bring the child with the purpose and hope that he may believe, and we pray God to grant him faith.” and “That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from his own work. God has sanctified many who have been thus baptized and has given them the Holy Spirit.”
One can see from this that Luther held that only some infants are given the Holy Spirit and faith through baptism and that it depends upon whether God wills to give them the Holy Spirit and faith.
Luther rejected that the Holy Spirit operates universally in the Word. This is what the Formula of Concord teaches but it’s not taught in Scripture, and neither did Luther teach it. It's simply an assumption which has no basis in Scripture and which goes against Scripture. Christ explained why people are unbelievers in John 6:64-65 where he said that they're not drawn by the Father and granted the ability to believe. This means the Father made no attempt to give them the Holy Spirit through the Word so that they would be converted.
The idea that the Father attempts to convert everyone through the Holy Spirit working through the Word and that people can resist conversion is false. That's not taught anywhere in Scripture. When Stephen said that the Pharisees resisted the Holy Spirit he wasn't meaning that they resisted being converted but simply that they refused to accept the teaching of the Holy Spirit that God doesn't live in man-made temples. (Acts 7).
Luther in his reply to Erasmus argued that people are predestined to be saved and damned, and that those who are predestined to be saved are irresistibly converted by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel whilst those who are predestined to be damned aren't given the Holy Spirit through the Gospel. He maintained that this is the teaching of Scripture and I agree, which is why I don't accept that the Formula of Concord is correct when it denies the truth of double predestination.
Also the Augsburg Confession which is the central confession of Lutheranism doesn't teach that the Holy Spirit is always active and efficacious through the Word. Article 5 says that "To obtain such faith God instituted the office of the ministry, that is, provided the Gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit, who works faith, when and where he pleases, in those who hear the Gospel” (Tappert). According to this God only gives the Holy Spirit and faith where He pleases or in other words to whom He pleases, which is the teaching of Christ in John 3 as He says the wind blows where it wishes i.e. not on everyone.
Martin Chemnitz on the other hand decided that God must try to give everyone the Holy Spirit and faith through the Gospel as otherwise it wouldn't be true that He desires to save everyone. But this is purely an assumption which has no basis in Scripture and which both Scripture and the Augsburg Confession are opposed to. Also on the back of this Chemnitz denied that God has predestined anyone to hell despite the fact that this is contrary to Paul's teaching in Romans 9 where God is likened to a potter who forms both vessels of honour and dishonour corresponding to the saved and the damned.
Also if the universal operation of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel and sacraments was true it would be impossible for God to predestine anyone to be saved. The only way that God can predestine only certain people to be saved is if the Holy Spirit irresistibly converts them. If God attempted to create faith in everyone by the Holy Spirit then God couldn't predestine only certain people to be saved, which is contrary to Scripture. It follows therefore that the Formula of Concord isn’t teaching the truth when it teaches the universal operation of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel and sacraments.
The FC's teaching doesn't represent genuine Lutheranism. Luther affirmed that God has predestined people to both heaven and hell in The Bondage of the Will, and he regarded this book as his best writing. So since those who subscribe to the FC are opposed to double predestination it follows they aren't in reality Lutherans. They say that they don't have to believe what Luther wrote in The Bondage of the Will, so by saying that they're in effect saying they're not Lutherans. The world always presents a false front. Roman Catholics aren't true Catholics but rather followers of the popes, and Lutherans aren't Lutherans but rather followers of Chemnitz.
Found the Calvinist
@@wetfart420 Luther was a Calvinist on predestination. In his conclusion to his reply to Erasmus he wrote that there’s no free will because God has willed, foreknown and predestined everything that happens, and he said that if a person rejects this (after reading his book and understanding it) he's being obstinate:
“I will here bring this little book to an end, though I am prepared if need be to carry the debate farther. However, I think quite enough has been done here to satisfy the godly and anyone who is willing to admit the truth without being obstinate. For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it (as reason itself is forced to admit), then on the testimony of reason itself there can't be any free choice in man or angel or any creature.” (p. 293, Vol. 33, Luther's Works)
He also commented in one of his lectures on Genesis 26.9 that he’d written (i.e. in The Bondage of the Will) that “everything is absolute and unavoidable.” (p.50, Vol 5, Luther's Works). This shows that Luther was a Calvinist on predestination because he was claiming that all things are predestined by God to happen, which means that those who are saved and damned are willed and predestined by Him to be saved and damned.
Chemnitz's rejection of double predestination in the Formula of Concord doesn't represent genuine Lutheranism. Luther and the early Lutherans, like Nicholas Amsdorf, held that the Scriptures teach double predestination. That Luther's alleged followers subsequently rejected double predestination was in large measure due to Melanchthon who in later life rejected that all things are predestined by God. Chemnitz was Melanchthon’s pupil and he also rejected absolute predestination, with the result that he constructed an unscriptural and illogical statement of belief in the Formula of Concord which unfortunately captured the minds of a lot of those who claimed to be Luther's followers. Chemnitz managed to convince people that theology doesn't need to be logically coherent and that God can somehow do things which defy explanation. In this make-belief world God can elect and predestine only some people to be saved without excluding the others from being saved. They have an equal chance of being saved because the Holy Spirit doesn't differentiate between people, and He attempts to regenerate everyone through the Gospel. The reason why people are damned in this make-believe world isn't because God didn't elect to save them, but is because they resisted being saved. This is illogical and unscriptural nonsense. It’s a delusion which has captured people's minds. It's due to Chemnitz being able to browbeat people into mental submission by the clever use of argument and Scriptural misinterpretation. It will remain forever true that God determines what happens and that all people have been predestined to be either saved or damned, and that this is what Luther held.
The fact that God through the Gospel desires to save everyone doesn't invalidate the truth of double predestination. Luther rightly said that God has two wills and that although God has determined everything that happens by His omnipotent hidden will, He also desires to save everyone through His revealed will.
@@wetfart420 Why do you use such a disgusting name? Those who claim to be Christians should present a wholesome image not one that arouses disgust. Paul says: “Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving” (Ephesians 5:4 ESV). Your name is crude and out of place. You should change it otherwise people will assume you're a crude joker who shouldn't be taken seriously. Maybe you don't want to be taken seriously, but in that case you're not a Christian because a Christian should always want to be taken seriously as he should want to spread the truth. I guess some who claim to be Lutheran think it clever to use crude language because they have the idea that Luther was like that. However, that's not the case. He wasn't like that.
Ephesians 5:15-17: “Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.”
@@Edward-ng8oo It strikes me the correct way to read the documents is that the other writings of Luther must be read through the lens of the FC , not the other way around. That makes one a "Confessional" Lutheran. You might be some other kind of "Lutheran" but not a Confessional Lutheran.
Water baptism is a religious practice, being baptized by the holy Spirit is a different matter all together, and that is when you are born again.
They are one in the same
@@gumbyshrimp2606 Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
I'm sorry no, water baptism is unto repentance. Baptism of the holy Ghost is being born again
@@BereanFellowshipwhich we receive in baptism
@@BereanFellowshipOne baptism (Ephesians 4:5)
Mark 16:15-16 ESV
And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Gotta be baptized, with faith. The water is the means of the grace of salvation, but without faith it is just a ceremony as you suggest.
I have to say it was this kind of Protestantism that drew me away from the particular baptists and into Rome.
The Lutherans practice the sacraments, but their soteriology is unbalanced without a good nail to hang works on, and their doctrine of God is unbalanced because they banished Marian devotion.
I've heard educated Lutherans admit that their best work in theology was published in the 17th century.
When this happens, especially after a major theological shakeup like the reformation, it's because something vital was severed that prohibits further development.
Yet Catholicism continues to develop, and the counter-reformation, the council of trent, the discovery of the new world, the enlightenment, and modernity combined have not caused the type of terminal stagnation we see in the mainlines.
This is why so many do not make camp for very long at the Rhine. They seek the dynamism which lies beyond the Tiber.
"doctrine of God is unbalanced because they banished Marian devotion." What?
"They seek the dynamism which lies beyond the Tiber." The dynanism who acepted liberal exegesis of the Bible.
@@magnobraga4619 Mary is the human analog for the Holy Spirit, and without her, the masculine elements of the Trinity become diluted and effeminate.
The Catholic Church is capable of endlessly mining scripture and tradition to face any future. Meanwhile the Lutherans are stuck in a 16th century protest.
At least we affirm the Nicene Council 😂
Affirming non-sense is not a flex.