1. In contrast to a penal substitution atonement model, did this Catholic make reference to Thomas Aquinas' superabundant atonement model articulated in Summa Theologica, Part III, Treatise On The Incarnation, Question 48 - Of the Efficacy of Christ's Passion, Article 2 - Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation by way of atonement? "I answer that, He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. BUT BY SUFFERING OUT OF LOVE AND OBEDIENCE, CHRIST GAVE MORE TO GOD THAN WAS REQUIRED TO COMPENSATE FOR THE OFFENSE OF THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; Secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; Thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (Q[46], A[6]). - and - THEREFORE CHRIST'S PASSION WAS NOT ONLY A SUFFICIENT BUT A SUPERABUNDANT ATONEMENT FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE; according to 1 Jn. 2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." [sacred-texts.com /chr/aquinas/summa/sum499.htm] 2. That "superabundant atonement" of Jesus Christ involves the gifts of His sacraments to Christians: A. Seven in number to the Catholic, Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East; - and - B. Two in number generally acknowledged by the Protestant Churches. 3. Employing the Protestant sacramental model but common to all as an ANALOGY to Thomas Aquinas' atonement model involving superabundant grace: A. Baptism, through Christ's death on the cross, is a one time event that initially reconciles sinners to God. B. Eucharist, through the Last Supper as a permanent institution, is a continuous celebratory event in the life of Christians after baptism.
@@annakimborahpa Now that's a comment lol. He did not. He struggled with the idea that the Father could punish the Son and yet the Trinity remain undivided. I had never heard that objection before so I am not sure I answered it very well but I read him bible passages that teach PSA, and gave an argument about our eternal punishment in relation to the perfection of God's law, basically Anselmian stuff.
I too would struggle with PSA, let alone the PCA, but if it's any consolation to you, your name contains two links to the animated TV show The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends that ran from 1959-64: 1. Edward Everett Horton was the voice of its Fractured Fairy Tales segment - and - 2. Mister Peabody was the name of the talking dog on its Peabody's Improbable History segment. Mister Peabody's segments were famous for including a terrible pun at the end. Perhaps the worst one appears in the "Mata Hari" episode, where Peabody explains that the entire population of Scotland was evacuated in a zeppelin: "one nation in dirigible." (from Wikipedia)
@@annakimborahpa If Jesus paid the penalty for all men without exception, why does anyone go to hell? Didn't He pay the penalty for the sin of unbelief?
I wish these had chapter breaks! The last 5 mins of this talk was GOLD. Glad I watched to the end, since Eastern Orthodoxy is my main area of interest (along with Lutheranism). I love how you said that Western Christians don't make very good converts to ODX anyway. Haha, so right! I, too, have come to find St. Augustine compelling and irresistible. (I even felt compelled to purchase his icon 🙂). I also like that you touched on Theosis. Great talks, Dr Cooper! I've enjoyed all of the 5 Solas talks.
Good conversation, I recently wrote a paper on the difrences between Christian monotheism and Islam and I used Augustines trinitarian love idea as a a way to show God did not need to create in order to be loving.
Psalm 2:4-5 (KJV 1900): He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: The Lord shall have them in derision. 5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, And vex them in his sore displeasure.
I grew up in a very pietistic region, and one of my friends regularly got talked to by his parents if he smiled too much, or was too enthusiastic. Music, cards, dancing, the theatre, etc., were all of the devil. A recipe for a high suicide rate😬
Article 5 of the Augsburg Confession states: "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). One can see from this that the position of the AC is that God sends the Holy Spirit through the Gospel to work faith when and where (i.e. in whom) God pleases, not as the Formula of Concord would have it that God sends the Holy Spirit through the Gospel to try to work faith in everyone. The FC’s interpretation of the Augsburg Confession isn't what Article 5 actually teaches, and isn't how Luther understood it. He understood it in line with what he had stated in The Bondage of the Will which is that the Holy Spirit works selectively and irresistibly through the Gospel to work faith only in those He has chosen to convert. (pp. 285,286, Vol. 33, Luther's Works). And this is the teaching of Christ in John 6:44,64,65. The reason Christ gives for why people don't believe isn't because they resisted being converted by the Holy Spirit but is because the Father didn't draw them by the Holy Spirit, and didn't enable them to believe. That is clearly Christ’s meaning in verses 64 and 65. And this is how Luther explained it in The Bondage of the Will where he explained that only those inwardly drawn by the Holy Spirit working through the Gospel are converted and this happens by the Holy Spirit changing their wills irresistibly. Logically this is the only possible explanation given the fact that everyone is God’s enemy through original sin. It has to be that conversion to Christ is irresistible otherwise no one could come to faith and believe in Christ. The FC position, which is that conversion is resistible, can't explain how anyone is saved. There’s no middle position between Calvinism and free will. Logically salvation and damnation are either determined by divine predestination where the Holy Spirit irresistibly converts those who are predestined to be saved and leaves the rest to be damned so that they're predestined to be damned, or alternatively people themselves choose whether to be saved or damned. One can't have a mixture of predestination and free will where those who are saved are saved through predestination but those who are damned are damned through free will. If it was the case that conversion is resistible as confessional Lutherans claim then there is no divine predestination to both salvation and damnation. But Scripture teaches that God has predestined people to be saved and therefore it must follow that those who are damned are predestined to be damned, which is what Paul teaches in Romans 9 where he likens God to a potter who makes vessels of dishonour as well as vessels of honour. Confessional Lutherans say that the Calvinist position makes logical sense but isn't the teaching of Scripture, and they hold that what Scripture teaches doesn't need to be logically coherent when that’s absurd. Of course it needs to be logically coherent. If something doesn't make logical sense then it isn't true. The nature of God surpases our understanding but it isn't logically contradictory as is the belief that predestination to salvation happens in conjunction with resistible conversion. The two are diametrically opposed and can't coexist. Scripture and Luther teach double predestination. Unfortunately this is termed Calvinism when it should be termed Lutheranism as Luther preceded Calvin and it was Calvin who agreed with Luther and not the other way round. I believe all the doctrines contained in all the documents contained in the Book of Concord except for the FC, and I agree with what Luther wrote in The Bondage of the Will so that makes me a Lutheran according to the correct definition of someone who agrees with Luther. “Confessional Lutherans” have created their own definition of what a Lutheran is which isn't a true definition. In reality they're followers of Martin Chemnitz not followers of Luther.
Thank you. I had studied the AC before, but I had not realized the contradictions between the FoC and the AC. You're correct that the Augsburg Confession is very close to the other Reformed confessions. It even says that baptism that does not produce faith is not regenerative.
I agree with most of this, except I think infralapsarianism confuses the logical order of the decrees with the chronological order. To get the logical order, you simply reverse the chronological order: 1. Creation. 2. Fall. 3. Redemption. 4. Election and reprobation. The logical order would then be: 1. Election and reprobation. 2. Redemption. 3. Fall. 4. Creation.
The Bible is propositional revelation. In a logical and theological system all of the propositions fit together into a systematic and coherent whole. There are no contradictions, antinomies, errors or irrationalities in Scripture. Does God breathe out logical contradictions or nonsense?
@@ThomasCranmer1959I personally think that infralapsarianism is more likely true than supralapsarianism in that the Fall logically comes before election and predestination otherwise if one logically starts with election and predestination it seems harsh. I think the way that Luther talks about predestination in The Bondage of the Will is more in line with infralapsarianism than supralapsarianism but it's a matter of judgement and I might be wrong on that.
19:45 At last, you touch on divine love. God's love and His volition are one and the same thing in regards to the elect. But does God love or hate those whom He has decreed to reprobation? God's foreknowledge and predestination are one and the same thing. His foreknowledge is immutable.
You’ll never be able to convince Lutherans (not that they are in reality Lutherans) that God’s foreknowledge and predestination are basically the same thing. That was what Luther rightly maintained in The Bondage of the Will but they believe otherwise. They believe according to the Formula of Concord and in this Martin Chemnitz, the main author, maintained that God foreknows everything but His foreknowledge doesn't necessitate everything happening as it does, and so Lutherans refuse to accept that God's foreknowledge is synonymous with His predestination. Chemnitz ruled out the truth that everything must happen as it does and couldn't happen in any other way and condemned this as Manichaeism, and confessional Lutherans just follow Chemnitz in this. They reject that everything is fated to happen because of God’s foreknowledge and that everything is predestined to happen. This of course is what Luther defended in The Bondage of the Will but they don't agree with this. Also the majority of them refuse to accept that Luther believed in absolute predestination, and if they read The Bondage of the Will they do so with closed minds that simply fail to see what Luther was actually arguing against Erasmus. They assume that he was only defending predestination to heaven and wasn't also maintaining that God has predestined everything that happens including that people are predestined to be damned Chemnitz was partly responsible for this along with others like CFW Walther, who was a leading confessional Lutheran in the 19th century. They propagated the myth that Luther wasn't a Calvinist on predestination and that double predestination is unscriptural. So one will never be able to convince those who subscribe to the FC that they're wrong in holding what they do about predestination and what Luther believed. They’re blinded by the FC which they hold up as a beacon of truth in the midst of a dark world.
You’ll never be able to convince “confessional Lutherans” that God’s foreknowledge and predestination are basically the same thing. That was what Luther rightly maintained in The Bondage of the Will but they believe otherwise. They believe according to the Formula of Concord, and in this Martin Chemnitz, the main author, maintained that God foreknows everything but His foreknowledge doesn't necessitate everything or anything happening as it does, and so Lutherans refuse to accept that God's foreknowledge is synonymous with predestination. Chemnitz ruled out the truth that everything must happen as it does and couldn't happen in any other way and condemned this as Manichaeism, and confessional Lutherans follow Chemnitz in this. They reject that everything is fated and predestined to happen. Also the majority of them refuse to accept that Luther believed in absolute predestination, and if they read The Bondage of the Will they do so with closed minds that simply fail to see what Luther was actually arguing. They wrongly assume that he was only defending predestination to heaven and wasn't also maintaining that God has predestined everything that happens including that people are predestined to be damned.
@Edward-ng8oo Lutherans siding with Erasmus and Chemnitz know that Luther didn't agree with them. They just refuse to believe what Luther said in BotW... God cannot be ignorant of the future. If so, God would not be omniscient. Secondly, God foreknows the future because He determined it that way. If God foreknows that you will go to church next Sunday, is it possible that you won't go?
@@ThomasCranmer1959 I've argued with many “confessional Lutherans” in the past who have refused to accept that Luther held that Scripture teaches double predestination. Only a small minority will accept that Luther wasn't in agreement with the teaching of single predestination in the Formula of Concord. And then they will say that they’re not committed to believe everything Luther wrote as if it was some insignificant thing that can be easily dismissed and that doesn't affect their claim to be Lutherans. Also one of their theologians Dr F Bente has written in his Introductions to the Lutheran Confessions a whole chapter which denies that Luther defended double predestination in The Bondage of the Will. I'm afraid you haven't realised how deluded Lutherans are. All the major Lutheran theologians over the last 450 years have all maintained that Luther rejected double predestination. They have a hatred of Calvinism and can't bear to think that Luther could have endorsed it. Of course all Lutherans (I call them that even though they're not actually that) believe that God is omniscient and foreknows the future, but they don't accept that the reason why He foreknows the future is because He's determined it. They will accept that if God foreknows what someone will do in the future that the future will turn out exactly as God foreknows it will, but what they won't accept is that God has predestined it to happen that way. They have the weird idea that somehow the future is foreknown by God when God hasn't determined it. Of course that's ridiculous but they don't see it that way. They look upon how God can foreknow the future when it's not determined by Him as some mysterious ability He has which defies explanation. It's really insane but they're not the only ones who think like this. Evangelical Christians who believe in free will also have this absurd belief that God can know exactly what will happen in the future when they have free will. They think that free will isn't negated by foreknowledge and omniscience. It's completely insane but that's what the majority of “Christians” believe. They hate the idea of absolute predestination and believe that free will is compatible with God’s foreknowledge when it obviously isn't to anyone who can think for themselves in a rational way.
@@ThomasCranmer1959I've argued with many “confessional Lutherans” in the past who have refused to accept that Luther held that Scripture teaches double predestination. Only a small minority will accept that Luther wasn't in agreement with the teaching of single predestination in the Formula of Concord. And then they will say that they’re not committed to believe everything Luther wrote as if it was some insignificant thing that can be easily dismissed and that doesn't affect their claim to be Lutherans. Also one of their theologians Dr F Bente has written in his Introductions to the Lutheran Confessions a whole chapter which denies that Luther defended double predestination in The Bondage of the Will. All the major Lutheran theologians over the last 450 years have maintained that Luther rejected double predestination. Of course all Lutherans (I call them that even though they're not actually that) believe that God is omniscient and foreknows the future, but they don't accept that the reason why He foreknows the future is because He's determined it. They will accept that if God foreknows what someone will do in the future that the future will turn out exactly as God foreknows it will, but what they won't accept is that God has predestined it to happen that way. They have the idea that somehow the future is foreknown by God when God hasn't determined it. Of course that's ridiculous but they don't see it that way. Evangelical Christians who believe in free will also have this absurd belief that God can know exactly what will happen in the future when they have free will. They think that free will isn't negated by foreknowledge and omniscience. It's nonsense but that's what the majority of “Christians” believe. They hate the idea of absolute predestination and believe that free will is compatible with God’s foreknowledge when it obviously isn't to anyone who can think for themselves in a rational way.
32:51 God does not enjoy punishing the wicked? 33:51 God didnt know that He would send individuals to hell and by name? Really? God just puts men in hell after He found out some new information???? God would then be ignorant of the future and therefore not omniscient.
Those who claim to be confessional Lutherans follow the teaching contained in the Formula of Concord (FC) which was drawn up more than 30 years after Luther's death. What it teaches with regards to predestination and foreknowledge is diametrically opposed to what Luther affirmed in The Bondage of the Will. Luther’s position was that God wills and works everything, and His foreknowledge necessitates everything happening as it does, and everything is predestined to happen, and all people are predestined to be either saved or damned. Martin Chemnitz however argued the opposite in the FC. He maintained that God doesn't will everything that happens as that which is evil is only willed by the Devil to happen, and that although God foreknows the future His foreknowledge doesn't necessitate it happening as it does. Chemnitz maintained that God hasn't predestined everything that occurs and that people are only predestined to be saved and not damned. He denied predestination to damnation because He maintained that the Holy Spirit seeks to convert everyone through the Gospel and the reason why people are damned is because they've resisted being converted. Who is damned is therefore only determined in this world in time and not in eternity by God before creation. None of this makes any logical sense but this is what they believe. Their minds have been captured by the idea that the Holy Spirit operates universally in the Gospel. They won't accept that the Holy Spirit only wills to convert some people and that He does this irresistibly. They maintain that the Holy Spirit endeavours to convert everyone through the Gospel and that conversion is resistible. They also believe at the same time that everyone is depraved through original sin and is resistant to God and therefore they can't explain how anyone is saved. They recognise to some degree the illogicality of their beliefs but they’ve deceived themselves into thinking that they're only seemingly contradictory and God can mysteriously do that which to them makes no sense. It's impossible to get through to people with this mindset. It’s delusional but people who are captured by a delusion need to be freed from it by God and it appears He doesn't will to do so in their case, which only goes to confirm the reality of absolute predestination.
With respect to whether God enjoys punishing the wicked it says in Ezekiel 18:23: Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? (ESV). The way that Luther understood this was to ascribe all Scripture passages which state that God desires to save everyone to only His revealed will in Christ, and that this is separate from His hidden omnipotent will whereby everything is willed by Him and predestined to happen. So Luther maintained that God desires through Christ to save even those who are predestined to be damned. Luther was right as Christ for instance wept over Jerusalem even though He knew that the majority of the inhabitants had been predestined to be damned. “Confessional Lutherans” make the assumption that Christ’s lamentation over Jerusalem shows that God hasn't predestined anyone to be damned, but that’s wrong. That’s a false conclusion which is unscriptural. The truth is that although God through His revealed will in Christ doesn't desire the damnation of anyone, He nevertheless has in eternity willed according to His hidden will that some should be damned and has predestined them to be damned. So does this mean that He enjoys punishing the wicked by His hidden will? I don't know and the only statement that I can recall Luther made in The Bondage of the Will about God’s feelings with respect to His hidden will was when when he commented on Romans 9:13 and wrote: God’s love toward men is eternal and immutable, and his hatred is eternal, being prior to the creation of the world, and not only to the merit and work of free choice; and everything takes place by necessity in us, according as he either loves or does not love us from all eternity, . . . (p. 199, Vol. 33, Luther's Works).
38:50 No. God controls who is elect and reprobate. I seriously doubt that the reprobate will willingly worship God in hell. Their damnation glorifies God because they are justly condemned by their own sins.
Yes. I doubt confessional reformed would have said that. How can a person know he is dammed or not. According to Calvin, he never asks: “Am I elect?” The question is: "do I believe?" If he doesn't believe, he will not serve or worship Him.
Jordan Cooper: "The Calvinists Puritans were too strict and obsessive, we should be more like these Thanksgiving hand turkeys" Thanksgiving hand turkeys: *come from a tradition started by the Puritan Calvinists
That did not appear to be an accurate definition of Double Predestination insofar as I understand it. You just described God passively refraining from giving salvific grace by acting on, and liberating, the wills of sinners. Double Predestination involves him, in the the same sense as he brings men to spiritual life actively by predestining them to salvation, reprobating some in a positive decree of God. In saying that he "has chosen to pass them over," you just described single predestination because that in no way parallels the description of "predestination to Salvation." .
Predestination is an eternal decree. It does not specify how God brings about His decrees. Providence is how God governs all things. Read ch. 3 and 4 and 5 in the Westminster Confession
"has chosen to pass them over" is double predestination, or asymmetrical double predestination. This is described in Cannon of Dort: "...not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God’s eternal election...."
Didn't God decide not to save the reprobate beforehand? How does passing over them get God off the hook? Romans 9:11-13 (KJV 1900): 1 (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.
Lutherans are self-contradictory. Luther said that God's foreknowledge is immutable. If God foreknows that you will go to church next Sunday, is it possible that you will not go to church next Sunday?
I had an argument with a Roman Catholic the other day about penal substitution and this talk was unexpectedly helpful at the end
1. In contrast to a penal substitution atonement model, did this Catholic make reference to Thomas Aquinas' superabundant atonement model articulated in Summa Theologica, Part III, Treatise On The Incarnation, Question 48 - Of the Efficacy of Christ's Passion, Article 2 - Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation by way of atonement?
"I answer that, He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. BUT BY SUFFERING OUT OF LOVE AND OBEDIENCE, CHRIST GAVE MORE TO GOD THAN WAS REQUIRED TO COMPENSATE FOR THE OFFENSE OF THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE.
First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered;
Secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man;
Thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (Q[46], A[6]).
- and -
THEREFORE CHRIST'S PASSION WAS NOT ONLY A SUFFICIENT BUT A SUPERABUNDANT ATONEMENT FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE; according to 1 Jn. 2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."
[sacred-texts.com /chr/aquinas/summa/sum499.htm]
2. That "superabundant atonement" of Jesus Christ involves the gifts of His sacraments to Christians:
A. Seven in number to the Catholic, Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East;
- and -
B. Two in number generally acknowledged by the Protestant Churches.
3. Employing the Protestant sacramental model but common to all as an ANALOGY to Thomas Aquinas' atonement model involving superabundant grace:
A. Baptism, through Christ's death on the cross, is a one time event that initially reconciles sinners to God.
B. Eucharist, through the Last Supper as a permanent institution, is a continuous celebratory event in the life of Christians after baptism.
@@annakimborahpa Now that's a comment lol. He did not. He struggled with the idea that the Father could punish the Son and yet the Trinity remain undivided. I had never heard that objection before so I am not sure I answered it very well but I read him bible passages that teach PSA, and gave an argument about our eternal punishment in relation to the perfection of God's law, basically Anselmian stuff.
I too would struggle with PSA, let alone the PCA, but if it's any consolation to you, your name contains two links to the animated TV show The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends that ran from 1959-64:
1. Edward Everett Horton was the voice of its Fractured Fairy Tales segment
- and -
2. Mister Peabody was the name of the talking dog on its Peabody's Improbable History segment.
Mister Peabody's segments were famous for including a terrible pun at the end. Perhaps the worst one appears in the "Mata Hari" episode, where Peabody explains that the entire population of Scotland was evacuated in a zeppelin: "one nation in dirigible." (from Wikipedia)
@@annakimborahpa lol thanks
@@annakimborahpa If Jesus paid the penalty for all men without exception, why does anyone go to hell? Didn't He pay the penalty for the sin of unbelief?
🎶 Glory be to the Father 💦 and to the Son 💦 and to the Holy Ghost 💦 As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. World without end ➕ Amen
the hymn of that ❤
The Gloria Patri is one of my favorite prayers in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.
Happy Reformation Day
Just what I needed right now. Thank you good Doctor and... Glory be to God!
Thanks and God bless!
Westminster Confession: What is the chief end of man? To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.
That's actually from the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Question and answer 1.
Got it, we all need to make hand turkeys. Noted, will do!!
I wish these had chapter breaks! The last 5 mins of this talk was GOLD. Glad I watched to the end, since Eastern Orthodoxy is my main area of interest (along with Lutheranism).
I love how you said that Western Christians don't make very good converts to ODX anyway. Haha, so right!
I, too, have come to find St. Augustine compelling and irresistible. (I even felt compelled to purchase his icon 🙂).
I also like that you touched on Theosis.
Great talks, Dr Cooper! I've enjoyed all of the 5 Solas talks.
Good conversation, I recently wrote a paper on the difrences between Christian monotheism and Islam and I used Augustines trinitarian love idea as a a way to show God did not need to create in order to be loving.
Man that has to be a fun paper to research for and write. Are you in seminary?
Yes im at Concordia seminary st louis
@@Ben_G_Biegler that's where my dad went, I remember it well from when I was a little kid. God bless you and your ministry
Define love. What is it????
@ThomasCranmer1959 I like Aquinas definition, to will the good of the other, or even to give oneself for another, most exemplified in Christ
Psalm 2:4-5 (KJV 1900): He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh:
The Lord shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath,
And vex them in his sore displeasure.
I grew up in a very pietistic region, and one of my friends regularly got talked to by his parents if he smiled too much, or was too enthusiastic. Music, cards, dancing, the theatre, etc., were all of the devil. A recipe for a high suicide rate😬
Article 5 of the Augsburg Confession states: "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). One can see from this that the position of the AC is that God sends the Holy Spirit through the Gospel to work faith when and where (i.e. in whom) God pleases, not as the Formula of Concord would have it that God sends the Holy Spirit through the Gospel to try to work faith in everyone.
The FC’s interpretation of the Augsburg Confession isn't what Article 5 actually teaches, and isn't how Luther understood it. He understood it in line with what he had stated in The Bondage of the Will which is that the Holy Spirit works selectively and irresistibly through the Gospel to work faith only in those He has chosen to convert. (pp. 285,286, Vol. 33, Luther's Works). And this is the teaching of Christ in John 6:44,64,65. The reason Christ gives for why people don't believe isn't because they resisted being converted by the Holy Spirit but is because the Father didn't draw them by the Holy Spirit, and didn't enable them to believe. That is clearly Christ’s meaning in verses 64 and 65. And this is how Luther explained it in The Bondage of the Will where he explained that only those inwardly drawn by the Holy Spirit working through the Gospel are converted and this happens by the Holy Spirit changing their wills irresistibly. Logically this is the only possible explanation given the fact that everyone is God’s enemy through original sin. It has to be that conversion to Christ is irresistible otherwise no one could come to faith and believe in Christ. The FC position, which is that conversion is resistible, can't explain how anyone is saved.
There’s no middle position between Calvinism and free will. Logically salvation and damnation are either determined by divine predestination where the Holy Spirit irresistibly converts those who are predestined to be saved and leaves the rest to be damned so that they're predestined to be damned, or alternatively people themselves choose whether to be saved or damned. One can't have a mixture of predestination and free will where those who are saved are saved through predestination but those who are damned are damned through free will. If it was the case that conversion is resistible as confessional Lutherans claim then there is no divine predestination to both salvation and damnation. But Scripture teaches that God has predestined people to be saved and therefore it must follow that those who are damned are predestined to be damned, which is what Paul teaches in Romans 9 where he likens God to a potter who makes vessels of dishonour as well as vessels of honour.
Confessional Lutherans say that the Calvinist position makes logical sense but isn't the teaching of Scripture, and they hold that what Scripture teaches doesn't need to be logically coherent when that’s absurd. Of course it needs to be logically coherent. If something doesn't make logical sense then it isn't true. The nature of God surpases our understanding but it isn't logically contradictory as is the belief that predestination to salvation happens in conjunction with resistible conversion. The two are diametrically opposed and can't coexist. Scripture and Luther teach double predestination. Unfortunately this is termed Calvinism when it should be termed Lutheranism as Luther preceded Calvin and it was Calvin who agreed with Luther and not the other way round.
I believe all the doctrines contained in all the documents contained in the Book of Concord except for the FC, and I agree with what Luther wrote in The Bondage of the Will so that makes me a Lutheran according to the correct definition of someone who agrees with Luther. “Confessional Lutherans” have created their own definition of what a Lutheran is which isn't a true definition. In reality they're followers of Martin Chemnitz not followers of Luther.
Thank you. I had studied the AC before, but I had not realized the contradictions between the FoC and the AC. You're correct that the Augsburg Confession is very close to the other Reformed confessions. It even says that baptism that does not produce faith is not regenerative.
I agree with most of this, except I think infralapsarianism confuses the logical order of the decrees with the chronological order. To get the logical order, you simply reverse the chronological order: 1. Creation. 2. Fall. 3. Redemption. 4. Election and reprobation. The logical order would then be:
1. Election and reprobation. 2. Redemption. 3. Fall. 4. Creation.
The Bible is propositional revelation. In a logical and theological system all of the propositions fit together into a systematic and coherent whole. There are no contradictions, antinomies, errors or irrationalities in Scripture. Does God breathe out logical contradictions or nonsense?
@@ThomasCranmer1959I personally think that infralapsarianism is more likely true than supralapsarianism in that the Fall logically comes before election and predestination otherwise if one logically starts with election and predestination it seems harsh. I think the way that Luther talks about predestination in The Bondage of the Will is more in line with infralapsarianism than supralapsarianism but it's a matter of judgement and I might be wrong on that.
Isn't it the voice of potamopotos asking a question ?
Yes.
I love that guy.
13:01 You have not defined what love is. What is it in God's simple being? Is God bound by human emotions?
The Romanist religion is a totally different religion.
German pietist?
Sanctification?
6:55 Luther taught double predestination in The Bondage of the Will.
19:45 At last, you touch on divine love. God's love and His volition are one and the same thing in regards to the elect. But does God love or hate those whom He has decreed to reprobation? God's foreknowledge and predestination are one and the same thing. His foreknowledge is immutable.
You’ll never be able to convince Lutherans (not that they are in reality Lutherans) that God’s foreknowledge and predestination are basically the same thing. That was what Luther rightly maintained in The Bondage of the Will but they believe otherwise. They believe according to the Formula of Concord and in this Martin Chemnitz, the main author, maintained that God foreknows everything but His foreknowledge doesn't necessitate everything happening as it does, and so Lutherans refuse to accept that God's foreknowledge is synonymous with His predestination. Chemnitz ruled out the truth that everything must happen as it does and couldn't happen in any other way and condemned this as Manichaeism, and confessional Lutherans just follow Chemnitz in this. They reject that everything is fated to happen because of God’s foreknowledge and that everything is predestined to happen. This of course is what Luther defended in The Bondage of the Will but they don't agree with this. Also the majority of them refuse to accept that Luther believed in absolute predestination, and if they read The Bondage of the Will they do so with closed minds that simply fail to see what Luther was actually arguing against Erasmus. They assume that he was only defending predestination to heaven and wasn't also maintaining that God has predestined everything that happens including that people are predestined to be damned Chemnitz was partly responsible for this along with others like CFW Walther, who was a leading confessional Lutheran in the 19th century. They propagated the myth that Luther wasn't a Calvinist on predestination and that double predestination is unscriptural. So one will never be able to convince those who subscribe to the FC that they're wrong in holding what they do about predestination and what Luther believed. They’re blinded by the FC which they hold up as a beacon of truth in the midst of a dark world.
You’ll never be able to convince “confessional Lutherans” that God’s foreknowledge and predestination are basically the same thing. That was what Luther rightly maintained in The Bondage of the Will but they believe otherwise. They believe according to the Formula of Concord, and in this Martin Chemnitz, the main author, maintained that God foreknows everything but His foreknowledge doesn't necessitate everything or anything happening as it does, and so Lutherans refuse to accept that God's foreknowledge is synonymous with predestination. Chemnitz ruled out the truth that everything must happen as it does and couldn't happen in any other way and condemned this as Manichaeism, and confessional Lutherans follow Chemnitz in this. They reject that everything is fated and predestined to happen. Also the majority of them refuse to accept that Luther believed in absolute predestination, and if they read The Bondage of the Will they do so with closed minds that simply fail to see what Luther was actually arguing. They wrongly assume that he was only defending predestination to heaven and wasn't also maintaining that God has predestined everything that happens including that people are predestined to be damned.
@Edward-ng8oo Lutherans siding with Erasmus and Chemnitz know that Luther didn't agree with them. They just refuse to believe what Luther said in BotW...
God cannot be ignorant of the future. If so, God would not be omniscient. Secondly, God foreknows the future because He determined it that way.
If God foreknows that you will go to church next Sunday, is it possible that you won't go?
@@ThomasCranmer1959 I've argued with many “confessional Lutherans” in the past who have refused to accept that Luther held that Scripture teaches double predestination. Only a small minority will accept that Luther wasn't in agreement with the teaching of single predestination in the Formula of Concord. And then they will say that they’re not committed to believe everything Luther wrote as if it was some insignificant thing that can be easily dismissed and that doesn't affect their claim to be Lutherans. Also one of their theologians Dr F Bente has written in his Introductions to the Lutheran Confessions a whole chapter which denies that Luther defended double predestination in The Bondage of the Will. I'm afraid you haven't realised how deluded Lutherans are. All the major Lutheran theologians over the last 450 years have all maintained that Luther rejected double predestination. They have a hatred of Calvinism and can't bear to think that Luther could have endorsed it.
Of course all Lutherans (I call them that even though they're not actually that) believe that God is omniscient and foreknows the future, but they don't accept that the reason why He foreknows the future is because He's determined it. They will accept that if God foreknows what someone will do in the future that the future will turn out exactly as God foreknows it will, but what they won't accept is that God has predestined it to happen that way. They have the weird idea that somehow the future is foreknown by God when God hasn't determined it. Of course that's ridiculous but they don't see it that way. They look upon how God can foreknow the future when it's not determined by Him as some mysterious ability He has which defies explanation. It's really insane but they're not the only ones who think like this. Evangelical Christians who believe in free will also have this absurd belief that God can know exactly what will happen in the future when they have free will. They think that free will isn't negated by foreknowledge and omniscience. It's completely insane but that's what the majority of “Christians” believe. They hate the idea of absolute predestination and believe that free will is compatible with God’s foreknowledge when it obviously isn't to anyone who can think for themselves in a rational way.
@@ThomasCranmer1959I've argued with many “confessional Lutherans” in the past who have refused to accept that Luther held that Scripture teaches double predestination. Only a small minority will accept that Luther wasn't in agreement with the teaching of single predestination in the Formula of Concord. And then they will say that they’re not committed to believe everything Luther wrote as if it was some insignificant thing that can be easily dismissed and that doesn't affect their claim to be Lutherans. Also one of their theologians Dr F Bente has written in his Introductions to the Lutheran Confessions a whole chapter which denies that Luther defended double predestination in The Bondage of the Will. All the major Lutheran theologians over the last 450 years have maintained that Luther rejected double predestination.
Of course all Lutherans (I call them that even though they're not actually that) believe that God is omniscient and foreknows the future, but they don't accept that the reason why He foreknows the future is because He's determined it. They will accept that if God foreknows what someone will do in the future that the future will turn out exactly as God foreknows it will, but what they won't accept is that God has predestined it to happen that way. They have the idea that somehow the future is foreknown by God when God hasn't determined it. Of course that's ridiculous but they don't see it that way. Evangelical Christians who believe in free will also have this absurd belief that God can know exactly what will happen in the future when they have free will. They think that free will isn't negated by foreknowledge and omniscience. It's nonsense but that's what the majority of “Christians” believe. They hate the idea of absolute predestination and believe that free will is compatible with God’s foreknowledge when it obviously isn't to anyone who can think for themselves in a rational way.
32:51 God does not enjoy punishing the wicked?
33:51
God didnt know that He would send individuals to hell and by name? Really? God just puts men in hell after He found out some new information???? God would then be ignorant of the future and therefore not omniscient.
Those who claim to be confessional Lutherans follow the teaching contained in the Formula of Concord (FC) which was drawn up more than 30 years after Luther's death. What it teaches with regards to predestination and foreknowledge is diametrically opposed to what Luther affirmed in The Bondage of the Will. Luther’s position was that God wills and works everything, and His foreknowledge necessitates everything happening as it does, and everything is predestined to happen, and all people are predestined to be either saved or damned. Martin Chemnitz however argued the opposite in the FC. He maintained that God doesn't will everything that happens as that which is evil is only willed by the Devil to happen, and that although God foreknows the future His foreknowledge doesn't necessitate it happening as it does. Chemnitz maintained that God hasn't predestined everything that occurs and that people are only predestined to be saved and not damned. He denied predestination to damnation because He maintained that the Holy Spirit seeks to convert everyone through the Gospel and the reason why people are damned is because they've resisted being converted. Who is damned is therefore only determined in this world in time and not in eternity by God before creation. None of this makes any logical sense but this is what they believe. Their minds have been captured by the idea that the Holy Spirit operates universally in the Gospel. They won't accept that the Holy Spirit only wills to convert some people and that He does this irresistibly. They maintain that the Holy Spirit endeavours to convert everyone through the Gospel and that conversion is resistible. They also believe at the same time that everyone is depraved through original sin and is resistant to God and therefore they can't explain how anyone is saved. They recognise to some degree the illogicality of their beliefs but they’ve deceived themselves into thinking that they're only seemingly contradictory and God can mysteriously do that which to them makes no sense. It's impossible to get through to people with this mindset. It’s delusional but people who are captured by a delusion need to be freed from it by God and it appears He doesn't will to do so in their case, which only goes to confirm the reality of absolute predestination.
With respect to whether God enjoys punishing the wicked it says in Ezekiel 18:23: Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? (ESV). The way that Luther understood this was to ascribe all Scripture passages which state that God desires to save everyone to only His revealed will in Christ, and that this is separate from His hidden omnipotent will whereby everything is willed by Him and predestined to happen. So Luther maintained that God desires through Christ to save even those who are predestined to be damned.
Luther was right as Christ for instance wept over Jerusalem even though He knew that the majority of the inhabitants had been predestined to be damned. “Confessional Lutherans” make the assumption that Christ’s lamentation over Jerusalem shows that God hasn't predestined anyone to be damned, but that’s wrong. That’s a false conclusion which is unscriptural. The truth is that although God through His revealed will in Christ doesn't desire the damnation of anyone, He nevertheless has in eternity willed according to His hidden will that some should be damned and has predestined them to be damned. So does this mean that He enjoys punishing the wicked by His hidden will? I don't know and the only statement that I can recall Luther made in The Bondage of the Will about God’s feelings with respect to His hidden will was when when he commented on Romans 9:13 and wrote:
God’s love toward men is eternal and immutable, and his hatred is eternal, being prior to the creation of the world, and not only to the merit and work of free choice; and everything takes place by necessity in us, according as he either loves or does not love us from all eternity, . . . (p. 199, Vol. 33, Luther's Works).
38:50 No. God controls who is elect and reprobate. I seriously doubt that the reprobate will willingly worship God in hell. Their damnation glorifies God because they are justly condemned by their own sins.
Yes. I doubt confessional reformed would have said that. How can a person know he is dammed or not. According to Calvin, he never asks: “Am I elect?” The question is: "do I believe?" If he doesn't believe, he will not serve or worship Him.
@@dafang1 Correct, brother!
Jordan Cooper: "The Calvinists Puritans were too strict and obsessive, we should be more like these Thanksgiving hand turkeys"
Thanksgiving hand turkeys: *come from a tradition started by the Puritan Calvinists
Where are the denominations of Christianity mentioned in the Bible?
Where is the papacy mentioned in the Bible?
The body of Christ.
That did not appear to be an accurate definition of Double Predestination insofar as I understand it. You just described God passively refraining from giving salvific grace by acting on, and liberating, the wills of sinners.
Double Predestination involves him, in the the same sense as he brings men to spiritual life actively by predestining them to salvation, reprobating some in a positive decree of God.
In saying that he "has chosen to pass them over," you just described single predestination because that in no way parallels the description of "predestination to Salvation." .
There are differing perspectives on double predestination within Calvinism.
Predestination is an eternal decree. It does not specify how God brings about His decrees. Providence is how God governs all things. Read ch. 3 and 4 and 5 in the Westminster Confession
"has chosen to pass them over" is double predestination, or asymmetrical double predestination. This is described in Cannon of Dort: "...not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God’s eternal election...."
@@dafang1 Yes, but either way, the passing over is an eternal decree and does not get God off the hook.
Didn't God decide not to save the reprobate beforehand? How does passing over them get God off the hook?
Romans 9:11-13 (KJV 1900): 1 (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.
This whole lecture is basically trying to say "we're like Calvinists but nicer"
I'mma do a lecture that says:
"we're like Lutherans but smarter"
Lutherans are self-contradictory. Luther said that God's foreknowledge is immutable. If God foreknows that you will go to church next Sunday, is it possible that you will not go to church next Sunday?