Where did Martin Luther and John Calvin disagree?

[Mickey]

The fact that moral free will is based on Greek humanism and not on biblical revelation.

Free will is a gift from God.

 

[TriuneUnity]

So you are saying that if you do not hear someone preach the Gospel—or read it for yourself—God is going to withhold His grace?

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ. God works through his means of word and sacrament. Apart from this, there is no gospel message.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Free will is a gift from God.

A gift that mankind chose to reject and instead chose to bind himself in servitude to Satan.

Again, we’re not talking about the decision to eat raisin bran over wheaties this morning. We’re talking about the ultimate good.

 

[Ruthie]

Originally Posted by raumzeitmc2 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
“But Christ did, in fact, preach his gospel without explicit reference to the Cross. True?”

No, unless you think that these did not refer to it:

and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Matt 10:38 (RSV) Repeated in Lk 14:27.

Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
Matt 16:24 (RSV) Repeated in Mk 8:34 and Lk 9:23.

He may not have come out and said He would be crucified until Mt 26:2, but what was He talking about then?

Was “take up one’s cross” an idiom used in those days? (I don’t know.)

Ruthie

 

[Mickey]

A gift that mankind chose to reject and instead chose to bind himself in servitude to Satan.

Our free will is wounded by the fall–not eliminated.

Again, we’re not talking about the decision to eat raisin bran over wheaties this morning.

Cute.

Let me re-phrase it:

God begins the process and we cooperate. We are co-laborers. Do you agree with this?

 

[PerryJ]

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ. God works through his means of word and sacrament. Apart from this, there is no gospel message.

Does this thought lead you to believe in single predestination or invincible ignorance (as Catholic’s use the term)? Or something else?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Our free will is wounded by the fall–not eliminated.

Cute.

Let me re-phrase it:

God begins the process and we cooperate. We are co-laborers. Do you agree with this?

We cooperate in our sanctification, yes. But this has nothing to do with unbelievers. The context are those who are without Christ.

 

[Mickey]

We cooperate in our sanctification, yes. But this has nothing to do with unbelievers. The context are those who are without Christ.

So you are saying that God does not bestow His grace upon all mankind?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Does this thought lead you to believe in single predestination or invincible ignorance (as Catholic’s use the term)? Or something else?

I believe in single predestination, yes. I do not believe in invincible ignorance because all men are born guilty and have rejected God by their sinful nature. Of course, I reject double predestination as inherently blasphemous.

 

[Mickey]

The following is a comparison of Calvinism and Catholicism (Thanks to Phil V) I believe Holy Orthodoxy is pretty much in line with Catholicism and Lutheranism leans more to the Calvinist position. Blessings to all!

Calvin : God’s sovereignty determines the will.
Catholic : God’s sovereignty includes free will.

Calvin : Predestination as predetermination.
Catholic : Predestination as infallible foreknowledge.

Calvin : God desires only the salvation of the elect.
Catholic : God desires the salvation of all.

Calvin : God provides grace only to the elect.
Catholic : God provides grace to all, though not all accept it.

Calvin : Christ died only for the elect.
Catholic : Christ died for all men.

Calvin : God predetermines some for hell.
Catholic : Men merit hell by their own wickedness.

Calvin : The elect include all those born-again.
Catholic : The elect are those who persevere to the end.

Calvin : Grace co-opts human free will.
Catholic : Grace perfects the free will that cooperates.

Calvin : Those in grace (born-again) can’t fall away.
Catholic : Those in grace can freely sin and lose grace.

Calvin : The elect will unfailingly persevere.
Catholic : The elect are those who have persevered.

Calvin : The elect are assured of their salvation.
Catholic : Yes, but only God knows who they are.

Calvin : Predestination eliminates merit and guilt.
Catholic : Predestination includes merit and guilt.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num21.htm

 

[TriuneUnity]

So you are saying that God does not bestow His grace upon all mankind?

All men are reconciled by the action of Christ on the cross. This is the message of the Gospel. Unless this message is made known to the lost by the preaching of the word or the administration of baptism, they will die in their sins. Saving grace comes only through the gospel.

 

[Mickey]

Unless this message is made known to the lost… .

So your answer is that God does not bestow His grace upon **all **mankind.

So God is purposefully withholding His grace from some?

 

[TriuneUnity]

**The following is a comparison of Calvinism and Catholicism (Thanks to Phil V) **I believe Holy Orthodoxy is pretty much in line with Catholicism and Lutheranism leans more to the Calvinist position. Blessings to all!

Calvin : God’s sovereignty determines the will.
Catholic : God’s sovereignty includes free will.

Agreed with the Catholic position except that to us it is not an issue of God’s sovereignty. Men have lost their moral freedom due to their own actions, not God’s sovereign decision.

Calvin : Predestination as predetermination.
Catholic : Predestination as infallible foreknowledge.

The merit of Christ is the basis of predestination.

 

[TriuneUnity]

So your answer is that God does not bestow His grace upon **all **mankind.

So God is purposefully withholding His grace from some?

With holding? No. God has commanded us to preach the gospel to all nations. This is how God’s grace is poured out on mankind. It is our responsibility to fulfill his salvific will.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

The gospel without the cross is no longer the gospel. The Law that was preached by Christ condemns us as sinners before God’s holy standard.

Scripture *explicitly *tells us that Christ went about preaching the gospel.

“One day as he was teaching the people in the temple courts and PREACHING THE GOSPEL, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him.” Luke 20:1

And yet, he does not, for what appears to be the greater part of his earthly ministry, ever mention the Cross!

“Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.” Matt. 16:20

Commenting on this passage, A. T. Robertson says:

That they should tell no man (ina mhdeni eipwsin). Why? For the very reason that he had himself avoided this claim in public. He was the Messiah (o Cristoß), but the people would inevitably take it in a political sense. Jesus was plainly profoundly moved by Peter’s great confession on behalf of the disciples. He was grateful and confident of the final outcome. But he foresaw peril to all. Peter had confessed him as the Messiah and on this rock of faith thus confessed he would build his church or kingdom. They will all have and use the keys to this greatest of all buildings, but for the present they must be silent.

And.

“From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.” Matt. 16:21

Again, Robertson comments:

From that time began (apo tote hrxato). It was a suitable time for the disclosure of the greatest secret of his death.

It is now just a little over six months before the cross.

They must know it now to be ready then. The great confession of Peter made this seem an appropriate time.

He will repeat the warnings (John 17:22f. with mention of betrayal; John 20:17-19 with the cross) which he now “began.” So the necessity (dei, must) of his suffering death at the hands of the Jerusalem ecclesiastics who have dogged his steps in Galilee is now plainly stated. Jesus added his resurrection “on the third day” (th trith hmerai), not “on the fourth day,” please observe. *Dimly *the shocked disciples grasped something of what Jesus said.

Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament (RWP)

biblestudytools.net/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=mt+16&version=niv&showtools=1

So here we have the first mention by Christ of his passion. And this is revealed only to his closest disciples. So how is it he could have preached the gospel for two and a half years without ever mentioning his Passion, his Cross?

Again, I ask, what “gospel” was this??? For if, as you say, “the gospel without the cross is no longer the gospel,” then Christ, by your reasoning, could not have preached “the Gospel.”

 

[TriuneUnity]

Scripture *explicitly *tells us that Christ went about preaching the gospel.

“One day as he was teaching the people in the temple courts and PREACHING THE GOSPEL, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him.” Luke 20:1

And yet, he does not, for what appears to be the greater part of his earthly ministry, ever mention the Cross!

“Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.” Matt. 16:20

Commenting on this passage, A. T. Robertson says:

And.

“From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.” Matt. 16:21

Again, Robertson comments:

Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament (RWP)

biblestudytools.net/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=mt+16&version=niv&showtools=1

So here we have the first mention by Christ of his passion. And this is revealed only to his closest disciples. So how is it he could have preached the gospel for two and a half years without ever mentioning his Passion, his Cross?

Again, I ask, what “gospel” was this??? For if, as you say, “the gospel without the cross is no longer the gospel,” then Christ, by your reasoning, could not have preached “the Gospel.”

Does it record what Jesus said in this preaching where it states he preached the gospel? Do you refuse to allow the apostles to define what the gospel is?

 

[PerryJ]

With holding? No. God has commanded us to preach the gospel to all nations. This is how God’s grace is poured out on mankind. It is our responsibility to fulfill his salvific will.

I tend to agree with this thought in the modern age more than in earlier periods. When Christ first died many would not have heard the gospels. Or how about the populations in the Americas that did not have a chance to hear the gospels. Are you believing they not part of the elect and would be condemn to Hell? Do you have an alternative thought?

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Does it record what Jesus said in this preaching where it states he preached the gospel? Do you refuse to allow the apostles to define what the gospel is?

I’m not talking about the apostles right now. I dealing strictly with “Christ alone,” Solus Christus." Or can we not discover what the gospel is, by reading the gospel??!!

And can you provide an example of Christ preaching the Cross during his early ministry?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’m not talking about the apostles right now. I dealing strictly with “Christ alone,” Solus Christus." Or can we not discover what the gospel is, by reading the gospel??!!

The gospels are biographical accounts of the ministry of Christ. The Gospel is the message of Christ crucified for the reconciliation of mankind.

By the way…the apostles preaching the gospel IS Christ preaching the gospel.

And can you provide an example of Christ preaching the Cross during his early ministry?

Matt 26:2: “You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified.”

 

[TriuneUnity]

I tend to agree with this thought in the modern age more than in earlier periods. When Christ first died many would not have heard the gospels. Or how about the populations in the Americas that did not have a chance to hear the gospels. Are you believing they not part of the elect and would be condemn to Hell? Do you have an alternative thought?

Well…I would prefer in this sense to remove election from the picture. Election refers only to those who are God’s people, so it should be used in a positive sense.

But yes; all mankind is born guilty under the Law and inherits a sinful nature. We agree on that, right? Therefore, all men, naturally, are under condemnation. God owes salvation to no man. If individuals did not hear the message of the cross, they will be judged according to the Law. If they have committed sin, they will be judged according to that standard.