Where did Martin Luther and John Calvin disagree?

[sola_scriptura]

To clarify our exact belief in this current predestination topic (by the way, Mickey, and Sola, you’ve been awesome to discuss this with. Your Christian attitudes are a shining example of the kind of dialogue that Christ commands of us and is a good reflection of the churches we belong to). From the WELS statement:

“We believe that already before the world was created, God chose those individuals whom he would in time convert through the gospel of Christ and preserve in faith to eternal life (Ephesians 1:4-6, Romans 8:29-30). This election to faith and salvation in no way was caused by anything in people but shows how completely salvation is by grace alone (Romans 11:5-6).”

“We reject every teaching that people in any way contribute to their salvation. We reject the belief that people with their own power can cooperate in their conversion or make a decision for Christ (John 15:16). We reject the belief that those who are converted were less resistant to God’s grace than those who remain unconverted. We reject all efforts to present faith as a condition people must fulfill to complete their justification. We reject all attempts of sinners to justify themselves before God.”

“We reject the false and blasphemous conclusion that those who are lost were predestined, or elected, by God to damnation, for God wants all people to be saved (1Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9).”

Please note that the Wisconsin Synod of the Lutheran Church teaches predestination to salvation alone. Predestination to damnation is rejected. Predestination is based on God’s grace alone. There was nothing in any human being that would cause God to choose him. The Wisconsin Synod teaches universal atonement (Christ died for the sins of all). God also desires the salvation of every sinner. We do not try to rationalize why some are saved and not others in a way that is satisfying to human reason. We believe that if a person is saved it is all to God’s credit. If a person is lost, it is completely that person’s fault.

Thanks for the clarification on the Lutheran view. Again, my problem is the logic of this position. The exegesis is quite simple:

1. God created all people
2. Those people can only come to God through the grace of God.
3. God does not give His saving grace to all, only some
4. Therefore, by omission, God destines some to the punishment they deserve and by mercy saves others even though they don’t deserve it.

Therefore, predestination to condemnation is a negative act by God not an affirmative one. By mere caveat of not giving grace to some (which the Lutheran church concedes) it is illogical to say they are not predestined to condemnation.

The LORD has made everything for its own purpose,
Even the wicked for the day of evil (Proverbs 16:4).

 

[TriuneUnity]

Thanks for the clarification on the Lutheran view. Again, my problem is the logic of this position. The exegesis is quite simple:

1. God created all people
2. Those people can only come to God through the grace of God.
3. God does not give His saving grace to all, only some
4. Therefore, by omission, God destines some to the punishment they deserve and by mercy saves others even though they don’t deserve it.

Therefore, predestination to condemnation is a negative act by God not an affirmative one. By mere caveat of not giving grace to some (which the Lutheran church concedes) it is illogical to say they are not predestined to condemnation.

The LORD has made everything for its own purpose,
Even the wicked for the day of evil (Proverbs 16:4).

The key words in your statement are the “logic of this position.” Calvin’s logic is not that bad here, but his theology is because he lets logic overrule Scripture. The reason we do not believe in predestination to damnation is that Scripture very clearly says God wants all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). This same truth is also taught in other passages of Scripture. It might seem logical to conclude that if God elects some to salvation, he must elect the rest to damnation. But the statements of Scripture that Christ died for all, that God is the Savior of all, and that God wants all to be saved do not permit such a conclusion. Therefore, we simply let all the words of Scripture on this matter stand side by side without trying to reconcile them by our reason.

 

[sola_scriptura]

The key words in your statement are the “logic of this position.” Calvin’s logic is not that bad here, but his theology is because he lets logic overrule Scripture. The reason we do not believe in predestination to damnation is that Scripture very clearly says God wants all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). This same truth is also taught in other passages of Scripture. It might seem logical to conclude that if God elects some to salvation, he must elect the rest to damnation. But the statements of Scripture that Christ died for all, that God is the Savior of all, and that God wants all to be saved do not permit such a conclusion. Therefore, we simply let all the words of Scripture on this matter stand side by side without trying to reconcile them by our reason.

Indeed – on its face – that verse is problematic for the Calvinist view.

Some arguments I’ve heard that seek to bolster Calvin’s view is to question the definition of “all” within the context of 1 Tim. 2:4.

Strong’s Number: 3956

Original word: pa=v
Phonetic Spelling: Pas

Definition:

1. individually
   1. each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

**2. collectively
1. some of all types **

Many Calvinists will say it was the second definition that is its true meaning within the context of 1 Tim. 2:4.

I’m not a Koine Greek linguist so I cannot speak with authority on this – accept to say this view seems to make sense (if this verse is to be consistent with the preponderance of Scripture).

When we review the context the verse was written in this interpretation makes sense as well. For instance the chapter begins by saying:

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

To translate the idea (as asserted by many Calvinists) we might read this as meaning:

God wants all types of people to be saved, even kings and those in authority, so it is good and acceptable to God that we pray for them.

When we consider the historical context this was written in this also makes sense. Remember, it was kings and those in authority who were persecuting the early church. So most Christians weren’t predisposed to pray for these people.

I also concede either definition of “all” fits the context. However, when we run into such ambiguity we must turn to the rest of Scripture. If one of the alternative definitions of the word at issue makes a passage consistent with scripture, while the other alternative does not, then it is at least more likely that the meaning which makes the passage consistent with scripture is the correct one.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Indeed – on its face – that verse is problematic for the Calvinist view.

Some arguments I’ve heard that seek to bolster Calvin’s view is to question the definition of “all” within the context of 1 Tim. 2:4.

Strong’s Number: 3956

Original word: pa=v
Phonetic Spelling: Pas

Definition:

1. individually
   1. each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

**2. collectively
1. some of all types **

Many Calvinists will say it was the second definition that is its true meaning within the context of 1 Tim. 2:4.

I’m not a Koine Greek linguist so I cannot speak with authority on this – accept to say this view seems to make sense (if this verse is to be consistent with the preponderance of Scripture).

When we review the context the verse was written in this interpretation makes sense as well. For instance the chapter begins by saying:

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

To translate the idea (as asserted by many Calvinists) we might read this as meaning:

God wants all types of people to be saved, even kings and those in authority, so it is good and acceptable to God that we pray for them.

In both Greek and English the word "everyone’’ or “all” means just that unless some adjectival modifier limits who is meant by “everyone.” For example, if I am a teacher of a class and I say to the class “everyone who attends this class is invited to my home this evening,” the word everyone is limited to those who are members of my class. If a day or two later a friend asks me, “How many from your class came to your home that evening?”, and I answer “Everyone”, I don’t mean most of them came, or that certain classes of people came. I mean there weren’t any who didn’t come.

There are also some passages that tell us clearly that “all people” means the entire world: 2 Corinthians 5:19, 1 John 2:2, John 1:29.

 

[sola_scriptura]

In both Greek and English the word "everyone’’ or “all” means just that unless some adjectival modifier limits who is meant by “everyone.” For example, if I am a teacher of a class and I say to the class “everyone who attends this class is invited to my home this evening,” the word everyone is limited to those who are members of my class. If a day or two later a friend asks me, “How many from your class came to your home that evening?”, and I answer “Everyone”, I don’t mean most of them came, or that certain classes of people came. I mean there weren’t any who didn’t come.

There are also some passages that tell us clearly that “all people” means the entire world: 2 Corinthians 5:19, 1 John 2:2, John 1:29.

Have you studied Koine (or Hellenic) Greek? I have not so honestly I cannot authoritatively respond to your statement – but it seems peculiar that Strong’s would frame the definition of Pas the way it does if what you say is true?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Have you studied Koine (or Hellenic) Greek? I have not so honestly I cannot authoritatively respond to your statement – but it seems peculiar that Strong’s would frame the definition of Pas the way it does if what you say is true?

Not enough to have a working knowledge. Rudimentary at best. However, I do know that the second definition given by Strong’s is only true if there is an adjectival modifier that would demand that second definition to be used. If we use it in every case where the word pas occurs then Scripture would make a lot of non-sensical statements. “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” would become “Certain classes of people have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Or “through one man’s trespass certain classes of men were made sinners.” The context and wording of the statement determines which definition applies.

It seems that Calvinists who rely on the second definition are simply trying to interpret those passages consistent with their presupposition that Christ died only for the elect and that God has predetermined some men to condemnation. That would be eisegesis.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Not enough to have a working knowledge. Rudimentary at best. However, I do know that the second definition given by Strong’s is only true if there is an adjectival modifier that would demand that second definition to be used. If we use it in every case where the word pas occurs then Scripture would make a lot of non-sensical statements. “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” would become “Certain classes of people have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Or “through one man’s trespass certain classes of men were made sinners.” The context and wording of the statement determines which definition applies.

It seems that Calvinists who rely on the second definition are simply trying to interpret those passages consistent with their presupposition that Christ died only for the elect and that God has predetermined some men to condemnation. That would be eisegesis.

I’ve been researching this question for a little while now & I’ve seen no one (not even even Arminian apologists) use the adjectival modifier argument? From what I can tell the word ALL in the Koine Greek (Pas) has the dual usage I indicated previously, when standing alone.

However, there are other passages that support your point (particularly if you were to argue in support of unlimited atonement as I believe Luther did). Overall I’m not convinced by this reasoning (however, there is disagreement on this question within Calvinist circles, some “four-point” Calvinists hold to unlimited atonement as Luther did). For example, this same sort of debate exists with regard to the usage of the Greek “kosmos” (for instance in 1 John 2:2).

I find verses like the following one decisive on this issue:

Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one” (John 10:25-30).

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’ve been researching this question for a little while now & I’ve seen no one (not even even Arminian apologists) use the adjectival modifier argument? From what I can tell the word ALL in the Koine Greek (Pas) has the dual usage I indicated previously, when standing alone.

Well, the fact of the matter of no one having made that argument doesn’t negate it I hope! The problem with saying it always has that dual usage is it doesn’t take modifiers and context into account. You would agree that all fish, and all green fish are substantively different, yes?

I find verses like the following one decisive on this issue:

Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one" (John 10:25-30).

Christ having died for all of group A does not rule out that He also died for group B, unless it states that group B was not died for. Does that make sense?

 

[sola_scriptura]

Well, the fact of the matter of no one having made that argument doesn’t negate it I hope! The problem with saying it always has that dual usage is it doesn’t take modifiers and context into account. You would agree that all fish, and all green fish are substantively different, yes?

I see your point – but there’s been quite a bit of ink used on this topic. I’ve never formerly studied Greek but I’ve been studying theology for a few years & I see the lengths research into this question has gone. Linguists look to other writings from the Hellenic period to see how particular words were used. I know this “all” and “whole world” controversy has gone on for centuries and I would think when Strong’s puts out a definition its pretty solid.

That being said the Arminian argument is not without merit.

Christ having died for all of group A does not rule out that He also died for group B, unless it states that group B was not died for. Does that make sense?

It does state that the reprobate do not believe because they’re not one of His sheep (not vice versa). In other words only the elect are capable of faith. So Augustine and Calvin simply followed the logic.

If we can only be saved by God’s grace, and if God only gives His grace to some and not others, then one group is destined for one thing while the other group for another.

However, again both sides make valid points?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I see your point – but there’s been quite a bit of ink used on this topic. I’ve never formerly studied Greek but I’ve been studying theology for a few years & I see the lengths research into this question has gone. Linguists look to other writings from the Hellenic period to see how particular words were used. I know this “all” and “whole world” controversy has gone on for centuries and I would think when Strong’s puts out a definition its pretty solid.

And I am sure it will continue. Yet I have seen nothing in the text itself that would demand “all” references only all ethnic groups, or all nations, or what have you. I interpret it the same way the “all” passages are used in reference to man’s sinful nature, God’s wrath being on him, etc. I find the Calvinist argument here torturing the text.

I still like the Belgic Confession, though lol

That being said the Arminian argument is not without merit.

The problem with the Arminian argument is that, historically, the Remonstrants denied the penal substitution of the cross. Even their universalism is misguided.

It does state that the reprobate do not believe because they’re not one of His sheep (not vice versa). In other words only the elect are capable of faith. So Augustine and Calvin simply followed the logic.

Where did Augustine draw double predestination from this passage? I haven’t really read your Augustine quote’s in depth because they were addressed to other posters.

If we can only be saved by God’s grace, and if God only gives His grace to some and not others, then one group is destined for one thing while the other group for another.

I wouldn’t disagree with that with the understanding being that the reason the reprobate are destined for damnation is not because of an active predestinating on the part of God but because they reject the Gospel and are in sin. It’s 100% the responsibility of man.

However, again both sides make valid points?

The Calvinist argument is certainly well-thought out. I just don’t believe it represents the theology of the New Testament (in respect to double-predestination and limited atonement).

 

[Cinette]

The Scriptures and man’s experience both bear witness that all things work together for good to those who love God. Setbacks and difficulties there will be, but God turns them into “light afflictions” (2Cor 4:17, 18; 12:9, 10). God has foreknowledge of all things.

Predestined must not be understood as overpowering man’s free response, for man’s free will is a gift from God. Nor does the term apply to individuals. Rather this term (which can also be translated “preordained”) means that God has a specific calling for His people from before the beginning of the world. “God does not will evil to be done, nor does he force virtue” (John Dm). Based on His foreknowledge, God assures, or predestines, that those who will choose to love Him will be conformed to the image of His Son, that is, glorified.
OSB

Thank you for that Mickey. You have explained very well and it makes sense.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Clearly Augustine did believe in double predestination:

I think you might be reading a bit more into Augustine than is actually there. Augustine would say that we have the God given ability to choose our eternal destiny by constantly responding to His grace, for grace, inasmuch as it is a gift, *demands a response. *

“But the servant who did things that deserved a beating without knowing it will receive a light beating. Much will be required from everyone to whom much has been given. But even more will be demanded from the one to whom much has been entrusted.” Luke 12:48

Now I’m just curious, what do you make of these words of Luther regarding the predestination of souls to eternal damnation (once damned, always damned).

Doubtless it gives the greatest possible offence to common sense or natural reason, that God, Who is proclaimed as being full of mercy and goodness, and so on, should of His own mere will abandon, harden, and damn men, as though He delighted in the sins and great eternal torments of such poor wretches. It seems an iniquitous, cruel, intolerable thought to think of God; and it is this that has been a stumbling block to so many great men down the ages. And who would not stumble at it? I have stumbled at it myself more than once, down to the deepest pit of despair, so that I wished I had never been made a man.

Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will, translated by J.I. Packer
and O. R. Johnston, Revell: 1957, 1990, ISBN 0800753429, 9780800753429, p. 217.

books.google.com/books?id=N3X-RHVa8hMC&q=%22greatest+possible+offence+to+common+sense+or+natural+reason%22&dq=%22greatest+possible+offence+to+common+sense+or+natural+reason%22&lr=&ei=kS2uSMGpBpH6jgGHrNCSDA&pgis=1

---

Today the pope and his crowd cry out against us that they are the church, since they have receive Baptism, the Sacrament, and Holy Writ from the apostles and are their successors. The say: “Where else should God’s people be than where His name is praised, and where the successors and heirs of His apostles are to be found? Surely the Turks, the Tartars and the heathen cannot be His people….

For it is exceedingly difficult to deprive them of this argument and to talk them out of it. Yes, we ourselves find it difficult to refute, especially since we concede –as we must- that so much of what they say is true: that the Papacy has God’s Word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, and the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them.

Martin Luther, Commentary on John 16: 1-2

Luther’s Works, vol. 24, Sermons on Gospel of St. John/Chapters 14-16, Jaroslav Jan Pelikan (Editor), Martin H. Bertram (Translator), 1961, Concordia Publishing House, ISBN 0570064244, p. 304.

amazon.com/Luthers-Works-Sermons-Gospel-Chapters/dp/0570064244

 

[sola_scriptura]

I think you might be reading a bit more into Augustine than is actually there. Augustine would say that we have the God given ability to choose our eternal destiny by constantly responding to His grace, for grace, inasmuch as it is a gift, *demands a response. *

Not that I look to Augustine to affirm yy own views – however, once again I quoted Augustine directly – he clearly taught double predestination.

Augustine never said anything remotely like what you say. He never ever taught anything like a universal prevenient grace or anything close. I would ask you to support you statements with quotes from Augustine as I have.

 

[sola_scriptura]

And I am sure it will continue. Yet I have seen nothing in the text itself that would demand “all” references only all ethnic groups, or all nations, or what have you. I interpret it the same way the “all” passages are used in reference to man’s sinful nature, God’s wrath being on him, etc. I find the Calvinist argument here torturing the text.

I still like the Belgic Confession, though lol

The BC is a good statement of faith. BTW I also like Luther (just in case I ever gave a contrary impression). I heard a great sermon earlier on Luther and the epistle of James; basically strongly taking Luther’s side on James (and the idea that James did oppose Paul).

In fact the Pastor discussed some history I was unaware of. The followers of James (and perhaps James himself) actually spread a rumor that Paul lied about his encounter with Christ and many other defaming besmirches. In the end we know Peter stood firmly with Paul – so this adds a new twist in my outlook of James.

I wonder if you’ve heard this before?

 

[TriuneUnity]

The BC is a good statement of faith. BTW I also like Luther (just in case I ever gave a contrary impression). I heard a great sermon earlier on Luther and the epistle of James; basically strongly taking Luther’s side on James (and the idea that James did oppose Paul).

In fact the Pastor discussed some history I was unaware of. The followers of James (and perhaps James himself) actually spread a rumor that Paul lied about his encounter with Christ and many other defaming besmirches. In the end we know Peter stood firmly with Paul – so this adds a new twist in my outlook of James.

I wonder if you’ve heard this before?

I hadn’t heard that before. Did he provide any sources from the ancients on this?

 

[sola_scriptura]

I hadn’t heard that before. Did he provide any sources from the ancients on this?

Wow … you’re up late too

No – but I will definitely research this over the weekend & get back to you (if true it’s probably worthy of a thread). I trust the Pastor though, but you know us protestants, we must fact check

 

[TriuneUnity]

Wow … you’re up late too

No – but I will definitely research this over the weekend & get back to you (if true it’s probably worthy of a thread). I trust the Pastor though, but you know us protestants, we must fact check

Yes, I am. With a wife and five kids, 2:30 AM is the only time I get to myself

Definately let me know. Yeah, us and our blasted facts!

 

[sola_scriptura]

Yes, I am. With a wife and five kids, 2:30 AM is the only time I get to myself

Definately let me know. Yeah, us and our blasted facts!

Here’s some stuff:

*In contrast to mainstream Christianity, the Ebionites insisted on a universal necessity of following Jewish religious law and rites,[12] which they interpreted in light of Jesus’ expounding of the Law.[13] They regarded Jesus as a mortal human messianic prophet but not as divine, revered his brother James as the head of the Jerusalem Church and rejected Paul of Tarsus as an "apostate of the Law . . .

James vs. Paul

James, the brother of the Lord, presided over the Jerusalem church after the other apostles dispersed.[54] Paul, self appointed Apostle to the Gentiles, established many churches[55] and founded a Christian theology, see Pauline Christianity. At the Council of Jerusalem (c 49),[54] Paul argued to abrogate Mosaic observances[56] for his non-Jewish converts, but Paul’s arguments were rejected, and Jewish Law and tradition concerning non-Jewish followers were asserted by refrence to Noahide Law. For the parallel in Judaism, see Noachide law.

Some scholars[57][58] argue that the Ebionites regarded James, brother of Jesus, the first bishop of Jerusalem,[59] the rightful leader of the Church rather than Peter. James Tabor argues that the Ebionites claimed a unique dynastic apostolic succession for the relatives of Jesus.[60] They opposed the Apostle Paul, who established that gentile Christians did not have to be circumcised or otherwise follow the Law of Moses, and named him an apostate.[25] Epiphanius relates that some Ebionites alleged that Paul was a Greek who converted to Judaism in order to marry the daughter of a high priest of Israel but apostasized when she rejected him.[61]*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionite#James_vs._Paul

I’m not one to rely 100% on Wiki (I’ve been burned by Wiki before) but I will research this further. It doesn’t indict James per se, but rather his followers. However, the division between James and Paul is well known (I just never knew the followers of James hated Pauline doctrine that much).

As I said in the end we know Peter stood with Paul, since Peter is the rock then the dispute was settled. Perhaps Luther was right with the whole epistle of straw thing?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Here’s some stuff:

*In contrast to mainstream Christianity, the Ebionites insisted on a universal necessity of following Jewish religious law and rites,[12] which they interpreted in light of Jesus’ expounding of the Law.[13] They regarded Jesus as a mortal human messianic prophet but not as divine, revered his brother James as the head of the Jerusalem Church and rejected Paul of Tarsus as an "apostate of the Law . . .

James vs. Paul*

James, the brother of the Lord, presided over the Jerusalem church after the other apostles dispersed.[54] Paul, self appointed Apostle to the Gentiles, established many churches[55] and founded a Christian theology, see Pauline Christianity. At the Council of Jerusalem (c 49),[54] Paul argued to abrogate Mosaic observances[56] for his non-Jewish converts, but Paul’s arguments were rejected, and Jewish Law and tradition concerning non-Jewish followers were asserted by refrence to Noahide Law. For the parallel in Judaism, see Noachide law.

Some scholars[57][58] argue that the Ebionites regarded James, brother of Jesus, the first bishop of Jerusalem,[59] the rightful leader of the Church rather than Peter. James Tabor argues that the Ebionites claimed a unique dynastic apostolic succession for the relatives of Jesus.[60] They opposed the Apostle Paul, who established that gentile Christians did not have to be circumcised or otherwise follow the Law of Moses, and named him an apostate.[25] Epiphanius relates that some Ebionites alleged that Paul was a Greek who converted to Judaism in order to marry the daughter of a high priest of Israel but apostasized when she rejected him.[61]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionite#James_vs._Paul

I’m not one to rely 100% on Wiki (I’ve been burned by Wiki before) but I will research this further. It doesn’t indict James per se, but rather his followers. However, the division between James and Paul is well known (I just never knew the followers of James hated Pauline doctrine that much).

As I said in the end we know Peter stood with Paul, since Peter is the rock then the dispute was settled. Perhaps Luther was right with the whole epistle of straw thing?

It’s certainly interesting…I would think it mainly falls on James’ followers, though…perhaps they simply made the mistake that many of the scholastics made and interpreted James in opposition to Paul instead of seeking to harmonize them as Augustine and the reformers were able to do.

The one thing that makes me suspicious of any indictment of James is that James clearly and emphatically stood with Paul’s arguments at the Council of Jerusalem and surely we have to take the word of Acts over what the claims of the Ebionites (who were heretics anyway) were.

Having said that, it’s also equally true that James was one of the latest books to gain worldwide acceptance into the canon of Scripture. This was one of the main reasons for Luther’s rejection of it as an apostolic work (which is odd given the accusations against Luther that he didn’t pay any attention to the opinions of the early church).

 

[Cinette]

Yes, I am. With a wife and five kids, 2:30 AM is the only time I get to myself

Definately let me know. Yeah, us and our blasted facts!

Good to learn that you are interested in facts.

:tiphat: