Where did Martin Luther and John Calvin disagree?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Good to learn that you are interested in facts.

:tiphat:
I try! Which is why I hate online apologetics for the most part. A lot of it relies on the intentional obstruction of factual information. It just isn’t conducive to reason discussion most of the time. Alas, we live in a fallen world. Kyrie eleison.
 
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?
I think we have to watch out for gossip!
:whacky:
 
I try! Which is why I hate online apologetics for the most part. A lot of it relies on the intentional obstruction of factual information. It just isn’t conducive to reason discussion most of the time. Alas, we live in a fallen world. Kyrie eleison.
I would not agree with you regarding online apologetics. It is very interesting to debate with people of different faiths. How else are we to get to know one another.

Sometimes I want to choke on the posts but gradually have got to accept and become fond of the posters. I am learning.

:grouphug:
 
I would not agree with you regarding online apologetics. It is very interesting to debate with people of different faiths. How else are we to get to know one another.

Sometimes I want to choke on the posts but gradually have got to accept and become fond of the posters. I am learning.

:grouphug:
Yeah…the debate can be fun and enlightening. It just requires weeding through miles of chaff to get to the wheat, though. It’s astounding with the way we can behave we call ourselves Christians lol (applies equally to all, of both sides).
 
Yeah…the debate can be fun and enlightening. It just requires weeding through miles of chaff to get to the wheat, though. It’s astounding with the way we can behave we call ourselves Christians lol (applies equally to all, of both sides).
I found that the people I have fought most with are chose closest to me.

Perhaps it is because we are brutally honest with each other that we get to trust and like each other. We hold nothing back

:love:
😉
:hug3:
 
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.
Well, I’ll have to gather my hastily scribbled notes, but I’m sure that I can provide you with abundant proof that Augustine did indeed believe that grace and human cooperation were involved in salvation, and that he was light-years away from both Luther and Calvin on almost everything they believed and taught.

This much I can say in general terms right now: the celibate Augustine spoke far more like a Catholic than like any one of the reformers.

For example, he speaks beautifully on the absolute necessity of unity, of that fullness of Christ, which is only found in the one Catholic Church (the “whole Christ” he was wont to say), of the authority of the Roman See, on relics, of feast days of martyrs, of intercessions of heavenly saints, of the perpetual virginity the blessed Virgin, of consecrated Virgins (the mere though of which seems a frightful anathema to Protestants!:eek: ), of miracles wrought by the martyrs at their shrines (a truly accursed notion to the reformers!:eek: :eek: ), of the eating of the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist:

“Let Christ be eaten; when eaten he lives, because when slain he rose again.” 132A:1:1,

and again,

“He came in the flesh, in order that human beings might eat him;” 132A:1:3.

And never does he offer “assurance” of salvation to his hearers, apart from their doing good works, and living a good lives,

“what he has earned in his humility he may forfeit in his pride.” Sermon 131:3:1

and,

“The moment you grow proud, that’s when you lose what you had received.” Sermon 131:5:3

and again,

“Don’t promise yourselves life, if you live bad lives; people deceive themselves when they promise themselves what God does not promise.” Sermon 132A:2:3

And so on and so on.

Now truthfully, does any of this sound even remotely Protestant?

I ask this because, in order to really understand Augustine, and his ideas of grace, free will, and the like, one must first, I believe, come to a solid appreciation of his profound Catholicity, and reverence for the See of Peter. And how appalled Augustine would have been to have heard insults like the following from Calvin toward the holy See and the bishops!
We bestow too much honour upon those horned cattle in calling them bishops, for the name is too honourable for them. Neither does the title of Pope any better suit the brigand who has usurped God’s seat.
John Calvin, To the French Church in London, September 27, 1552.

Letters of John Calvin, Jules Bonnet, vol. 2, ISBN 1428650431, p. 347.

books.google.com/books?id=tlUYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA347&dq=%22horned+cattle+in+calling+them+bishops%22&lr=&ei=FH-uSPS4O474jgGqktmSDA
 
It is. And it is enough to say that the only reason I participate in that grace is God has given it to me. I have nothing inherent in my nature that allowed me to do so.
It is called free will. 👍
A gift from God.
 
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.
Amen my brother in Christ!
 
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.
Yes.
 
The great J. S. Bach was a Lutheran.

His famous Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach (his second wife) had the superscription “A treasury of Christ’s teachings to be used as a charm against melancholy and Calvinism.”
 
The great J. S. Bach was a Lutheran.

His famous Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach (his second wife) had the superscription “A treasury of Christ’s teachings to be used as a charm against melancholy and Calvinism.”
Another nomination. :rotfl:
 
Well, I’ll have to gather my hastily scribbled notes, but I’m sure that I can provide you with abundant proof that Augustine did indeed believe that grace and human cooperation were involved in salvation, and that he was light-years away from both Luther and Calvin on almost everything they believed and taught.

This much I can say in general terms right now: the celibate Augustine spoke far more like a Catholic than like any one of the reformers.
Of course Augustine spoke more like a Catholic – there were few men in history quite as Catholic as Augustine (I never suggested otherwise). In fact I’m chuckling a little bit trying to imagine anyone saying Augustine was anything but 1000% Roman Catholic.

Indeed as a Bishop he was celibate – however, in his younger years he was quite the ladies man (not that this says anything bad about the man – however, it must be remembered that Augustine was originally a Manichean, though I believe his mother was Catholic). I can’t remember his famous quote he coined as a younger man regarding his flirtations and encounters with the fairer gender during his youth.

Augustine was also a brilliant student of Neo-Platonic philosophy (a factoid my Arminian friends commonly try to use against him). However, if anything after his conversion he labored to wash secular (primarily neo-classical Greek) philosophy out of Christianity.

Certainly I would also not say Augustine did not place a high value on the Sacraments – he did. However, it is in the area of soteriology that John Calvin found significant common ground with Augustine – predestination and grace.
 
The great J. S. Bach was a Lutheran.

His famous Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach (his second wife) had the superscription “A treasury of Christ’s teachings to be used as a charm against melancholy and Calvinism.”
:clapping:
 
It is called free will. 👍
A gift from God.
We had free will…man corrupted it. We still have a will; before Baptism mine was a slave to Satan, after Baptism it’s a slave to Christ 🙂

Seriously, though, I think the problem with injecting a philosophical concept of a free will into Christian thinking assumes the same mistake Pelagius made. That is, that man is born morally neutral and can go either bad or good depending upon whether they morally imitate Christ, or Adam. This just doesn’t take the Fall into account. We want to have free will because we do not want to be in submission to God’s sovereign control of the universe. The hard truth, though, is that an unregenerate pagan has a free will and he will always freely choose to rebel against God.
 
Another nomination. :rotfl:
I see you have quite a distaste for Calvin and his soteriology, which is fine – but I think it’s the idea that God predestined some to the exclusion of others that really bothers people. Or the fact that election is the result of an eternal divine decree.

However, even if one isn’t comfortable imagining what God has in store for non-believers; it should at least be recognized that believers were predestined by eternal decree – since to argue against this idea is to argue with the overwhelming preponderance of Scripture.

IMO Luther stopped where the idea of predestination starting veering into uncomfortable ground.

If someone were to say that while scripture does overwhelmingly support the idea that God has predestined some but not others – but God has also continually shown more mercy than even His own rules would seem to allow for – then certainly there exists grounds for a reasonable discussion. However, to deny predestination or grace, to think that man is in anyway responsible for his own salvation, simply goes against the overwhelming weight of Scripture, as Augustine aptly stated.

I think there are some hints that tell us more about hidden providence than Calvin imagined. Calvin would say (I’m paraphrasing of course) that yes God did give commandments to people, which might form a basis for thinking that we must have the ability to obey them. However, at the same time God revealed that He knew His commandments would not be obeyed. In effect God knowingly enumerated commandments in futility. So Calvin would say this is an example of hidden providence, which IMO is true. However, there is also the mercy side of hidden providence, which IMO Calvin didn’t speculate on (he was also a proponent of sola scriptura and as such felt strongly that such speculation is wrongful). I can see Calvin’s point, however, I also see little use in focusing on what happens to non-believers, unless we are to think God wants us to use fear rather than love to attract the lost sheep. So I also understand why Luther simply stopped where he did.

That being said IMO the greatest contribution of Calvin was in the doctrine of perseverance and the “positive side” of predestination.

By Calvin’s day Augustinian soteriology was fizzling; and the idea of “cooperation with grace” was on the rise (manifesting in many different forms). In effect the Christian world (Catholic included) had become “Semi-Pelagian.” The maxim that only God saves; and we are in no way creditable for our salvation was in a practical sense lost – replaced by rhetoric paying homage to God in a shallow benevolent sense, but rejecting the idea that it is really God, and God alone who saves us, who chose us before the founding of the world.

This utterly flawed theology has many thinking if they only try hard enough they can win the favor of God. Perhaps our good can outweigh the bad in us. It essentially makes the same error of the Jewish people.

However, if we realize that any good in us can only come from God and not ourselves; and that God will keep His promises to us, then we can know when we fail it wasn’t because we didn’t try hard enough – rather it was because we failed to trust in God and look to Him for the strength to do it at all. Like when Peter was walking on water and became frightened when a strong wind blew. He didn’t fall into the water because of the wind – he fell because of his fear. That fear was really doubt that Jesus could sustain him on that water through even a hurricane. When Moses begged God to allow his brother to speak in his place before his people God became angry. God wasn’t angered because Moses thought himself a poor speaker, rather God was angered because Moses didn’t trust that God would make him a good speaker (or at least good enough to fulfill his purpose). Moses was still saved – but he was not permitted to enter the promised land.

So when we sin it isn’t because WE failed to try hard enough, or WE didn’t cooperate with grace in a strong enough way. It is because we failed to RELY on GOD. It is because we thought WE could do it – that through our own free will WE could avoid sin. The root of this is a failure to understand our depravity. It makes the same error of Pelagius who thought that we’re really not completely depraved. There is some good in us even without God. From there the slippery slope to humanism becomes steep.
 
We had free will…man corrupted it.
Everything God made, including man, is very good, because God is good. Nothing He made is therefore evil in itself. So then human nature is good in itself. But sin is a free choice of man’s will, and it is contrary both to God’s nature and human nature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top