Where did Martin Luther and John Calvin disagree?

[PerryJ]

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.

I agree with your post. I believe this falls in line with the Catholic thought of invincible ignorance. One did not have the chance to hear the gospels; therefore, they are held to the law that God imprints on everyones soul. For example committing murder would violate Gods law.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

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

If the “Gospel is the message of Christ crucified for the reconciliation of mankind,” why do we have no record of Christ preaching that message in his early ministry?

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

By this you mean the various epistles?

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.”

This is not *early *in Christ’s ministry; this is at the very end!

 

[TriuneUnity]

I agree with your post. I believe this falls in line with the Catholic thought of invincible ignorance. One did not have the chance to hear the gospels; therefore, they are held to the law that God imprints on everyones soul. For example committing murder would violate Gods law.

Okay good. That definately moves the conversation forward.

Now the next logical question along these lines is; is there any man (aside from Christ, and for Catholics, Mary) who is purely sinless? No; all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Therefore, apart from Christ, all who are under the law will be condemned.

It sounds harsh, of course to our modern ears. But God must be God.

 

[TriuneUnity]

If the “Gospel is the message of Christ crucified for the reconciliation of mankind,” why do we have no record of Christ preaching that message in his early ministry?

I don’t know. Ask the author!

By this you mean the various epistles?

And their oral preaching.

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.”

This is not *early *in Christ’s ministry; this is at the very end!

Who cares about the timeframe? Why is that relevant?

 

[PerryJ]

Okay good. That definately moves the conversation forward.

Now the next logical question along these lines is; is there any man (aside from Christ, and for Catholics, Mary) who is purely sinless? No; all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Therefore, apart from Christ, all who are under the law will be condemned.

It sounds harsh, of course to our modern ears. But God must be God.

I agree with this thought also.

If I keep agreeing with you you’re not going to turn me into a Mormon are you?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I agree with this thought also.

If I keep agreeing with you you’re not going to turn me into a Mormon are you?

LOL.

Communion with water and crackers?? I think not!

 

[raumzeitmc2]

I don’t know. Ask the author!

Ok, I think I will!

And their oral preaching.

So you would at least agree that, whatever the “the gospel” is,it is always associated in Scripture with a living teaching authority, i. e., either Christ, or his apostles! And that this therefore is the Biblical pattern for the “pure” gospel.

Who cares about the timeframe? Why is that relevant?

I’m sincerely not trying to be difficult or combative here. I’m just honestly trying to understand what was the “gospel” that Christ preached to his hearers during the greater portion of His earthly ministry. What would those people have understood about the Man and His message? That’s all I looking for.

But I’ve got to leave the o’l keyboard now. So for now, maybe you’d like to take a look at this article:

What is the Gospel? By James Akin (now, Jimmy Akin).

Some excerpts:

As we noted at the beginning of this paper, there is a lot of loose talk (among Protestant theologians) equating the gospel with the idea of “justification by faith alone.” While the formula “faith alone” can be given an orthodox reading (see my paper, “Justification: ‘By Faith Alone’?”), this usage is completely contrary to the Biblical usage of the term “gospel.”

First of all, salvation, not justification, is the primary component of Jesus’ mission. Justification was a component, but not the primary one, as illustrated by the fact that there are twenty passages in the New Testament which speak of salvation in verse with Jesus, but only eleven which speak of justification in the same verse. By this test, salvation is twice as likely to be associated with Christ as justification.

And the last paragraphs read:

The terms on which the gospel was preached was thus the death and resurrection of Christ so that we may be “saved, if you hold it fast – unless you believed in vain.” Christ and salvation are the key concepts. In fact, preaching the gospel on any other terms would be ridiculous since the message “You can be saved through Jesus Christ” would be far more intelligible to first century Jews and Greeks and Romans than “You can be justified through Jesus Christ.” This is still the case, which is why Los Angeles has two big signs that say “Jesus Saves,” not “Jesus Justifies.”

The fact remains that justification is not the central soteriological concept for Paul or for the New Testament as a whole. Justification may be biconditional with salvation and thus a consequence of accepting the gospel, but justification is not the content of the gospel. We never read in Scripture of “the good news of justification,” but of “the good news of Jesus Christ.” Jesus Christ and his work on the cross is the content of the gospel; the rest are consequences of accepting it.

So to sum up by giving a single-sentence definition to answer the question this chapter poses: The gospel is the message that Jesus Christ died and rose for our sins so that we may be saved.

home.comcast.net/~cthlc/Akin/WITG.html

I’d like to hear you take on it.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Ok, I think I will!

Let me know how that goes LOL

So you would at least agree that, whatever the “the gospel” is,it is always associated in Scripture with a living teaching authority, i. e., either Christ, or his apostles! And that this therefore is the Biblical pattern for the “pure” gospel.

The Scriptures do not preach themselves, so yes, the gospel cannot exist without the preaching and teaching of the Church.

I’m sincerely not trying to be difficult or combative here. I’m just honestly trying to understand what was the “gospel” that Christ preached to his hearers during the greater portion of His earthly ministry. What would those people have understood about the Man and His message? That’s all I looking for.

But who do you say that I, the Son of Man, am? The central question and Peter gives the central answer. It really isn’t fair to ask how people would have perceived him because it was all over the place.

I’d like to hear you take on it.

I can’t say I disagree with what he says here. Each teaching of soteriology must be addressed with equal importance. Justification in a modern sense is important because it addresses the issue of the grounds for our salvation.

 

[Mickey]

Agreed with the Catholic position except that to us it is not an issue of God’s sovereignty.

I would agree more with Calvinists on this
Agree with the Catholics here.

So you are a hybrid mix of Calvinist/Catholic.

 

[Mickey]

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.

So you are saying that God does not bestow His grace on all mankind.

 

[Mickey]

I agree with your post. I believe this falls in line with the Catholic thought of invincible ignorance. One did not have the chance to hear the gospels; therefore, they are held to the law that God imprints on everyones soul. For example committing murder would violate Gods law.

Now we are getting somewhere. TU believes that free will is not a factor until a person has been given the free gift of grace from God. Do you think a person has the free will to accept that grace?

 

[PerryJ]

Now we are getting somewhere. TU believes that free will is not a factor until a person has been given the free gift of grace from God. Do you think a person has the free will to accept that grace?

I do believe a person has the ability to resist God’s grace under normal circumstances. (Not always as God can do anything.) I am not a fan of single predestination as it is so close to double predestination and to an extant maybe semantics.

I believe man does interact with God after God makes the first move. This thought is biblical and is shown in correct translations of the Bible. In several verses the use of the term synergist “work with” is used. I do not believe God creates "evil” therefore double predestination is not part of my thought. Some will state that this is looking at double predestination to simplistically. I would state that the double predestination theories that attempt to negate the evil connotation are just reworks to refute this concept and really fall apart when applied to the Bible etc. As stated I believe that single predestination is mostly semantics for double predestination. What is the difference between ignoring certain people and letting them go to Hell verses actively picking others to go to Heaven. My statement is simplistic as one can not go through all the steps for these theories in one post. I believe one gets the overall concept with the post.

Note a Catholic can believe in single predestination or free will. So if one can convince me that single predestination is true I am willing to listen. I haven’t read a theory yet that I believe fits scripture like free will does.

 

[Mickey]

I do believe a person has the ability to resist God’s grace under normal circumstances. (Not always as God can do anything.) I am not a fan of single predestination as it is so close to double predestination and to an extant maybe semantics.

I believe man does interact with God after God makes the first move. This thought is biblical and is shown in correct translations of the Bible. In several verses the use of the term synergist “work with” is used. I do not believe God creates "evil” therefore double predestination is not part of my thought. Some will state that this is looking at double predestination to simplistically. I would state that the double predestination theories that attempt to negate the evil connotation are just reworks to refute this concept and really fall apart when applied to the Bible etc. As stated I believe that single predestination is mostly semantics for double predestination. What is the difference between ignoring certain people and letting them go to Hell verses actively picking others to go to Heaven. My statement is simplistic as one can not go through all the steps for these theories in one post. I believe one gets the overall concept with the post.

Note a Catholic can believe in single predestination or free will. So if one can convince me that single predestination is true I am willing to listen. I haven’t read a theory yet that I believe fits scripture like free will does.

Thank you Perry. I agree with you. I think.

Matthew 23:37
O Jerusalem. Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

 

[TriuneUnity]

So you are a hybrid mix of Calvinist/Catholic.

A Calvolic? haha.

Blah, not really. Since they innovate on Augustine far too much, I just prefer being an Augustinian.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

The Scriptures do not preach themselves, so yes, the gospel cannot exist without the preaching and teaching of the Church.

But since, in the New Testament, the gospel is always associated only with one Church, with an undivided Church, and that that Church had to be infallible (cf. 1 Tim. 3:15), then surely this must indicate that such an association is God’s *plan and pattern *for the propagation of His one true Church and His one “pure” gospel throughout all time!

But which Church does the New Testament tell us holds the primacy of honor among all the churches in unity, and had always held the Gospel in all its fullness and purity?

“First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.” Romans 1:8

And which Church, of all the churches in unity, could claim to be infallible?

“I myself am convinced, my brothers, that you yourselves are filled with goodness and full of all the knowledge you need to be able to instruct each other.” Romans 15:14

And which Church continued to hold the Gospel in all fullness and purity? Which Church’s faith continued to be esteemed and honored and “spoken of throughout the whole world,” (except by heretics) century after century, even to our day?

But let us consider very briefly the status of this Church at the midpoint its life.

St. Peter Damian, Doctor of the Church, speaking “On the Privilege of the Roman Church,” says (1069 A.D.):

Why should it need honor from an insignificant man like me, when it received praise and honor from the lips of the very Savior Himself?

Is there a province throughout all the kingdoms of the earth that is found exempt from its authority, at whose will heaven itself is bound and loosed….

Some King of Emperor, or a mere man of whatever station, as he saw fit or found it in his power, prescribed the rights of the special privileges of all the honors of a patriarch, a metropolitan primacy, the episcopal sees, and the dignity of the churches of every rank.

But only he who granted to the blessed custodian of the keys to eternal life the powers of earthly and heavenly dominion founded the Roman Church and built it on the rock of faith that would soon emerge.

It was no ordinary earthly utterance, but the Word by whom heaven and earth were made, and through whom finally the elements of all things were structured, who founded the Roman Church. Clearly, it enjoys his privilege and is supported by his authority.

Peter Damian, letter 65, to the archdeacon Hildebrand, December 1069.

Click images to enlarge.

letter 65, pp. 24-25.

letter 65, pp. 26-27

Full text of this letter very important letter appears on pp. 24-39.

Peter Damian: Letters 61-90 (Fathers of the Church, Medieval Continuation), Owen J. Blum (Translator), 1992, Catholic University of America Press, vol. 3. ISBN 0813207509

amazon.com/Peter-Damian-Letters-Medieval-Continuation/dp/0813207509