Jump to content

Menu

CC: Fourth man in fiery furnace in Daniel: angel or Jesus?


MercyA
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm teaching this passage tomorrow in Sunday School. Here's the portion relevant to my question:

"And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell bound into the burning fiery furnace. Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished and rose up in haste. He declared to his counselors, 'Did we not cast three men bound into the fire?' They answered and said to the king, 'True, O king.' He answered and said, 'But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.'"

I'm perfectly comfortable telling my kids that we don't know who the fourth man was--maybe an angel, maybe Jesus. But just out of curiosity, what have you been taught? If you are from a particular faith tradition, what does it say?

Thanks! 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a perfectly valid answer -- "we don't know for sure."

The overarching truth in this passage is that God protected them. The details are less specific as to who exactly the 4th man is -- and that is fine for us to have different ideas about who the 4th man is -- as long as we don't allow ourselves to hyper-focus on details that are not specifically delineated in Scripture, to the point of missing the clear specific truths in Scripture and allowing our hyper-focus on details that cannot be definitely answered from Scripture to cause discord within the Body of Christ.

As a side note just for interest 😉 : some Bible scholars favor the concept of "theophany," a pre-incarnate manifestation of God the Son (the incarnate Jesus Christ in the New Testament). The word angel [ETA: as in "an angel" or "host of angels", not "the angel of God] means "messenger", and angels in both the Old and New Testaments are specifically called "angels," and they have a specific message to deliver.

Edited by Lori D.
  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catholic Bibles use the Septuagint (Greek Bible used by Greek-speaking Jews at the time of the early Church), which has much more text in Daniel 3 preceding the verse 'Behold I see four men loose, and walking in the midst of the fire, and there is no hurt in them, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God,' including:

 

Quote

[46] Now the king's servants that had cast them in, ceased not to heat the furnace with brimstone, and tow, and pitch, and dry sticks, [47] And the flame mounted up above the furnace nine and forty cubits: [48] And it broke forth, and burnt such of the Chaldeans as it found near the furnace. [49] But the angel of the Lord went down with Azarias and his companions into the furnace: and he drove the flame of the fire out of the furnace, [50] And made the midst of the furnace like the blowing of a wind bringing dew, and the fire touched them not at all, nor troubled them, nor did them any harm.

The Catholic understanding, then, is that this angel is the fourth person in the furnace.

@Patty Joanna, I didn't know that Orthodoxy positively teaches that the Angel of the Lord in this passage is the pre-incarnate Christ. I'm not aware of any positive Catholic teaching in that regard: as far as I know, we're free to understand the angel of Daniel in such a way, or not. 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was raised Pentecostal/Charismatic, and I was taught Angel. Verse 28 reads Angel, for what it's worth. I've never heard the theory it was Jesus, but I am definitely far from a Biblical scholar. 

 

28 Then Nebuchadnezzar said, “Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who has sent his angel and rescued his servants! ...

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concise little article on the phrase "the angel of the Lord" as used in the Old Testament:

https://www.gotquestions.org/angel-of-the-Lord.html

It's definitely an interesting topic. This particular phrase isn't found in the fiery furnace story, but it does make one wonder.

Thanks for all the thoughts you've shared! I'm looking forward to teaching the lesson! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am interested in the answer with Calvinistic theology.  As a child growing up, I never heard this story since Catholic CCD classes were almost completely useless (except the year when we had a teacher who read us The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, because I loved that story).  

I know we went over the story when I taught preschool Sunday School at least once.   I also know we went over it in a super-nondeminational VBS at our NATO base that was included both Catholics, Protestants and probably Orthodox children too.  I think it was always an Angel.  I am currently listening to the Veggie Tale of Youtube- my  favorite with The Bunny song, (and my whole family thinks that is so funny that I love that song-- but I love songs mostly by the sound and I love the singing tone of Nebuchadnezzar and the music in general)/ 

Edited by TravelingChris
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Concise little article on the phrase "the angel of the Lord" as used in the Old Testament:

https://www.gotquestions.org/angel-of-the-Lord.html

It's definitely an interesting topic. This particular phrase isn't found in the fiery furnace story, but it does make one wonder.

Thanks for all the thoughts you've shared! I'm looking forward to teaching the lesson! 

Here's a song about this that I really like: "He's still in the Fire"

I particularly like the phrase about mom dancing across the kitchen floor.

I want to be that mom.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

This angel of the Lord thing being Jesus is very much an American thing for me much like the emphasis on predestination which I find very unique to American churches.

It was always angels, even angel of the Lord. I have never heard of Theophany as appearance of Jesus, more like appearance of God.

So the Mount Sinai, burning bush, pillar of fire and cloud, transfiguration are all Theophany. The Christ manifestations are Christophany. 

No, that is not unique to American churches.  It is a theological idea in many denominations but Calvinistic ones in particular and Calvinistic denominations are worldwide, not just in US.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Baptist church teaches that the fourth man in the fire is a Christophany.  The word angel is used because there was no other way to explain it at the time.

I grew up in a Pentecostal church and I *think* that they taught it was an angel.  That might have just been the way they taught it to children, though.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MercyA I checked the passage in two Jewish Bibles (Tanak) and see two translations. One says "the fourth one is like [that of] an angel" while the other says "the forth looks like a divine being" in the quote (but is subsequently referred to as an angel.).

I hope that helps.

Bill

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the way the narrative puts these identifications in the mouths of non-Jewish bystanders emphasizes the ignorance of the statements. The narrator makes a point to avoid saying that it *was* one being or another in the furnace, but only says that a foreign imperialist enemy king reported seeing something in there. It's written as an -- "Our God does things even kings don't understand" -- story on purpose.

Therefore it is at-odds with the authors' intentions to try to fish true data out of quotes that are intended to be read as ignorant statements.

In hermeneutics I always advise against digging for Biblical data contrary to the grain of the authors' intentions within their own work: because I believe that the inspiration of scripture happened in and through the active intention of the original writing team.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

Never heard of Calvin till I came here. The Protestant church in India is under two large umbrella organizations  that encompasses multiple denominations divided by geography called Church of South India and Church of North India. Under that we have various bishops who have area jurisdictions. The catholic church has their own archbishop. Most protestant churches have their roots in British anglican church, but I have also gone to Methodist, Lutheran and even Seventh Day Adventist, Pentecost like Assemblies of God and never heard of Calvin till I came here. Martin Luther and the reformation, Henry the VIII and how that church was formed I know, but no Calvin till I came here. 

Yes, but in South Korea, for example. Presbyterianism is a popular denomination.  Lutherans are also predestination.  Methodists aren't.  I have no idea about Assemblies of God.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question.

I was taught the we-don't-know-for-sure option. I teach Sunday school, but I teach little kids. So I wouldn't say, "Maybe it was Jesus. Maybe it was an angel. We don't know for sure." This would only confuse them. So I would probably say, "Instead of three men, Nebuchadnezzar [that name is so fun to type] said he saw four men walking in the fire." And I would leave it at that. But if I had older kids, like reading age and up, I would add, "Some people think this may be Jesus, and some think this was an angel. But we don't know for sure."

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

Lutherans are also predestination. 

Not in the same way as Calvinists, though.  Lutherans hold to single predestination (being predestined for salvation) but not double predestination (some predestined for salvation, others predestined for damnation).  And it just isn't emphasized the same way in the Lutheran churches I've been in.  Related, Lutherans allow for true apostasy (rejecting the faith after being genuinely saved), while Calvinists tend to hold that anyone who has genuinely apostasized must not have had saving faith to begin with, and that's a big difference in practice.

Eta: wrt original topic, I was taught that "angel of the Lord" refers to the pre-incarnate Christ.

Edited by forty-two
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going along the lines of Bill.  Mercy, dig in to a word study and carry it back to the "root".  Do you have an OT lexicon?  What happened before?  The 3 were "not willing to bow to any other than G-d.  IOW, they were only willing to bow to YHWH.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, forty-two said:

Not in the same way as Calvinists, though.  Lutherans hold to single predestination (being predestined for salvation) but not double predestination (some predestined for salvation, others predestined for damnation).  And it just isn't emphasized the same way in the Lutheran churches I've been in.  Related, Lutherans allow for true apostasy (rejecting the faith after being genuinely saved), while Calvinists tend to hold that anyone who has genuinely apostasized must not have had saving faith to begin with, and that's a big difference in practice.

Eta: wrt original topic, I was taught that "angel of the Lord" refers to the pre-incarnate Christ.

May I ask a sincere question (so I gain greater understanding of Lutheran theology)?

How is it different to have "single predestination" (being predestined for salvation) vs "double predestination" if the lack of salvation is essentially a  predestined damnation?

Or am I wrong in assuming that Lutherans believe those who are not saved are therefore "damned?"

Thanks. I'm genuinely curious about the distinction. 

Bill

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MercyA said:

I'm teaching this passage tomorrow in Sunday School. Here's the portion relevant to my question:

"And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell bound into the burning fiery furnace. Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished and rose up in haste. He declared to his counselors, 'Did we not cast three men bound into the fire?' They answered and said to the king, 'True, O king.' He answered and said, 'But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.'"

I'm perfectly comfortable telling my kids that we don't know who the fourth man was--maybe an angel, maybe Jesus. But just out of curiosity, what have you been taught? If you are from a particular faith tradition, what does it say?

Thanks! 🙂


Since you are teaching Sunday School, I would encourage you to look into the doctrine of your church and be consistent.  If you don’t feel there is enough information to teach it one way over another, you can at least say “our church teaches...based on...”

Without going into all the study details, I personally believe it is a theophany. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

May I ask a sincere question (so I gain greater understanding of Lutheran theology)?

How is it different to have "single predestination" (being predestined for salvation) vs "double predestination" if the lack of salvation is essentially a  predestined damnation?

Or am I wrong in assuming that Lutherans believe those who are not saved are therefore "damned?"

Thanks. I'm genuinely curious about the distinction. 

Bill

 

 

I'll try :).  Basically, it's a case where we Lutherans would say that Calvinists have gone too far in trying to explain a mystery that cannot be explained (not this side of heaven, anyway).  Lutherans call it the crux theologorum (the cross of the theologians): if 1) God wants all to be saved, 2) God does all the work in salvation, 3) God is all-powerful and all-good, then why is it that 4) not all will be saved?  The Bible affirms all four of these points, yet they don't logically fit together (as far as we humans can see); you can fit any three into a logical explanation, but not all four.  It's an unanswerable question - and we Lutherans argue that trying to answer it anyway tends to compromise at least one of the points.

Double predestination goes against 1), that God wants all to be saved.  Calvinists tend to redefine "all" in the various verses talking about God desiring all to be saved (e.g. 1 Tim 2:4) as meaning just the elect; they hold to a limited atonement, that Christ died just for the elect, not for all.  And that's the core of the Lutheran objection to double predestination: the rejection of a universal atonement.  Lutherans hold that Christ did indeed die for all, meaning *all*, everyone.  We hold that God didn't create anyone for damnation, God doesn't destine people for damnation; rather God wants *everyone* to come to a saving knowledge of Christ.  Why it is that some are not saved is a sad mystery - but it isn't because that's how God deliberately created it to be.

Does that help any?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sheryl said:

Mercy, dig in to a word study and carry it back to the "root".  Do you have an OT lexicon?  

I like to use BlueLetterBible.org to look up Hebrew words and phrases. For anyone who is interested, here is the passage in question:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/dan/3/1/

Click on "Tools" by any verse and you will see the individual Hebrew words and phrases used in the verse, along with their definitions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spent about 30 years in the Lutheran church, and I don't recall ever being taught specifically who the 4th man was.  We just read it and accepted that that part wasn't known for sure, just that it was someone holy.

Also, others here have said that Lutherans believe in predestination, and perhaps our church did, but I honestly never remember being taught that.  I grew up in a sub branch of the Lutheran Church which was the Danish Lutheran Church.  I was told that within the Danish Lutheran Church were yet two more branches  = the Happy Danes and the Holy Danes.  We attended the Happy Danes branch, so I think we never even discussed such serious questions beyond the most central tenets of the faith.  🙂 

(I no longer attend the Lutheran Church but I have so many wonderful, loving, and fun memories of being part of those congregations!)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Thanks, @forty-two! I never thought of Lutherans as five-point Calvinists and you explained your church's position very nicely!

We share maybe 1.5 points, I think? lol.  We share "total depravity" and kinda share "unconditional election", but not "limited atonement", "irresistible grace" and "perseverance of the saints".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, forty-two said:

We share maybe 1.5 points, I think? lol.  We share "total depravity" and kinda share "unconditional election", but not "limited atonement", "irresistible grace" and "perseverance of the saints".

LOL! I'm about a 1.5 pointer myself and have told people that! Like you (and most Lutherans, apparently), I am not a believer in limited atonement, irresistible grace, or perseverance of the saints (at least, in the way Calvinists understand it). 

This is especially interesting to me because my brother and his family became Lutherans several years ago.

Edited by MercyA
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

First caveats, my faith tradition and church tradition has Indian culture very much entwined with it. I did not know that till I came here. For instance, women universally cover our head in church, all denominations throughout the service. I think it is more cultural because of the sari or salwar which can be used as a covering. But even if we wear western clothes , people carry a scarf to cover. It is that universal. 

Since this thread has taken so many rabbit trails already (and I love it), I will say that I wear a head covering in church based on my understanding of Scripture. It seems to me that the reasons Paul gives for covering are not culturally dependent: namely, "because of the angels" and because of the Biblical order of headship.

I love your contributions to this board! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, forty-two said:

I'll try :).  Basically, it's a case where we Lutherans would say that Calvinists have gone too far in trying to explain a mystery that cannot be explained (not this side of heaven, anyway).  Lutherans call it the crux theologorum (the cross of the theologians): if 1) God wants all to be saved, 2) God does all the work in salvation, 3) God is all-powerful and all-good, then why is it that 4) not all will be saved?  The Bible affirms all four of these points, yet they don't logically fit together (as far as we humans can see); you can fit any three into a logical explanation, but not all four.  It's an unanswerable question - and we Lutherans argue that trying to answer it anyway tends to compromise at least one of the points.

Double predestination goes against 1), that God wants all to be saved.  Calvinists tend to redefine "all" in the various verses talking about God desiring all to be saved (e.g. 1 Tim 2:4) as meaning just the elect; they hold to a limited atonement, that Christ died just for the elect, not for all.  And that's the core of the Lutheran objection to double predestination: the rejection of a universal atonement.  Lutherans hold that Christ did indeed die for all, meaning *all*, everyone.  We hold that God didn't create anyone for damnation, God doesn't destine people for damnation; rather God wants *everyone* to come to a saving knowledge of Christ.  Why it is that some are not saved is a sad mystery - but it isn't because that's how God deliberately created it to be.

Does that help any?

Yes. To the extent that I understand it (which is imperfectly, and I'm sure is my own limitation).

May I enquire further? Does Lutheran theology hold that those who are not saved are ipso facto damned?

And do Lutherans reject the first point of Calvinism? That being the idea that humans are so intrinsically evil by our nature that we can not choose to embrace God/Jesus, but only God can chose the elect who will be saved by his grace alone? Aka "Total Depravity."

Is the Lutheran position a "middle ground?" That some people are "predestined" for salvation, but that some non-predestined people through their own "free will" (or perhaps with the guidance of others) can be led to Jesus and salvation? Putting Lutherans in some measure in the Armenian camp? 

Or am I all mixed up?

Thank you for taking the time to educate me. I appreciate it.

Bill

Edited by Spy Car
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Since this thread has taken so many rabbit trails already (and I love it), I will say that I wear a head covering in church based on my understanding of Scripture. It seems to me that the reasons Paul gives for covering are not culturally dependent: namely, "because of the angels" and because of the Biblical order of headship.

I love your contributions to this board! 

Thank for for graciously accommodating the rabbit holes. I learn a lot from some of the digressions that happen in threads on this board, but would not want to derail your thread.

Bill

Edited by Spy Car
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, forty-two said:

We share maybe 1.5 points, I think? lol.  We share "total depravity" and kinda share "unconditional election", but not "limited atonement", "irresistible grace" and "perseverance of the saints".

I should have read further before my last post. But I'm more befuddled than ever. If there is belief in "total depravity" and only some are the "elect of God" (so that no people who are not predestined for salvation can choose salvation by an act of free will) then I can't see any effective differentiation between "single predestination"  vs "double predestination." Do you understand what I mean?

If one is elected, one is saved. If one is not elected by predestination, damnation awaits. 

The only difference I'm able to make out here is that Lutherans seem to have a hope that all could be saved, where Calvinists are less troubled that atonement/salvation is a limited  offering. What am I missing?

Bill

 

 

Edited by Spy Car
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

Debated whether I should post this, but decided to.

I have never heard of Predestination till I came here. It flies in the face of every single thing I was taught especially Salvation. It is especially offensive to me because ideas like that were used to justify colonization and slavery in that there was a special group of people chosen for salvation. So you do not see that preached in my native country with a history of colonization, I don't have knowledge of American slavery to speak about it, but I would be interested to know if the African American church in America holds Calvinsim in such high regard. 

I do know a bit about British colonization though as it is very much tied to Christianity and especially my family's faith history. Though the Divine Right to rule in England ended during the English Revolution which predates colonization as far as I know, the person who wears the crown in England, Queen or King is defender of the Faith, Supreme Governor of the Church of England which is part of the full style of addressing the Monarch. I do not know if other European Monarchies are tied to the churches of their country this way but they say that is one such reason QEII will never abdicate vs European monarchs who do because she takes her role as defender of the faith that seriously as she made a promise to God during coronation and it is more than just the role her uncle played in abdication. Sorry for the rambling, I promise there is a point about predestination I will get to. I needed to give background to see where I am coming from.

I remember sitting in American church and thinking this is wrong, this is wrong and doubting myself for thinking so because I did not have the knowledge or the courage to ask. But it did send me to a point where I could not go to church. A lot of thinking about American politics mixed in church can be laid at the feet of predestination in my opinion. That they are a special group of people who are chosen  🙄. It explains so much about American christian leadership, the rise of so much prosperity Gospel when Jesus said "take the cross and follow me" which is directly about suffering I was taught. 

Predestination makes things like John 3:16 utterly irrelevant and makes free will utterly false. People always point to "many are called but few are chosen" that Jesus himself said that to justify predestination to me and I should be grateful that God's grace chose me 🙄. But Jesus did not just drop that by itself and leave it hanging in the air. He said that as part of a parable about a wedding feast where the invitation was sent far and wide just like Gospel is supposed to be preached. There is also one man that did not come dressed for the wedding who did accept the invitation, so that is the difference between called and chosen. Those who accept the invitation of salvation are those that are called. so what does chosen mean ? Just because you accept Christ does not mean you cannot go on sinning and be a pharisee, your heart must be like the publican. That is what salvation is to me. Not predestination. 

I took some theology classes where we had to wrestle with things like this and come down to figuring out what we believed. I ended up agreeing with neither Calvinism or Armenianism. I like to think of predestination and free will as two sides of the same coin.

From our perspective -- we have free will. We can and do choose or not choose to accept God's invitation to salvation.  God is not forcing a choice on us that would be abhorrent (In fact I once had a preacher mention that maybe heaven itself would be "hellish" for someone who did not believe in God -- but was forced to go there. Like the way people rebel against living under God's rules if they have not chosen the for themself.)

 

But from God's perspective, he knows before we are even born which of us will accept his salvation and under what circumstances. But his knowledge does not mean the choice was any less our choice.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

Thanks for the reply. In my experience, Western Christianity has a lot of theology and different streams of thought, writings. Much of that is not available in translation in parts of the globe where even having a Bible to read in their native translation is huge. There is no concordance, study Bible, no aids, nothing. It is just the Bible and people read that year and year, so I think preaching is straight from the Bible not muddled with this theology and that theology. So faith is simple, Salvation is only through Jesus and that is how I was taught. Everything else is just nonsense to me. I prefer straight teaching from the Bible and what does Jesus say. Nowhere does it say predestination the way I read it and I have read it in multiple languages. I've heard the idea came from mistranslation. 

Amen to this. I attended a hyper-Calvinist church for two years in California. The people were intelligent, loving, and serious about their faith. They gently and patiently explained their point of view. However, even after the best of explanations, I am convinced that Calvinism is largely about trying to make Scripture fit neatly into a theological system and sometimes twisting it to do so.

Yes, I believe God chooses some to fulfill His purposes. He always has and it is His prerogative to do so.

That said, I also believe in "whosoever will, let him come" and "whoever comes to me I will never turn away." Thank God for that! If I did not believe that, frankly, I might assume I were one of the non-elect, given my struggles with my faith and with my own tendencies. But God's promises stand. Whosoever will. 

Edited by MercyA
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Spy Car said:

I should have read further before my last post. But I'm more befuddled than ever. <snip> What am I missing?

Bill

You're both not missing much and yet missing quite a lot (how's that for a helpful answer, lol).  From the outside (people who reject all forms of predestination), the whole single v. double predestination probably looks like a distinction without a (meaningful) difference.  It's like how Lutherans can have a tendency to dismiss differences between Arminians and Reformed as "it's all just some kind of Reformed", lol.  The differences between two positions that share several fundamental premises matters a lot more to people who accept those premises than they do to people who reject those premises in the first place.  Single predestination *is* predestination, and as such is going to share several premises with double predestination.

But at the same time, there *are* differences, and they *do* matter (even if those differences are more appreciated by those on the inside than those outside).

 

15 hours ago, Spy Car said:

If there is belief in "total depravity" and only some are the "elect of God" (so that no people who are not predestined for salvation can choose salvation by an act of free will) then I can't see any effective differentiation between "single predestination"  vs "double predestination." Do you understand what I mean?

If one is elected, one is saved. If one is not elected by predestination, damnation awaits.

I do get your logic - whether God particularly predestined you to damnation, or just let you go your merry way to hell without intervening, the end result is still damnation =(.  (I  pray very fervently that God *does* save all.)

The crux theologorum - "If God wants all to be saved, and God does all the saving, then why aren't all saved???" - is just inherently a difficult thing.  However, despite it all, Lutherans *do* see a difference between leaving it unanswered, merely affirming that "if one is not elected by God, damnation awaits," and answering it by saying that "God deliberately elects some people to damnation." (The latter is known as the doctrine of reprobation.  Lutherans hold to predestination, but not reprobation.) 

 

15 hours ago, Spy Car said:

The only difference I'm able to make out here is that Lutherans seem to have a hope that all could be saved, where Calvinists are less troubled that atonement/salvation is a limited  offering.

Yes, that is the main difference - and it really is core.  Calvinism's starting point is the sovereignty of God - it controls everything that follows.  And for them, affirming the absolute sovereignty of God requires affirming that God both affirmatively damns as well as affirmatively saves - AKA, requires affirming double predestination.

But the starting point for Lutherans is the mercy of God, and that determines our approach to predestination.  For Lutherans, predestination is always a matter for hope, *always*.   It is not about which pre-destined category you fall in, but about God being faithful to save His own.  It is *never* about wondering about "what if I'm not one of the elect, what if I'm predestined for damnation????"  There is *no* being predestined for damnation.  Being elected by God is always and only a *good* thing.  God does not want any to be lost.

Affirming the predestination of the elect does not require you to affirm the reprobation of the lost, and the reason that Lutherans don't affirm the latter is pretty central to our whole theology.  The mercy of God shapes our understanding of the whole Bible, just as the sovereignty of God shapes the Calvinist understanding of the whole Bible. 

Edited by forty-two
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, MercyA said:

Thanks, @forty-two! I never thought of Lutherans as five-point Calvinists and you explained your church's position very nicely!

They certainly aren't Calvinists.  As to double predestination, only some reformed hold to that.  As it is, I have been a member of Methodist churches even though we are reformed and actually met a number of reformed at the respective churches.  And I have been a member or attendee at three different Presbyterian denominations, plus one of the churches had changed to a fourth now, and not everyone there is a Calvinist.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dreamergal said:

 

This is one of the most cruel things I have heard. Sorry to say and my biggest beef against predestination. If we are predestined in any way, where is the need for the gospel ? We could all be born in Christian homes. It is very sadistic to think that God knew if I would accept salvation and is trying to play a mind game with me.  What is free will then ? Salvation is free and available to all, Jesus died on the cross for all, not a select few selected before they were born in God's plan. It is the basis of Christianity for me. Otherwise I would have walked away and believed in karma. 

But the alternative is more cruel -- if God wanted to make sure no one ever went to damnation, and made it so we didn't get a choice in the matter at all. Adam and Eve never sinned -- because they never had the choice to sin. They HAD to do the right thing because God knew they'd make the wrong choice (That we would ALL make the wrong choice, if given the opportunity to do so) so he didn't give it to them.

Edited by vonfirmath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, forty-two said:

You're both not missing much and yet missing quite a lot (how's that for a helpful answer, lol).  From the outside (people who reject all forms of predestination), the whole single v. double predestination probably looks like a distinction without a (meaningful) difference.  It's like how Lutherans can have a tendency to dismiss differences between Arminians and Reformed as "it's all just some kind of Reformed", lol.  The differences between two positions that share several fundamental premises matters a lot more to people who accept those premises than they do to people who reject those premises in the first place.  Single predestination *is* predestination, and as such is going to share several premises with double predestination.

But at the same time, there *are* differences, and they *do* matter (even if those differences are more appreciated by those on the inside than those outside).

 

I do get your logic - whether God particularly predestined you to damnation, or just let you go your merry way to hell without intervening, the end result is still damnation =(.  (I  pray very fervently that God *does* save all.)

The crux theologorum - "If God wants all to be saved, and God does all the saving, then why aren't all saved???" - is just inherently a difficult thing.  However, despite it all, Lutherans *do* see a difference between leaving it unanswered, merely affirming that "if one is not elected by God, damnation awaits," and answering it by saying that "God deliberately elects some people to damnation." (The latter is known as the doctrine of reprobation.  Lutherans hold to predestination, but not reprobation.) 

 

Yes, that is the main difference - and it really is core.  Calvinism's starting point is the sovereignty of God - it controls everything that follows.  And for them, affirming the absolute sovereignty of God requires affirming that God both affirmatively damns as well as affirmatively saves - AKA, requires affirming double predestination.

But the starting point for Lutherans is the mercy of God, and that determines our approach to predestination.  For Lutherans, predestination is always a matter for hope, *always*.   It is not about which pre-destined category you fall in, but about God being faithful to save His own.  It is *never* about wondering about "what if I'm not one of the elect, what if I'm predestined for damnation????"  There is *no* being predestined for damnation.  Being elected by God is always and only a *good* thing.  God does not want any to be lost.

Affirming the predestination of the elect does not require you to affirm the reprobation of the lost, and the reason that Lutherans don't affirm the latter is pretty central to our whole theology.  The mercy of God shapes our understanding of the whole Bible, just as the sovereignty of God shapes the Calvinist understanding of the whole Bible. 


 I have read the post many times. I greatly appreciate it. I've written and deleted other responses. What I'm left with is that from an outsider's perspective that there is no functional difference between double or single predestination on the basis of "outcome." Those who are saved by God's grace (alone) are saved, the rest face damnation.

The distinction--as best I understand it--is a matter of "attitude." Lutherans (in the main) see Calvinists as being fine with the doctrine of the reprobation of the lost, as that's God's will and God's way. Where Lutherans (in the main) have some sort of hope that God might issue a reprieve or something? Perhaps there is discomfort with the inevitability that there are binary outcomes?

A difference of attitude more than outcomes. Am I close?

Bill 

 

Edited by Spy Car
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2020 at 9:30 PM, J-rap said:

I spent about 30 years in the Lutheran church, and I don't recall ever being taught specifically who the 4th man was.  We just read it and accepted that that part wasn't known for sure, just that it was someone holy.

Also, others here have said that Lutherans believe in predestination, and perhaps our church did, but I honestly never remember being taught that.  I grew up in a sub branch of the Lutheran Church which was the Danish Lutheran Church.  I was told that within the Danish Lutheran Church were yet two more branches  = the Happy Danes and the Holy Danes.  We attended the Happy Danes branch, so I think we never even discussed such serious questions beyond the most central tenets of the faith.  🙂 

(I no longer attend the Lutheran Church but I have so many wonderful, loving, and fun memories of being part of those congregations!)

I have never heard a sermon about predestination and I have attended mostly Presbyterian churches which are definitely predestinarian.  I just don't think most hard theological points are discussed in sermons and even in most Sunday School classes.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2020 at 10:52 PM, Spy Car said:

Yes. To the extent that I understand it (which is imperfectly, and I'm sure is my own limitation).

May I enquire further? Does Lutheran theology hold that those who are not saved are ipso facto damned?

And do Lutherans reject the first point of Calvinism? That being the idea that humans are so intrinsically evil by our nature that we can not choose to embrace God/Jesus, but only God can chose the elect who will be saved by his grace alone? Aka "Total Depravity."

Is the Lutheran position a "middle ground?" That some people are "predestined" for salvation, but that some non-predestined people through their own "free will" (or perhaps with the guidance of others) can be led to Jesus and salvation? Putting Lutherans in some measure in the Armenian camp? 

Or am I all mixed up?

Thank you for taking the time to educate me. I appreciate it.

Bill

NO, Lutherans do not believe in free will to choose God but that God chooses you. Or, at least, I should say that Martin Luther believed that.  I have a daily devotional with Martin Luther's words and a Bible verse or passage.

The people who believe in free will to choose are Arminians  and the main group in that camp are the Methodists but some Baptists are too and I am completely unfamiliar on the theological underpinings of a lot of denominations like any of the Pentacostal and Church of Christ and United Church of Christ ( extremely different denominations) are every church deciding on their own with maybe certain non negotiables but I have no idea what specific method of salvation they believe in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

NO, Lutherans do not believe in free will to choose God but that God chooses you. Or, at least, I should say that Martin Luther believed that.  I have a daily devotional with Martin Luther's words and a Bible verse or passage.

The people who believe in free will to choose are Arminians  and the main group in that camp are the Methodists but some Baptists are too and I am completely unfamiliar on the theological underpinings of a lot of denominations like any of the Pentacostal and Church of Christ and United Church of Christ ( extremely different denominations) are every church deciding on their own with maybe certain non negotiables but I have no idea what specific method of salvation they believe in.

Right. So by being in alignment with Calvinism on "by God's grace alone" there is no real effective difference between single and double predestination in terms of the end results. If one is not among the elect, one faces damnation either way. Outcomes are binary.

The difference is one of attitude? Calvinists think this is the way it ought to be, while Lutherans have hope that maybe there is "hope?"

Is that it?

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Spy Car said:

 I have read the post many times. I greatly appreciate it. I've written and deleted other responses. What I'm left with is that from an outsider's perspective that there is no functional difference between double or single predestination on the basis of "outcome." Those who are saved by God's grace (alone) are saved, the rest face damnation.

Yes to this, more or less.  (Calvinism and Lutheranism's 1.5 shared points - total depravity and (sorta-shared) unconditional election.)

14 hours ago, Spy Car said:

The distinction--as best I understand it--is a matter of "attitude." Lutherans (in the main) see Calvinists as being fine with the doctrine of the reprobation of the lost, as that's God's will and God's way. Where Lutherans (in the main) have some sort of hope that God might issue a reprieve or something? Perhaps there is discomfort with the inevitability that there are binary outcomes?

A difference of attitude more than outcomes. Am I close?

But *not* this.  There is a whole lot more to those 3.5 points of difference (limited v unlimited atonement, irresistible v resistible grace, and no v yes wrt the possibility of true apostasy).

22 hours ago, forty-two said:

I get your logic - whether God particularly predestined you to damnation, or just let you go your merry way to hell without intervening, the end result is still damnation =(.

Quoting myself here to say that, while those two things are functionally the same, Lutherans *don't* actually believe *either* of them.  (Mea culpa for implying otherwise - I think I finally found the words I was looking for.)  We *don't* believe that God is letting *anyone* just go their merry way to hell without intervening.  Rather, we believe that God is actually intervening every second of every day, for the benefit of *everyone*.  We don't just have a vague hope that God might issue a reprieve, but we have a sure and certain confidence that God *is* actively giving His saving grace to *anyone* who hears His Word.  He doesn't just *want* all to be saved - He is actively *working* to bring that salvation about.

But, of course, not all who hear the Word accept it.  This is where the resistible versus irresistible grace difference comes into play.  Calvinists, wanting to uphold God's sovereignty, hold that God's grace is irresistible - that His saving grace cannot be resisted by sinful man, and as such all who receive saving grace are saved - and that all who *aren't* saved must not have received that irresistible grace.  And thus you get the picking and choosing - giving saving grace to some, withholding saving grace from others.

But for Lutherans, God is *not* withholding His saving grace from *anyone*.  It is freely given in the means of grace - God's Word and the Sacraments - to everyone who hears, even if they then reject that grace.  Unlike Calvinists, Lutherans hold that when God's grace is given through the temporal means (instead of im-mediately - without means) - it is resistible.  People can, and often do, resist the saving work of God.  But God never resists *offering* His saving work - and offering it in efficacious ways.  Unlike Calvinists, who can never know where and when God's saving grace is given, we Lutherans do know - right there in Word and Sacrament, available to all.

We're still Lutherans, and not Arminians - we still hold that God does all the work in salvation.  So we are still left with the question as to *why* God allows His grace to be resisted.  We haven't solved the crux theologorum.  We don't know why all aren't saved, we don't know why God doesn't just *make* it happen.  But, unlike Calvinists, we *do* know that God is *actively* working toward the salvation of *everyone*.  We don't know how it's going to turn out, but nonetheless we have not a vague hope, but a sure and certain hope in the mercy of God.  Because God *is* intervening, constantly.

Does that help any?

ETA: I know it's a paradox - how we affirm both unconditional election and that God doesn't pick and choose but offers salvation to all.  But we really do affirm them both.  That's the real difference between Calvinists and Lutherans on unconditional election (and Lutherans and Arminians on universal atonement): Calvinists go for logical consistency and so pick one pole (unconditional election) while rejecting the other pole (universal atonement).  Lutherans refuse to give up either pole and so just accept the paradox. 

Edited by forty-two
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that predestination in the Bible means that God had a predetermined plan to save mankind through the sacrifice of His Son. I don't believe that God has chosen beforehand only a select few who are able to be saved.

"Jesus... delivered over to you by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross" (Acts 2:22-23).

"For [Jesus] was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you" (1 Peter 1:20).

"God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent" (Acts 17:30).

"The Lord is... not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9).

"... whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely" (Revelation 22:17).

I have clipped these verses for the sake of brevity, but please read them in their full context. I agree with the previous poster who said that the study of Theology and doctrines of men developed by men such as Calvin has clouded God's simple plan and the truth of the Scriptures. 

Edited by Skippy
misspelled previous poster as precious poster which is also true : )
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, forty-two said:

Yes to this, more or less.  (Calvinism and Lutheranism's 1.5 shared points - total depravity and (sorta-shared) unconditional election.)

But *not* this.  There is a whole lot more to those 3.5 points of difference (limited v unlimited atonement, irresistible v resistible grace, and no v yes wrt the possibility of true apostasy).

Quoting myself here to say that, while those two things are functionally the same, Lutherans *don't* actually believe *either* of them.  (Mea culpa for implying otherwise - I think I finally found the words I was looking for.)  We *don't* believe that God is letting *anyone* just go their merry way to hell without intervening.  Rather, we believe that God is actually intervening every second of every day, for the benefit of *everyone*.  We don't just have a vague hope that God might issue a reprieve, but we have a sure and certain confidence that God *is* actively giving His saving grace to *anyone* who hears His Word.  He doesn't just *want* all to be saved - He is actively *working* to bring that salvation about.

But, of course, not all who hear the Word accept it.  This is where the resistible versus irresistible grace difference comes into play.  Calvinists, wanting to uphold God's sovereignty, hold that God's grace is irresistible - that His saving grace cannot be resisted by sinful man, and as such all who receive saving grace are saved - and that all who *aren't* saved must not have received that irresistible grace.  And thus you get the picking and choosing - giving saving grace to some, withholding saving grace from others.

But for Lutherans, God is *not* withholding His saving grace from *anyone*.  It is freely given in the means of grace - God's Word and the Sacraments - to everyone who hears, even if they then reject that grace.  Unlike Calvinists, Lutherans hold that when God's grace is given through the temporal means (instead of im-mediately - without means) - it is resistible.  People can, and often do, resist the saving work of God.  But God never resists *offering* His saving work - and offering it in efficacious ways.  Unlike Calvinists, who can never know where and when God's saving grace is given, we Lutherans do know - right there in Word and Sacrament, available to all.

We're still Lutherans, and not Arminians - we still hold that God does all the work in salvation.  So we are still left with the question as to *why* God allows His grace to be resisted.  We haven't solved the crux theologorum.  We don't know why all aren't saved, we don't know why God doesn't just *make* it happen.  But, unlike Calvinists, we *do* know that God is *actively* working toward the salvation of *everyone*.  We don't know how it's going to turn out, but nonetheless we have not a vague hope, but a sure and certain hope in the mercy of God.  Because God *is* intervening, constantly.

Does that help any?

ETA: I know it's a paradox - how we affirm both unconditional election and that God doesn't pick and choose but offers salvation to all.  But we really do affirm them both.  That's the real difference between Calvinists and Lutherans on unconditional election (and Lutherans and Arminians on universal atonement): Calvinists go for logical consistency and so pick one pole (unconditional election) while rejecting the other pole (universal atonement).  Lutherans refuse to give up either pole and so just accept the paradox. 

So I think I followed you--and thank you again for your time and patience with my queries--right up until the part where you differently of the Lutheran formulation from Arminian theology.

Here is why: if the potential for grace and salvation is extended to all, and some resist and some embrace salvation, how is that not human agency at play (aka "free will)?

Would those who accept an Arminian view not feel entirely comfortable with what you outlined as the Lutheran position? Do Arminians not believe that God hopes people will choose the offer of salvation? i don't know, but i'd guess that's so.

I am better understanding the differences with Calvinism as you have explained them, but concurrently feel an increasing muddle in my understanding vs Arminian theology as to who is the choice-maker when it comes to embracing salvation.

Thank you again for your time and patience. I hope that is isn't an undue burden on you.

Bill

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spy Car said:

So I think I followed you--and thank you again for your time and patience with my queries--right up until the part where you differently of the Lutheran formulation from Arminian theology.

Here is why: if the potential for grace and salvation is extended to all, and some resist and some embrace salvation, how is that not human agency at play (aka "free will)?

Would those who accept an Arminian view not feel entirely comfortable with what you outlined as the Lutheran position? Do Arminians not believe that God hopes people will choose the offer of salvation? i don't know, but i'd guess that's so.

I am better understanding the differences with Calvinism as you have explained them, but concurrently feel an increasing muddle in my understanding vs Arminian theology as to who is the choice-maker when it comes to embracing salvation.

Thank you again for your time and patience. I hope that is isn't an undue burden on you.

Bill

 

 


Forty-two is doing an awesome job breaking all of this down, forgive me jumping in here, and please do add in or correct me wherever necessary!

I’m Lutheran as well.  I think where we part with Armenians is the language of choice.  Lutherans believe that when someone is saved it’s wholly due to God and His means of grace.  The picture is of those who are dead in their trespasses, they can’t grab the life preserver being tossed down to them unless they are brought back to life first, which is totally dependent upon God.  When we embrace salvation it’s only through the work of the Holy Spirit, not of ourselves.  The main concern here is giving God 100% of the credit for our salvation.  I have seen talk in Lutheran circles of decision theology, alter calls and the sinners prayer as a type of work.  We don’t equate faith with a choice, but instead see it as a gift received.  On the flip side, we do believe that one can reject the gift and that we are responsible for that choice.  I liken it to being born into a family, there’s nothing you did to be part of a family, but you can choose to walk away, cut ties, etc.

Another key difference that makes all of this click is that Lutherans are sacramental.  The preaching of the Word, Baptism and Eucharist effect salvation for those who hear, receive and partake.  I grew up Baptist (Armenian and Calvinist churches) and the focus was on revival, decisions and commitments.  I became Lutheran several years ago and I’ve never heard a sermon entreating anyone to make a decision, say a prayer, etc.  The emphasis is on the mercy of God and receiving His gifts through Word and Sacrament instead of any action we take in response.

Personally, I am a universalist (all shall ultimately be saved through Christ).  Though that is not the official position of the Lutheran church it has been a natural outgrowth of Lutheran theology for me.

I hope this has helped to clarify a bit and not muddled things further!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, WoolC said:


Forty-two is doing an awesome job breaking all of this down, forgive me jumping in here, and please do add in or correct me wherever necessary!

I’m Lutheran as well.  I think where we part with Armenians is the language of choice.  Lutherans believe that when someone is saved it’s wholly due to God and His means of grace.  The picture is of those who are dead in their trespasses, they can’t grab the life preserver being tossed down to them unless they are brought back to life first, which is totally dependent upon God.  When we embrace salvation it’s only through the work of the Holy Spirit, not of ourselves.  The main concern here is giving God 100% of the credit for our salvation.  I have seen talk in Lutheran circles of decision theology, alter calls and the sinners prayer as a type of work.  We don’t equate faith with a choice, but instead see it as a gift received.  On the flip side, we do believe that one can reject the gift and that we are responsible for that choice.  I liken it to being born into a family, there’s nothing you did to be part of a family, but you can choose to walk away, cut ties, etc.

Another key difference that makes all of this click is that Lutherans are sacramental.  The preaching of the Word, Baptism and Eucharist effect salvation for those who hear, receive and partake.  I grew up Baptist (Armenian and Calvinist churches) and the focus was on revival, decisions and commitments.  I became Lutheran several years ago and I’ve never heard a sermon entreating anyone to make a decision, say a prayer, etc.  The emphasis is on the mercy of God and receiving His gifts through Word and Sacrament instead of any action we take in response.

Personally, I am a universalist (all shall ultimately be saved through Christ).  Though that is not the official position of the Lutheran church it has been a natural outgrowth of Lutheran theology for me.

I hope this has helped to clarify a bit and not muddled things further!

I think you explained that beautifully and accurately!  Regarding your second to last line... I think that's a very natural outgrowth of the Lutheran church actually.  (I attended Lutheran churches until I was about 40.)  I lean in that direction myself, as do most Lutherans I know.  (I still love the Lutheran church, and miss many aspects of it.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Spy Car said:

Do Arminians not believe that God hopes people will choose the offer of salvation? i don't know, but i'd guess that's so.

I'd guess so, too.

3 hours ago, Spy Car said:

Would those who accept an Arminian view not feel entirely comfortable with what you outlined as the Lutheran position?

Comfortable with most of it, I expect, but would probably have issues with the Lutheran emphasis on the sacraments (and how God gives saving grace through them) and also our holding to unconditional election.  I'm not entirely sure how Arminians would put it, but as I understand it, they do hold to some level of human involvement in accepting salvation as necessary to the process, whereas we Lutherans are closer to Calvinists wrt unconditional election.  Lutherans are pretty hardcore about salvation being a no-human-involvement-needed thing.

 

3 hours ago, Spy Car said:

if the potential for grace and salvation is extended to all, and some resist and some embrace salvation, how is that not human agency at play (aka "free will)?

So this is where Arminians and Lutherans differ.  Arminians, as far as I understand, do hold that people can and must accept salvation in order to be saved.  Lutherans, otoh, hold that you can't even want to accept salvation until God's already saved you.  Even "not rejecting the salvation you've been given" is still only possible *because* you were saved first.  For Lutherans, accepting Christ is a result, not a cause, of salvation.  We draw a sharp distinction between God's saving work and our (good) responses to that work.  "Accepting Christ", "not rejecting the salvation you've been given" - all those are morally and spiritually good responses to salvation, but they aren't the cause of our salvation nor are they the cause of our remaining saved.  It's not just that we can't do anything spiritually good apart from God's grace, but also that we can't do anything spiritually good until we are redeemed.  My understanding of Arminians is that they hold that God gives a kind of precursor grace that enables the will to freely choose to accept or reject salvation.  Lutherans, though, hold that only the already-regenerate will can choose to accept salvation.

Here's a couple of analogies.  Let's say that you are a beggar and someone (God) comes up to give you money (salvation).  As I understand the Arminian position, the benefactor holds out the money to you and you either take it or refuse to take it.  But the Lutheran position is that the benefactor takes your hand, puts the money into it, and closes your fingers around it.  Now that you have it, you are free to continue keeping it or to reject it, to open your hand and let it flutter away - but your receiving it?  You didn't do anything to receive that money, you couldn't have done anything to receive that money - you were utterly incapable of putting your hand out to receive it - but you were given it anyway, because your benefactor did everything required.

Another analogy: Jesus as a lifeguard and you as a drowning swimmer, four interpretations.
1) You're drowning in the ocean.  The lifeguard sees you struggling, calls out to you and gets your attention, and tells you how to swim and get yourself back to land.  You follow his example and make it back to shore: the lifeguard saved you.
2) You're drowning in the ocean.  The lifeguard sees you struggling, dives into the water and swims out to you.  He not only tells you how to swim but is right there coaching your through it, every step of the way.  You follow him and make it back to shore: the lifeguard saved you.
3) You're drowning in the ocean.  The lifeguard sees you struggling, dives into the water and swims out to you.  You are panicked and exhausted and have nothing in you.  He takes hold of you, lays you over the float, and swims you to shore.  You make it back to shore: the lifeguard saved you.
4) You've already drowned in the ocean.  The lifeguard sees your dead body being tossed about, dives into the water and swims out to you.  He takes hold of you, swims you to shore, and performs CPR.  He revives you on the shore: the lifeguard saved you.

So, as I understand it, Arminians tend to see salvation as somewhere between 2 and 3; Calvinists tend to see it as somewhere between 3 and 4; while Lutherans see salvation as number 4, all the way.  We aren't just saved from dying; we are already dead and salvation brings us back to life.  So when it comes to the will in salvation, we're dead, spiritually speaking - dead people can't will anything. There's no role for the will in being saved, because there's no life in us before we saved - we're the dead body needing to be resurrected, we *really* don't have anything to contribute.

 

3 hours ago, Spy Car said:

I am better understanding the differences with Calvinism as you have explained them, but concurrently feel an increasing muddle in my understanding vs Arminian theology as to who is the choice-maker when it comes to embracing salvation.

For Lutherans, the choice-maker is God, always.  We can't even do anything choice-wise until salvation has already occurred.  Not throwing away salvation, not flinging ourselves right back into the water to die again - that's a good work, but like all good works it's the *result* of salvation, not the cause.  The will has nothing to do until it's brought back to life by God.

Which, yeah, brings us right back to the ol' crux theologorum.  We're like Calvinists in our insistence on salvation being entirely and utterly the work of God, and like Arminians in our insistence that God both wants to save all and is actively working to save all.  (And like Catholics in our focus on God working through the sacraments.)  It's back to super-fun Lutheran paradox land =).  With the poles of unconditional election and universal atonement, Ariminians are the exact opposite of Calvinists, picking universal atonement while rejecting unconditional election.  And as ever, Lutherans still refuse to give up either pole and so just keep accepting the paradox. 

 

3 hours ago, Spy Car said:

So I think I followed you--and thank you again for your time and patience with my queries

<snip>

 

Thank you again for your time and patience. I hope that is isn't an undue burden on you.

Bill

You're very welcome - I'm glad it's been helpful :).  And thank you for being such a polite and interested conversation partner.  I enjoy discussing theology, so the time spent isn't a burden.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Spy Car said:

So I think I followed you--and thank you again for your time and patience with my queries--right up until the part where you differently of the Lutheran formulation from Arminian theology.

Here is why: if the potential for grace and salvation is extended to all, and some resist and some embrace salvation, how is that not human agency at play (aka "free will)?

Would those who accept an Arminian view not feel entirely comfortable with what you outlined as the Lutheran position? Do Arminians not believe that God hopes people will choose the offer of salvation? i don't know, but i'd guess that's so.

I am better understanding the differences with Calvinism as you have explained them, but concurrently feel an increasing muddle in my understanding vs Arminian theology as to who is the choice-maker when it comes to embracing salvation.

Thank you again for your time and patience. I hope that is isn't an undue burden on you.

Bill

 

 


I wanted to add in one more thought that explains why these small distinctions are so important to Lutheran theology.  Luther himself was tortured by his conscience and doubts about his salvation.  I have heard this described in terms of monergism (God alone works our salvation) vs synergism (we cooperate with God to effect our salvation).  I haven’t heard the Calvinist points used in strictly Lutheran theology before, though I could be missing something there.  Anyway, insisting on monergism was so important to Luther’s theology because it’s the only way for the troubled conscience to have peace.  When the focus is on our response, decision, works, or commitment we are turned inward, examining ourselves.  “Did I *really* mean it when I prayed that prayer?”  This is why you have some people accepting Christ over and over again, as though it “didn’t take” the last time.  As someone who struggled with scrupulosity in my old tradition, I can’t tell you how big the difference is in Lutheran theology.  All of the self-questioning stops.

So, that’s where all of this matters, practically.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...