Election According To The Missouri Synod

[Saint Nicholas]

WB: The Bible tells us they are damned by their own sin. The wages of sin is death, etc.

Irrelevant. Sin for which Christ has made atonement cannot possibly damn anyone; it does not exist in God's estimation. I am damned by my own sin and the wages of my sin is death; yet Christ by His work has made these facts immaterial to my eternal destiny!

Exactly Robert!!! According to the LCMS Christ's death on the cross expiated the sin of both parties. So sin can never be in the equation. And furthermore, those that have receieved the sacrament of water baptism into the LCMS are also born again, regeneration has taken place. However those of whom that have been granted the universal will of grace can never be assured of their salvation because they have never been predestined by God at all in any direction. This then must lead to the fact that these OTHER MEN must hopelesly trust in their own good works and their participation in the sacraments as administered by the "collared and robed" clergymen. How awful a plight

A Gospel with no assurance and hope, is NO Gospel at all!

Nicholas

[wildboar]

Charles, How were my comments and conclusions of the LCMS teaching of Election any different from the above statement?

Because either you don't understand the actual statements or you are purposefully distorting them or you would never say the following:

So where does this lead us. This formula of the LCMS would seemingly conclude that God purposes two distinct plans of Salvation. One by the God’s determination and will in the case of SOME MEN. And the other by man’s determination and will as in the case of the OTHER MEN, since Christ’s atonement and salvific works were on behalf of both parties.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just don't understand. There is not a second plan of salvation. The Lutheran Confessions say that sin is what leads to death and damnation. The Lutheran Confessions teach that there is a definite number of God's elect and they do not teach that those outside of that number will be saved.

That is essentially as far as the confessions go on the issue and that is as far Scripture goes on the issue. Anything more is a reading into Scripture and tilting it one way or another. God created man upright.

Your real beef seems to be with anyone who doesn't believe that God is the author of sin. So your real problem isn't with Lutheranism at all but with every confessional church body. All I can say is that the Scriptures don't teach it, so I don't believe it. This teaching that "God is the author of sin" seems to be at the very hub of your belief system and the test by which either a church stands or falls. But I don't see Jesus or Paul talking about this at all.

Everybody has a paradigm from which they start and work their way out to greater or lesser degrees. Everybody has some teaching that stands at the center of their belief system whether they realize it or not. So the question remains, what do you believe the central teaching of Scripture is and how do you work your way out from that position to the various conclusions that you have reached?

If we view Christ crucified as the central teaching then I think a very different emphasis and method of interpretation results. If we view the Trinity as the center than things are very different indeed. So I still await your response to the challenge I posted in the thread on the Trinity. Assuming you believe in a Trinity please teach me how God can be one being and three persons. Perhaps that will give us a clue as to how we ought to read the Bible in the first place.

[Saint Nicholas]

[quote=wildboar;58386]Because either you don't understand the actual statements or you are purposefully distorting them or you would never say the following:

Charles I fully understand the actual statements. And please tell me how I have "purposefully distorted them"?

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just don't understand.

Please do not assume! I fully understand

There is not a second plan of salvation.

Good,..Now your following the logic. If there is not a second plan of salvation. Then how can anyone be lost if Christ Died for them? Read below the LCMS statement again:

"Scripture plainly reveals the truth that the love of God for the world of lost sinners is universal, that is, that it embraces alt men without exception, that Christ has fully reconciled all men unto God, and that God earnestly desires to bring all men to faith, to preserve them therein, and thus to save them, as Scripture testifies, 1 Tim. 2:4: "God will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." No man is lost because God has predestined him to eternal damnation"

Charles...the statement says that Christ reconciled ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION!!!!!

Charles, what about the question from post #38 can you please asnwer it. Here it is below:

So what gives here Charles?! Does the creature have the power, authority, will, & self-determination, to determine the course of his own destiny? A simple YES or NO response is all I ask Charles. Please, no more than that.

The Lutheran Confessions say that sin is what leads to death and damnation. The Lutheran Confessions teach that there is a definite number of God's elect and they do not teach that those outside of that number will be saved.

How can they be lost if Christ (1) reconciled them. (2) Earnestly desired to bring them to faith (3) preserve them (4) and thus save them?

If we view Christ crucified as the central teaching then I think a very different emphasis and method of interpretation results. If we view the Trinity as the center than things are very different indeed. So I still await your response to the challenge I posted in the thread on the Trinity. Assuming you believe in a Trinity

Charles you assume to much. Of course I believe in the Trinity and you know that. Furthermore I have already addressed how the Trinity works in harmony in the plan of salvation.

It is the LCMS that does injury to the unified purpose of the triune God . Pleese re-read post #32
1) Jesus came do die and reconcile His people.
2) He laid down His life for His Sheep.
3) Those that the Father gave to Him, Christ has lost none of them.
4) Jesus promised to ressurrect and Glorify those He died for.

Now the LCMS states that Christ death reconciled ALL men without exception. And you yourself claim that these men will not be saved that Christ died for!!

So the only possible conclusion is that Christ lied and lost the ones He died for. Or the LCMS is confused. I strongly believe the latter.

You and I Charles will just have to disagree once more. If you want to respond to this post fine. If not that is also fine with me. My purpose is not to persuade you at all. You and your LCMS are the very antithesis of the Gospel that is needed on this forum, that God has intended to show His people truth versus error.

for the cause of truth and love in Christ,
Nicholas

[wildboar]

Nick:

God's desire for the salvation of all men, Christ's atonement for all men, and God's particular election are all taught plainly in Scripture. How this all works together is a paradox. But we should accept it by faith because the Scriptures teach it.

The Trinity is also a paradox. And no you have not explained by reason how God can be three persons and one being. This is also a paradox.

There is nothing which you quoted that suggests that there is another way to salvation. The answer to your question is that if man is left to his own devices, because of the bondage of his will he will always choose evil and never believe the Gospel.

[The Hawker]

I am sorry Charles, but when you read the scriptures about God wanting ALL men to be saved, and taking that as read, in isolation, you end up missing the point. All Christ came to save WILL BE SAVED!! There is an elect, and there are reprobates. There are wheat and there are tares. There is a broad road and a narrow road.

There are many people going to hell. The bible teaches this plainly. It is there in the gospels. Children of the devil will not and cannot be saved. I believe that the LCMS and other churches which have an arminian persuasion are just plain wrong. You end up creating a contradiction in the bible that just isn't there.

We don't want to argue with you Charles. We just want to share with you what the scripture teaches.

It may be that we just need to agree to disagree. The bible says that the man of God must not strive. We do well to take heed!

May the Lord Bless you Charles,

Kevin.

[wildboar]

There are many people going to hell. The bible teaches this plainly. It is there in the gospels. Children of the devil will not and cannot be saved. I believe that the LCMS and other churches which have an arminian persuasion are just plain wrong. You end up creating a contradiction in the bible that just isn't there.

The LCMS does not teach an Arminian position. Both Calvinism and Arminianism are attempts to use human reason to understand the message of salvation as taught in the Bible. Confessional Lutheranism existed well before confessional Calvinism did and well before confessional Arminianism did. Both Calvinism and Lutheranism use human reason to try to eliminate the paradoxes within Scripture. Each side chooses a particular route. Lutheranism lets the paradoxes stand.

If we can use our human reason to explain away the paradoxes associated with salvation then we should also be able to use our human reason explain away the paradoxes associated with the Trinity. If we cannot do one then we should not do the other.

[Highlyfavored]

If we can use our human reason to explain away the paradoxes associated with salvation then we should also be able to use our human reason explain away the paradoxes associated with the Trinity. If we cannot do one then we should not do the other.

This is like saying:

If we know how and can drive a car and have a license to do so but we can't drive an eighteen wheeler and don't have a license to do so or the know how, then we probably shouldn't drive a car either.

[wildboar]

Highly Favored:

No. It's more like saying if you can't understand what the central idea of being a physician is then you shouldn't try to consider yourself an expert in any particular field of medicine.

[Robert R. Higby]

Right, WB! I understand your play here to defend the fact that only teachers ordained by those committed to playing church can properly defend truth!

[wildboar]

Right, WB! I understand your play here to defend the fact that only teachers ordained by those committed to playing church can properly defend truth!

Is there somebody else's comments on some other website that you are reading and responding to? When did I say anything like that.

My point was that we should at least start with and care about the doctrine of the Trinity and work our way out from there.

[Robert R. Higby]

My point was that we should at least start with and care about the doctrine of the Trinity and work our way out from there.

Uh, you mean a doctrine of the Trinity that acknowledges that little word 'paradox' as essential to understanding it--like the seminary-educated teachers of today do! I do not feel that I misunderstood your post.

[wildboar]

Uh, you mean a doctrine of the Trinity that acknowledges that little word 'paradox' as essential to understanding it--like the seminary-educated teachers of today do! I do not feel that I misunderstood your post.

Why are you always trying to tell me what I mean? That's not what I mean at all. I was arguing that without an understanding of the Trinity we cannot develop a proper understanding of other doctrines. Highly Favored, as I understood him, was saying that the other doctrines were easier to develop and understand and so we can develop those doctrines prior to having an understanding of the Trinity. My argument was that since the Trinity is central to the understanding of all theology we cannot properly study the rest without an understanding of the Trinity for the same reason that a person could not truly study to be a doctor without understanding what the central purpose of that vocation is.

A person doesn't have to go to seminary to promote or deny the acceptance of the idea of paradox in Trinitarian theology. I have not gone to seminary and I never suggested that going to seminary was a necessary qualification to studying the doctrine of the Trinity. You have stated that the use of term 'paradox' is completely unacceptable in regards to the Trinity but you have not explained how God can be both one being and three persons. My argument is that someone should either be able to explain in a reasonable how God can be one being and three persons prior to moving on to other areas of theology or reach the conclusion that Scripture teaches that God is one being and three persons by faith, determine that they cannot explain the mystery, and then use the same methodology for the rest of Biblical doctrine.

[Whammer]

Nick:

God's desire for the salvation of all men, Christ's atonement for all men, and God's particular election are all taught plainly in Scripture. How this all works together is a paradox. But we should accept it by faith because the Scriptures teach it.

The Trinity is also a paradox. And no you have not explained by reason how God can be three persons and one being. This is also a paradox.

There is nothing which you quoted that suggests that there is another way to salvation. The answer to your question is that if man is left to his own devices, because of the bondage of his will he will always choose evil and never believe the Gospel.

The Trinitarian doctrine of God we hold to here is mysterious, but using ther mysteriousness of the one thing, namely exact pure words to gvie God Triune His best logical expression in the terms of men is still too lacking. Where I get peaved is in every doctrine that reguard the gospel is so clear, and for people to use this paradox talk in this respect is due to deep blindness and delusion.
We ought to wrestlle over these things with other, but very clear that we are in the presence of Christ, keeping our eyes on Him as we wrestle with more than flesh and blood..........if He is pleased at His work in us, the outcome of the temp. battle makes no difference, we know the ultimate outcome

[Robert R. Higby]

You have stated that the use of term 'paradox' is completely unacceptable in regards to the Trinity but you have not explained how God can be both one being and three persons. My argument is that someone should either be able to explain in a reasonable how God can be one being and three persons prior to moving on to other areas of theology or reach the conclusion that Scripture teaches that God is one being and three persons by faith, determine that they cannot explain the mystery, and then use the same methodology for the rest of Biblical doctrine.

This is RIDICULOUS! Now you want me to explain what historical theologians have been explaining for almost two millenia to prove that I have validity as someone who has the right to speak?

I have NEVER denied MYSTERY in the area of Divine revelation, only PARADOX in the SENSE as it is typically used by the teachers of the last century (in my view, justifying real and true contradiction)--to avoid having to face the real issues of our time. The most prominent example: The atonement of Christ was engaged for all humanity without exception yet the majority of that same human race end up damned for eternity!

For me, one God in three persons is not illogical and I don't think it is for any regenerate person. Sure, there is MYSTERY involved--for the same reason that we can't comprehend how God can know and predestinate all minutia of events in the BIG universe from the first moment of time to all eternity. That is MOST CERTAINLY a mystery, however, if God is infinite and not on the level of the creature it is not impossible. Neither is the concept that God as one ontological entity but three personal beings thinks the same thoughts and executes the same purposes in everything.

[wildboar]

Very well, I will cease to use the offensive term 'paradox.'

Why is it that the Trinity can be regarded as a mystery but not the atonement?

[Forester07]

For me, one God in three persons is not illogical and I don't think it is for any regenerate person.

I completely agree with you Bob. I've been following all these trinity discussions and keep wondering what the issue really is. I see nothing illogical about the trinity. It makes complete sense to me given the scriptures. Thanks for all your great insights and responses to this and the other threads.

[wildboar]

This is RIDICULOUS! Now you want me to explain what historical theologians have been explaining for almost two millenia to prove that I have validity as someone who has the right to speak?

I think a discussion of how the Trinity works could be very profitable. I don't know why it is ridiculous. There are a number of different positions that are within the bounds of orthodoxy in regards to the Trinity and I think it would be interesting to hear where you stand. Why not just provide an explanation as to how you believe it is exactly that God is one being and three persons?

[Robert R. Higby]

WB: Why is it that the Trinity can be regarded as a mystery but not the atonement?

Basically, because some aspects of the Trinity relate to God's SELF EXISTENCE which no creature will ever understand fully even in eternity future. We can understand those aspects of God's triune existence that are revealed; the unrevealed aspects will always remain a mystery because God is infinitely above any creature's finite understanding.

The full (in relative, not absolute terms) and essential meaning and purpose of the atonement is not a doctrine that now belongs (since Christ came) to the unrevealed (mystery) arena of God's existence or purposes but rather to the revealed arena of God's purposes (Col. 1:26, 27).

[wildboar]

Basically, because some aspects of the Trinity relate to God's SELF EXISTENCE which no creature will ever understand fully even in eternity future. We can understand those aspects of God's triune existence that are revealed; the unrevealed aspects will always remain a mystery because God is infinitely above any creature's finite understanding.

The full (in relative, not absolute terms) and essential meaning and purpose of the atonement is not a doctrine that now belongs (since Christ came) to the unrevealed (mystery) arena of God's existence or purposes but rather to the revealed arena of God's purposes (Col. 1:26, 27).

The mystery spoken of in Colossians 1:26-27 is the proclamation of redemption in Jesus Christ to people of every nation, tribe, and tongue. There are still great mysteries associated with it, such as why God would love sinners such as us, and how in the world could he love us enough to send His only-begotten Son to die for us. The Scriptural lanugage all speaks of the enormous value and worth of Christ's death and its universal nature. We find no instance of Paul claiming that there are certain people that Christ did not die for. The doctrine of the limited atonement is not based upon a Scriptural foundation but upon questions about how some can go to hell if Jesus died for them.

[Robert R. Higby]

There are still great mysteries associated with it, such as why God would love sinners such as us, and how in the world could he love us enough to send His only-begotten Son to die for us.

True, no contest.

The doctrine of the limited atonement is not based upon a Scriptural foundation but upon questions about how some can go to hell if Jesus died for them.

False. If some go to hell that Jesus died for, the gospel is no more the gospel IN ANY SENSE.