Go with whichever Scripture says! Duh!

Seriously, if you are interested in further reading on the subject, especially if you want a good explanation of what Lutherans actually believe and why, Herman Sasse’s This is My Body is excellent. If you’re more interested in a more historic text, Martin Chemnitz’s Lord’s Supper is pretty much the definitive 16th century work on the subject. Neither book is expensive.

Could be you’re over-thinking the Supper. Lots of people jump straight to, “Isn’t it possible He could have meant X?” without first asking themselves, “What reason is there to doubt that He literally meant what He said?”

I think you’ve got it right on the bulk majority of “calvinist”. And WOE to the poor wretched soul that wonders into a formerly wesleyn type SB church turned “TULIP”, the heat is really turned up then, but NO assurance at all.

I’ve always detected in Calvin’s own writings that he was more of Luther than either American Puritans or TULIP modern calvinist.

Calvin himself seem to put the crucifixion at a universal level, and in fact said as much (Christ died for all without exception, something that is shocking for most TULIP calvinist to hear of today). Many times Calvin actually says this very thing. But the application of the blood on the mercy seat unto the elect only, His High Priestly prayer. His reasoning, I think, is that all can be sure Christ died for them and they have a part of Him, but only the elect are given the faith to believe it and receive it. The reason Calvin would say is 1. That one may freely proclaim Christ’s death for all without exception or caveats and 2. That the believer could believe it so without fear of doubt. It’s tricky, but most of todays ‘calvinist’ would fall over dead if they grasped that about J. Calvin himself.

BTW, I may be at that large KY PCA church you are speaking of. I’m not sure but I can tell you, I’ve run into the very thing you said myself.

Me I’m about 99% Luther, and 1% Calvin overall. On baptism I’m 100% Luther (because that’s where the devil warred with me in great terror while I was SB), its the Lord’s Supper that gets me, I admit I’m a fence rider on that one between the two. I just can’t seem to know what to do there!

Blessings,

Larry KY

Thanks, I’m glad you found my comment helpful.

For some good writing on the question you ask, check this out:

http://threehierarchies.blogspot.com/2006/02/page-for-reformed.html

Chris Atwood is a very articulate Lutheran blogger (and Professor of Mongolian History) who used to be a Calvinist, and this link will take you to a sub-page of his blog where he links to a bunch of his posts that explain various differences between Lutheran and Calvinist understandings of theology. The first link there (scroll down) offers a nice quick summary of the Lutheran take on TULIP, and some of the other posts will also be relevant to your question.

For something more comprehensive, you can’t go wrong reading straight from the Lutheran Confessions on the subject. The Formula of Concord has a whole chapter on it:

http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/election.html

As for the “I” in TULIP, it’s okay if you take it to mean simply that all the Elect will inevitably believe and be saved, but if you interpret it from within its native framework, it implies some bad doctrine, e.g. that apostates have never actually received Christ’s saving grace in the first place(because if they had, they could not have eventually resisted it and lost the faith). In that regard, it goes hand-in-hand with Limited Atonement.

Very interesting and helpful comment - would you be able to point to any resources (online or in print) that would explain the Lutheran doctrine on predestination comprehensively ? (Preferably at the level of a layman).

Also, in light of what you said about limited atonement, how does Luther see the ‘I’ in Tulip ?

OK, thank you so much for your indulgence, as Luther said to the Pope.
Now back to the fascinating and vital discussion; to which, may I add, in paraphrased form, Susannah Wesley’s apropos observation (and she ought to have known, growing up in the unlovely shadow of English Puritanism in decline) : Calvinism leads either to presumption or despair.
In my observation, more commonly the latter.
So, lose the “L” (as in TU_L_IP), give Christ His due, and become good Lutherans. The rose is infinitely more sublime in its beauty than the tulip, don’t you agree?

Nice post.

> Telling unregenerate people later on in life
> to “remember their Baptism” is both un-biblical
> and damning

I don’t know why you’re assuming that this exhortation, “remember your Baptism” happens instead of reminding them that Christ died for their sins. What, do you think we tell people, “It’s okay if you don’t believe in Jesus anymore, as long as you got baptized once upon a time?” I don’t think you know what “remember your Baptism” means. It means “but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (I Cor. 6:11). It means “we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). To the man who believes, it is an encouragement; it bolsters his faith and bids him look to Christ. To the man who does not believe, it is a proclamation of the Gospel that he should believe, and an indictment if he has rejected his baptism and fallen from the faith. It’s eminently biblical, and has never damned anyone.

Josh said:

> The scary thing about TULIP is that uncertainty
> about predestination means uncertainty about the
> atonement.

Greg answered:
> Oh; Lutherans do not believe in predestination?

Yes, we do. You’re missing Josh’s point. Calvinists and Lutherans both recognize that predestination lies in the hidden will of God, where we cannot see it. For five-pointers, this ignorance spread from the topic of predestination to the topic of atonement. They reason, “If I can’t be sure I’m predestined, then I can’t be sure Jesus died for me, because he didn’t die for the non-elect, and I might be non-elect.” Lutherans approach it from the opposite direction. The atonement is sure and solid: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief” (I Tim. 1:15), so we deal with the fact that predestination has not been revealed by relying on this promise that has been revealed, and letting God worry about the secret things of God.

> Are we to believe that Luther would deny this and
> assert that Christ paid for the sins of men who
> never put their trust in his saving sacrifice and
> then turned around and sent those same men to
> Hell?

Absolutely. Luther believed that. The Bible teaches it. “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). Even people who once did trust in Christ can be lost if they turn away (Gal. 5:4, Heb. 6:1-6, I Tim. 1:19).

> How can they be sent to Hell if they are forgiven
> by Christ?

The same way the ungrateful servant could be handed over to the tormentors even after his lord had forgiven his debt (Matt. 18:23-34): he rejected forgiveness, and thus, like the man in Gal. 5:4, chose to be judged according to the Law instead.

You are lecturing me about what I have on my blog telling me what I think about things I haven’t said.

Is this going to go on all evening, Greg? Because I am pretty close to ending this myself. You are about a universe away from the purpose of any of these posts.

UPDATE: You now believe the doctrine of the Trinity is rational. I can safely warn people about you. (I’m assuming you know what the word “rational” means, as in “the product of reason.”)

I will gladly warn anyone about Calvinists who treat a critique like Josh’s with responses like you’ve made.