/
RSS Feed
In this episode, Adam, Brett, and Jason continue their examination of Article XII of the Augsburg Confession and Apology. Repentance is defined as contrition and faith. Contrition is terrors of conscience over sin, and faith is what causes us to confess our sins before God, whom we believe will meet us with grace, mercy, and forgiveness.
Jason,
I continue to listen and enjoy these podcasts. Although, I have to admit to cringing any time you mention Calvinism as you did in this podcast. So, that mention caused the following questions to come to mind:
(1) Are you under the impression that Anabaptists are Calvinistic?
(2) If so, can you point to their official documents that assert this?
Maybe I just misunderstood, but it sure seemed as if that is your understanding and I have never heard anyone, even an Anabaptist assert that.
Sincerely,
JT
Hi JT,
I have to apologize, but since this was a couple of episodes, I don’t recall what you’re referring to. If you could elaborate or let me know roughly where the comments in the episode are, I can hopefully clarify for you.
All the best,
Jason
Sure, sorry about that. Here is the context:
About 12:50 Brett asks for a discussion about wrong views of repentance. About 13:20 you state “heretics write the theology of the Church.” About 14:10 you say “one of the places that the Lutherans mention here that will be of special use is that the Anabaptists, and we see this now often in the Calvinist wing of the Church talk about eternal security. Eternal security confuses the doctrine of repentance. In fact, in its logical end, it makes repentance no longer necessary in the life of a Christian.”
You seem to be equating Anabaptist teaching and Calvinist teaching on the issue of eternal security. Just so you know the actual Anabaptist teaching on this subject, here is a link: https://www.anabaptists.org/writings/security.html
As you will see, this Anabaptist site states this about eternal security and contrasts it with “Calvinistic doctrine of ‘unconditional eternal security’ “:
“Our terminology often leaves people confused and frustrated. When we meet a person who knows only the Calvinistic doctrine of ‘unconditional eternal security’ and we say they can ‘lose’ their salvation, the first thing that comes to their mind is that they can come to the end of a day and not be saved and not know about it. It is like a person working all day and when he goes to his car and reaches in his pocket he cannot find his car key. He lost his keys. This is how those who believe in unconditional eternal security define or understand our use of the term lose. It is easy to understand how this concept would be reprehensible to them.
“The Scriptures teach that redemption is all of God, but salvation is conditional and based upon a conscious act of our will in the exercise of faith in Jesus Christ. The Scriptures also teach that a person who continues to exercise saving faith in Jesus Christ is secure. But when a person begins to neglect his spiritual life he will come to the place where he is not truly exercising saving faith in Jesus Christ. He may continue to say he believes, but it is only a verbal belief and not a conscious exercise of the will to live for God. That is all that saving faith is, a conscious exercise of the will to always do what we believe the Bible teaches. It is also obeying the voice of the Spirit in areas where the Scriptures are silent.
“When a person continues to habitually practice sin, he ‘ceases to be a believer’ and is no longer a Christian. So the statement ‘The believer is eternally secure’ is a correct statement. It is the definition of who is a believer that must be answered.”
Of course, this Anabaptist website seems to have a really bad understanding of what we Calvinists actually believe about security of the believer as you seem to also. I am not sure why they and you don’t understand it since we are so public about it. You can see what we believe in Chapter 17 of the Westminster Confession of Faith where we state:
I. They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the
end, and be eternally saved.
II. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the
efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
III. Nevertheless they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and for a time continue therein: whereby they incur God’s displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit; come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts; have their hearts hardened, and their
consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.
Additionally, your comments about Calvinist’s view of repentance are really bad. Again, I just refer you to our Confession of Faith. In Chapter 15 we assert the following about Repentance:
I. Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ.
II. By it a sinner, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God, and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with him in all the ways of his commandments.
III. Although repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God’s free grace in Christ; yet is it of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.
IV. As there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation; so there is no sin so great, that it can bring damnation upon those who truly repent.
V. Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man’s duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins particularly.
VI. As every man is bound to make private confession of his sins to God praying for the pardon thereof; upon which, and the forsaking of them, he shall find mercy; so he that scandalizeth his brother, or
the Church of Christ, ought to be willing, by a private or public confession and sorrow for his sin, to declare his repentance to those that are offended; who are thereupon to be reconciled to him, and in love to receive him.
You could also look to our liturgies where many of us repent of our sins every single worship service. So the notion that we “more or less do an end run around the ‘well you don’t need to repent'” is simply not true. I am not sure to which Calvinists you are referring when you make this statement. I have been a Calvinist for about 24 years now and have never gotten the hint that we disagree with the first of Luther’s 95 Theses that “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent’ (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.” This has been stated multiple times in worship services I have been in.
Here is what Calvin says about the need for repentance in the life of a believer and just how long we need to engage in it:
“Moreover, as hatred of sin, which is the beginning of repentance, first gives us access to
the knowledge of Christ, who manifests himself to none but miserable and afflicted sinners, groaning,
laboring, burdened, hungry, and thirsty, pining away with grief and wretchedness, so if we would
stand in Christ, we must aim at repentance, cultivate it during our whole lives, and continue it to
the last.” Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 3, Section 20.
I guess the biggest frustration I have when anyone on this podcast discusses Calvinism they end up comparing your well-thought-out Creeds and Confession with anecdotal evidence or some commentary by an individual Calvinist. As I am sure you will remember, this is one of the issues I had earlier when one of your hosts insisted that one sentence from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology was THE Calvinistic position on the issue being discussed along with private conversations he had engaged in with a couple professors.
I believe I asked then, and I ask now, why not just compare apples to apples and have interaction with our well-thought-out Creeds and Confession instead of constantly resorting to the apples-to-oranges comparison of your great Creeds and Confessions with bad practices or commentaries of Calvinists? You will win that argument every time as we would if we resorted to such arguments. If you must quote a commentator I would suggest limiting it to John Calvin. He is, after all, the ultimate Calvinist, at least in my mind. 🙂
Anyway, it is just a suggestion. Even if you don’t do this, I am sure I will still enjoy your podcasts and benefit greatly from them. Keep up the good work.
Your brother in Christ,
JT
JT,
Thank you for the clarifications. It is not our intention to intentionally misrepresent a belief system. With that being said, it is also not our intention to provide a systematic understanding of Calvinist, Arminian, Anabaptist, or other beliefs. We interact with the belief systems anecdotally because that’s how our confessions interact with them (occasionally giving a quote here or there). Again, we do not intend to misrepresent, but the purpose of the podcast is to teach Lutheran doctrine. From that standpoint, “eternal security”, “once saved, always saved”, and any other system that teaches a believer can’t fall away stands in contrast to the Lutheran understanding of the Scriptures which teaches that continued repentance in the life of a believer is necessary (with, of course, the understanding that repentance in the life of a believer is a gift and work of the Holy Spirit through the Word of God).
This comment isn’t intended to sound terse, either, just an explanation that we will more often than not err on the side of anecdotal assessment and evaluation unless we find that we have been grossly misrepresenting the view of our brothers and sisters in Christ in other wings of the universal Church.
Jason,
I don’t consider your comment terse at all. I totally appreciate you taking any time out of your busy schedule to address any concerns I raise. I have mostly enjoyed your responses 🙂 and, I am sure, will continue to enjoy the podcasts.
I also appreciate what you and the other guys are trying to do with this podcast. I am happy for you to correct me on my understanding of what you are doing, but It seems to me that your focus is on presenting a positive case for your particular brand of Lutheranism. That is why I listen to you. I want to hear this. I want to learn even the nuance of your beliefs so I never misrepresent your beliefs. I have the same concern that you do on that issue.
Please also know that I would never think that you intentionally misrepresent us Calvinists. From the little I know about you, I don’t think that is even in the universe of possibilities even if there were multiverses.
Also, I don’t expect you to present a systematic understanding of Calvinist theology on your podcasts. That is not what you guys are about. However, I don’t think that it is unreasonable to expect that when the contrasts are pointed out between your beliefs and ours that it be very accurate. Again, I would argue that we don’t disagree on the necessity of repentance. We affirm with Luther that “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent’, he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.” I think I have documented that in my last post to the point that there really isn’t an argument here.
I can only imagine how you would respond to me if I were to say, when discussing our difference on the Lord’s Supper, that the Lutheran view on the presence of Christ in the elements is exactly the same as the church of Rome. I would expect that you would be upset and write to me pointing out the nuanced differences between your two groups on this issue. If I were you I would consider this a “gross” misrepresentation as I understand that term.
Further, what would you think if I responded to that critique with a similar response that you gave me on this issue? Again, I don’t consider your response terse at all. That being written, I do find it a little concerning.
I am a little concerned with your apparent contentment with misrepresenting us Calvinists as long as it isn’t gross as you understand those terms. I can assure you that a Calvinist, such as myself, would consider the misrepresentation of our beliefs in this episode as gross and its not a close call. To include Anabaptists within the Calvinist community isn’t an issue of systematic theology. It is a gross misrepresentation of Calvinists. Not only that, I don’t know their theology well enough, but it is also possible that Anabaptists would consider it a gross misrepresentation of them. Now, if I weren’t concerned with misrepresentation, at this point I would point out that the Anabaptists and Lutherans are in the same camp when it comes to the possibility of “falling away”. However, I don’t know either group’s position well enough on this topic to assert that.
I get it that we disagree on the Perseverance of the Saints. But our view on repentance includes the necessity for us to “cultivate it during our whole lives, and continue it to the last”, as Calvin wrote.
On that issue we are substantially different than a once-saved-always-saved approach or “eternal security ” approach of groups such as my former tradition of Independent Fundamentalist Baptists.
I don’t know whether you will accept my definition of “gross” on this issue. But I thought it was necessary to point out that and Calvinist would think so.
Maybe the advice I would give you is to be more restrained in asserting things like this about other belief systems that you have not studied well enough so that you would be able to articulate the nuanced differences and the adherents to that belief system would recognize their beliefs as you represent them.
This point of disagreement will not discourage me from continuing my practice of listening and enjoying your podcasts. Although, I do hope that you will start to care more about misrepresenting the views of others.
Your brother in Christ,
JT
JT,
Thank you again for your comments, and I will definitely take your advice about being more restrained in asserting things to heart. I appreciate your patience with me and with the show.