Thanks for your excellent article. Could you kindly link to my websit http://www.protestantism.co.uk

Iain

It burns my heart to hear that there are Lutheran pastors teaching the heterodox (or perhaps even heretical) belief that only Lutherans are Christian, or only Lutherans are going to heaven. It doesn’t surprise me, but it does disappoint me. That is NOT a Lutheran teaching, and such pastors should repent of their error.

My parishioners are specifically told to question our beliefs, to question me, and to question our denomination. I am confident that the Bible – and our interpretation of it – will survive even the most pointed questions. And if our interpretation cannot survive questions, perhaps there’s something wrong with the interpretation! I think that if a pastor insists that his people take what he says without question, it says much more about his insecurity than theirs.

The bottom line is, yes, you’re a Christian. You believe that you are sinful and you trust in Christ for your forgiveness, so I will see you in heaven where we can let God sort out which one of us was wrong – assuming we care at that point.

P.S. It’s you.

Here is where the argument breaks down (that is breaks down from having agreement). The church I am now a member of, which is a congregation of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, firmly believes “that Christ’s death on the cross was sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect.” So, clearly we both believe that Christ’s death is sufficient to save all of humanity. But the question is it efficiency? To me, this then rests in terms of being the elect or the reprobate? For the elect, they are going to heaven and are sinful, so it must be efficient for them.

Now the question is exactly what is the extent of the efficiency for those who are not the elect. Lutheran’s believe that one can not chose God, no matter what, but can freely reject God. So, here is where I have always been confused on, something that I have always inquired on since confirmation. If one does choose to reject God (and remains in this condition into death), then was Christ’s atonement efficient for them? After all, they are in hell. (Now, we can never know if someone truly is in the faith for that is the invisible church.) In looking at the [Luther's] Small Catechism, Question #140, I see biblical support for both camps. Am I interpreting the definition of efficiency wrong? Did Pharoah choose to reject God and then his heart was hardened or was his heart hardened because he was not part of the elect?

Now, both Augustine and Luther (at least at one point) held to a limited atonement. From what I understand is that the universal atonement was added after Luther’s death. I know that Luther, Augustine, Melanchthon, Calvin, Knox, Walther,… you get the picture… are all human. But the question then in my mind is, Augustine lived about 1200 years before Luther, and Luther retained from the Roman church all that was not specifically forbidden by scripture, so was Luther wrong or were those who came after Luther influenced by Arminian thought? Perhaps I am naive, but a lot of times I believe that the differences between some issues are merely semantics and how we define certain words. This is especially the case when I have posed this question to confessional and non-confessional Lutherans whose only reply is something to the effect that Calvin and Arminianism are just two ditches on the side of the road.

So, I guess what the whole issue, at least for me, comes down to is how we define efficiency. And for me, I don’t see where it really makes a difference (at least in terms of salvation) for my daily life whether there is limited or unlimited atonement. If one does not live a life in accordance with Christ’s mandate – i.e. they live openly in unrepentant sin – would you consider them Christian? Would a Calvinist? Would you be able to determine for a fact their eternal salvation based on that knowledge? Certainly not. After all, I/we can not see the hearts of man.

What is so interesting, in my eyes, is that Lutheran’s defend their doctrine so strongly, proudly announcing its superiority (didn’t Walther say that the evangelical Lutheran church is the true “visible” church???), yet often do not live it out in practice. It is interesting to note that of all of my friends who grew up in the Lutheran Church, none remain. Why? For the same reason I left, the result of an overly legalistic, close minded church that announces their superiority over others and yet professes to be of the Christian faith. I know this is not true for all Lutheran churches, but the question is if I am unable to find a Lutheran church that truly lives out the faith, that doesn’t live out 100% the Book of Concord, does that mean that i should abstain from attending church? In my education and training background, I have been taught that one learns by asking, from my theological training that Lutherans should ask why and show me in scripture. Yet in practice, when one asks questions, asks why, asks to be shown in scripture and for the definitions of what the fancy “christian” words such as Justification, Atonement, and such mean, the answer from the clergy often is not to question.

So if one truly believes what they believe, why are they not willing to defend it? Especially when they are ordained clergy?

Yet, despite all our warts, I still believe that at its heart, the LCMS comes closest to the true meaning of the Bible. If there is only one truth, as God declares, then it’s vitally important that we not just resignedly declare that it’s hard to understand but make every effort to comprehend what he’s revealed in his word. Being missional isn’t enough. After all, Mormons are focused on mission too. One must always test the teachings of a church against the only norm of faith and practice, the Scripture. In this test, I see the Calvinist churches falling short.

I appreciate your response. However, I don’t see anything addressing my question about limited atonement there. You talk about predestination, but it’s not the same thing. Limited atonement is the belief that Christ died only for the elect. In other words, he did not die for the sins of the whole world, but only for a certain number of pre-chosen people. I have severe difficulty reconciling this with passages like John 3:16-17 and 2 Corinthians 5:19-21, which specifically state that Christ reconciled “the world”. The Greek is Kosmos, which is not a limited term. It means everyone, and is used in other context to especially include those who are hostile toward God. While Calvin’s view might appeal to our logic, it falls short of the Scripture test and therefore must be rejected.

To me, this one teaching alone is enough to distance me from the Calvinist churches, because it denies the full atoning power of Jesus’ sacrifice. Especially when it comes to Christ, I’m not willing to compromise Scripture’s teaching, even a little.

Thoughts for consideration as you continue your journey.

What I saw in the Lutheran church in my area was an unwillingness to even address this issue. When I asked the confessional Lutheran Pastors in my area, the closest to a response I would get on the issue of predestination was Lutherans are right, everyone else is wrong. Perhaps it is my ignorance, but I never understood the Lutheran view of predestination – just accepted it as what was taught. Unfortunately, a lot of the things that I was taught was not confessional Lutheranism – like the fact that only confessional Lutherans would be saved.

To me, I feel that missions are the crux to how one views their faith. What I was taught in the Lutheran church was this – the only thing that the church need worry about was preaching the word (only in the church) and administer the sacraments. It was up to the Holy Spirit to do the work of God. Yeah, we could invite people to church and talk about our faith when questioned, but it was not the mission of the church to reach out beyond the believers, those known to be the elect based on their membership in the church. I know that this is not universal – clearly Pastor Fisk, Pastor Floyd, and Pastor Harrison show that.

So here is the question…the confessional Lutheran churches around me fight to preserve confessional Lutheranism, some of which often resort to name calling of non-confessional Lutherans. The centrality of Bible studies in the church were focused on preserving Missouri. The major mission project in my church when it was budgeted was the vicarage program – specificall funding the vicar we had. So, if the Lutheran church truly holds single predestination, truly believes that God intended all to be saved, why is that not lived out in their daily lives?

On the other hand, why is it that a church that teaches double-predestination, something that Augustine held to and I’m not convinced that at least at some point Luther held a view to, actually reaches out into the community? Is having the “right” faith but not living it out, that is having as James says a faith that is dead, better than having a faith that you live out daily and, by the Lutheran definition, is heterodox?

I don’t know God’s will. I don’t fully understand every aspect scripture. I am not a professional theologian, nor do I know even the slightest bit of theology that a seminary professor would know. But, honestly, the predestination issue is a non-issue to me. I have no doubt that there is an elect and this we are in agreement on. As far as whether God predestines the reprobate or not, whether Luther believed in double-predestination or not, has no effect on the way that I live my life nor should it have an effect on the way I approach missions.

To be honest, the whole predestination thing confuses the heck out of me. And from the answers I received from the Lutheran Pastors I asked, I wouldn’t be surprised if the feeling was mutual. Know too, that my departure from the LCMS was not 100% based on doctrine. Nor do I believe there is any Lutheran body that truly embodies that which they profess in the Book of Concord.

It’s not what you say you believe that you believe. It’s what you actually do. That’s what you believe.