My second post was about my views on human choice and God’s sovereignty. For those of you who found this post confusing because I did not fully explain the concepts and thinkers I was using, let me offer my apologies. This post is specifically for you. (Just so I am citing my sources. The majority of this information came from Dr. James Railey’s Systematic Theology notes.)

John Calvin (1509-1564) is regarded as one of the greatest systematic theologians ever. His writings are vast and his biblical commentaries are exhaustive. He obviously had a very high view of Scripture. His major tenet is God’s sovereignty. In other words, God is not altered, impacted, or changed in any way by us. Some present-day examples of Calvinist denominations are Presbyterian, Reformed, Congregationalist, and some Baptists. While his writings are vast, scholars have summed up his basic beliefs in an acronym: TULIP

Total Depravity—the fall left human beings totally incapable of making themselves right before God
Unconditional Election—God has chosen some to be saved
Limited Atonement—God has provided the atoning sacrifice through Christ for those whom he has elected; the inevitable conclusion is that grace is not available to all
Irresistible Grace—the elect WILL be saved
Perseverance of the Saints—the elect WILL make it (once saved, always saved)

James Arminius (1560-1609) was a member of the Dutch Reformed Church (historically, extremely Calvinistic), who challenged Calvin’s theology with two major points of contention: 1) Calvinism made God the author of sin and 2) Calvinism denied human freedom. His writings are not nearly as vast as Calvin’s. Some present-day examples of Arminian denominations are Assemblies of God, Methodists, many Baptists, and most Pentecostal groups. His beliefs can be summed up with the acronym: TCURP

Total Depravity—although I am totally fallen and cannot save myself, I still must respond to God with belief
Conditional Election—God’s foreknowledge beforehand of my response (God exists outside of time)
Unlimited Atonement—Jesus has died for all, grace is available to all
Resistible Grace—his grace can be resisted meaning that people can choose not to believe
Perseverance of the Saints IF . . . —saints must persevere (work and struggle for righteousness); salvation can be lost, but this would be a major struggle

So this is Calvinism and Arminianism in a nutshell. Where does Luther fit in? Martin Luther (1483-1546) is sometimes called the “Father of the Reformation.” It was his writings and actions that began the Protestant Reformation of the early sixteenth century. Lutheran churches are present-day examples of those who adhere strictly to Luther’s theology. His major tenets are:

1) Sola Scriptura—the supremacy of Scripture
2) Sola Gratia—salvation is by grace and only grace
3) Sola Fide—through faith (response that is drawn from grace)

In his soteriology (view of salvation), Luther is almost entirely in-line with Calvin. He simply puts his this way: salvation is by grace through faith. However, faith is not a choice, but rather it is the “response drawn from grace.” Luther does not believe that free will exists. He makes this claim boldly and authoritatively in his book, The Bondage of the Will. So faith is not based on human action, but rather on what Calvin would call, “the irresistibility of God’s grace.” So, the choice to believe does not exist for Luther. We either encounter God’s grace or we do not.

A final thought:

A friend (thanks Chris) recently enlightened me with this knowledge: Luther questioned the validity of the Book of James (As far as I know, Calvin would not agree with this). He called it the "straw gospel." In other words, he questioned whether or not it should even be in the Bible. This is interesting in light of Sola Scriptura. How can we question the canonicity of one book without questioning the canonicity of all books? Furthermore, how can we hold Scripture to be supreme when we desire to remove entire books of the Bible?

Unfortunately, it is not possible. At the present time, if we are to call ourselves followers of Christ, we have no choice but to accept all Scripture as God-breathed. Without this foundational belief, our identity as Christians begins to fall apart. For example, what if I want to believe that Christ did not come in the flesh, but only appeared in spirit form on this earth (this is the major tenet of Gnosticism by the way). Now that I have this foundational belief, I can approach Scripture and just simply remove anything that does not support my view. I could take out major chunks of the Gospels. I could remove the majority of the Apostolic letters. I mean, why not? If all of Scripture is not God-breathed, then what does it matter?

Thoughts?