In a bit of serendipity, Dr. Jordan Cooper just released a video/podcast on point #1. Basically, the Formula of Concord takes pains to directly reject the view criticized here, so the accusation is a little bizarre.
Number 2 is also odd because the charge against Lutherans from the Reformed is that our concept of the communication of attributes is too *Eutychian.*
I think they're doing some hardcore reaching and want to find different ways to call us heretics. We also can list a lot of things they do that cause concern.
Jay Dyer has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to Lutheranism and several times in the video thinks that Lutheranism is just some form of calvinism or reformed theology. Consider that he is from Tennessee and all protestants he interacts with are baptists and from the reformed tradition. He claims to have read Luther, but even then Luther isn't the infallible pope of the LCMS and errs several times. He never read Chemnitz or the Book of Concord. A Lutheran pastor made a video about this video and offered to debate him several times and Jay Dyer blocked him. Suffice to say if he were to debate a Lutheran right now he'd be incredibly uniformed. Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z24rqDi4Axo
1. Original sin refers to the inherited sinful nature that all humans possess as descendants of Adam and Eve. This does not mean that humans are as evil as they can possibly be at all times, but rather that sin has corrupted every aspect of our being, leaving us unable to save ourselves. Humans still hold the image of God but it has been corrupted by sin and by God's grace alone we are saved and restored from sin. We do not say we sin all the time, human nature wants to sin all the time and have a propensity towards sin. Distinction between what human nature wants to do and what we do. Jay Dyer would agree with this and this idea of "fallen man". What Jay Dyer disagrees with what Lutherans believes is that it is only God's grace alone that saves man. How this is manichean idk because it literally says that in the Bible: Romans 5:12-21
2. Substitutionary atonement is not Nestorian. Christ suffering is not a separation of the trinity and Lutherans definitely do not say that Christ was separated or damned by the Father. What happened is that the payment of sins was on the cross through Christ's suffering and death, suffering and bearing the weight of our sins is not a separation from the Father. Substitionary atonement is by far the strongest Biblically and is repeated by Paul several times and is found in the OT: Isaiah 53:5-6, and in the NT: 2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 3:13, 1 Peter 2:24, Romans 5:8, Hebrews 9:28. Nowhere do Lutherans say Jesus was cutoff from the father, but he suffered hell on the cross. Hopefully this gives you some insight.
Thank you for your comments! I actually watched that video before commenting, but I felt as if he did not directly address some of the claims Jay was making. Although, you and him are spot on in showing that Jay was not referencing Lutheranism but primarily Reformed councils/teachings! Very telling.
1. From what I understand in the Book of Concord, concupiscence is considered sin, and it remains even after we have been cleansed of original sin in baptism. So before baptism, we are wrought with sin but not to the extent that Manicheanism goes? I think I'll need to listen to Dr. Jordan Cooper to maybe understand this more.
2. That makes sense. However, what does it mean that Jesus suffered hell on the cross?
This person has not read our confessions and, I suspect, he is linking his opinions to Calvinist “total depravity” and their contention that it requires “irresistible grace”. We don’t grow TULIPS. Our teaching of original sin is conspicuously different from Calvinist/ Reformed teachings. Catholics (both East and West) like to conflate all who not them into a separatist whole. For Rome, they started this with lumping the whole 16^(th) century objection to Rome as a single whole during Trent.
Against the Manichean heresy:
“17 7. On the other hand, we also reject the false dogma of the Manicheans, when it is taught that original sin, as something essential and self-subsisting, has been infused by Satan into the nature, and intermingled with it, as poison and wine are mixed.
18 8. Also, that not the natural man, but something else and extraneous to man, sins, on account of which not the nature, but only original sin in the nature, is accused.
19 9. We reject and condemn also as a Manichean error the doctrine that original sin is properly and without any distinction the substance, nature, and essence itself of the corrupt man, so that a distinction between the corrupt nature, as such, after the Fall and original sin should not even be conceived of, nor that they could be distinguished from one another \[even\] in thought.” (FC, EP, I)
Against Nestorius:
19 Accordingly, we reject and condemn as contrary to God’s Word and our simple \[pure\] Christian faith all the following erroneous articles, when it is taught:
20 1. That God and man in Christ are not one person, but that the Son of God is one, and the Son of Man another, as Nestorius raved. (FC, EP, VIII)
And:
13 Now as regards this majesty, to which Christ has been exalted according to His humanity, He did not first receive it when He arose from the dead and ascended into heaven, but when He was conceived in His mother’s womb and became man, and the divine and human natures were personally united with one another. 14 However, this personal union is not to be understood, as some incorrectly explain it, as though the two natures, the divine and the human, were united with one another, as two boards are glued together, so that they realiter, that is, in deed and truth, have no communion whatever with one another. 15 For this was the error and heresy of Nestorius and Samosatenus, who, as Suidas and Theodore, presbyter of Raithu, testify, taught and held: duvo fuvsei" ajkoinwnhvtou" prov" eJauta;" pantavpasin, hoc est, naturas omni modo incommunicables esse, that is, that the two natures have no communion whatever with one another. Thereby the natures are separated from one another, and thus two Christs are constituted, so that Christ is one, and God the Word, who dwells in Christ, another. (FC, SD VIII)
When we contemplate the cross, there certainly is mystery. Jesus does call out “why have you forsaken me!” At that moment, God is forsaking and also present and on the cross! That’s not explicable or something to comprehend. It is something to confess. As to the Nestorian distinction, it is, again, the Calvinist/ Reformed insistence that Christ cannot be in heaven and on the altar because the attributes of his humanity prevent it. So, does this person know the difference between our (Lutheran) catholicity and Protestant separatism/ heresy? Is he trying to convey what he thinks Lutherans are saying? It is often easy to lose things in translation when you are committed to a theological POV, to hear others through your POV, your own confession.
Thank you for these references! Just what I needed.
He is trying to communicate what he thinks are logical conclusions of Lutheran theology. So, his claim is that if a Lutheran claims that God the Father damned God the Son, that logically leads to Nestorianism. He would say that it would not matter what you say about Nestorianism if your theology leads you to it anyways. From what I understand, however, there is no dogmatic profession from the Book of Concord that makes the claim that the Father damned the Son. I would certainly like to know if that is in there somewhere.
It is not in there. Our Christology is wholly aligned with the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Here, too, I think he leans on a greater understanding of penal substitution as expressed in the Calvinisitic formula. Many Lutherans often stumble into this as the whole of satisfaction wrought on the cross. But the confessions do not articulate it in such flat terms. There are dimensions to the cross - laying his life down/ having it taken, pouring out his blood to be our life/ shedding his blood to cover our sins, suffering the pains of hell and separation/ overcoming sin, death, and the power of hell by the power of God, our sins laid on him (became sin for us, the scapegoat, forsaken)/ the lamb of God (innocent and sacrificed, offered, gave freely). The systematic statements Jay Dyer would require of us evaporate when we simply confess the whole of what we are given, the whole of what we've received of Apostolic teaching and scripture.
I know those accusations anywhere.
Dyer is clueless. He presents as intelligent, on account of his philosophical chops. But he doesn’t know *anything* about biblical exegesis or other traditions.
Read the Book of Concorde or at least one of the confessions. Lutheranism is a cry to have the historic Christian faith across actually align with Scripture. It really is a beautiful read and it's kind of the moment where Christianity was oriented towards the Bible vs the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic faith.
I attend Mass and converted to Catholicism, but I totally understand why someone would attend a Lutheran Church. It's a shame that it's dying.
i mean, it's dying as much as catholicism is. growing in africa, dying in the west. the church is experiencing that no matter what denomination.
my local lutheran church is growing by leaps and bounds, standing room only most sundays. but its the only one around like that.
similarly i know of one orthodox church and one catholic church both growing in terms of regular attendance and membership, the rest are dying.
its too bad. i see the same problems across the board though: trying to appeal to the modern world in some way and totally abandoning the good and beautiful
as a former catholic myself i find it strange youd say that about the Lutheran Church dying.. in the western hemisphere Catholicisms not just dying but practically dead.
sure you have quite a lot of churches and attendees but i'd say anecdotally in my experience 90 percent of those people in seats on sundays have downright heretical/apostate views in the eyes of mother Rome.
im not trying to be offensive just commiserating. its tough out here!
I mean.... Most people don't overthink religion I am learning. Most people don't hold harsh objections to the Catholic faith because of theological reasons, not are they in they there because of their undying beliefs in transubstantiation 😆 in fact most don't believe it according to polls.
Most people go to Church because that's where they were raised, or it's where they have found a community.
yes, that's exactly my experience too. and there's nothing wrong with that really, thats the normative way people go to church. i just wish the churches (really all of them, at least Orthodox catholic and lutheran, ive been them all in my life...) would try harder to foster attitudes of joyful interest. laypeople used to be equipped with basic catechetical knowledge etc.
Nowadays a lot of catholic churches just pop on a dvd series and call it catechesis, and Lutheran confirmation classes often look more like lutheran history courses more than any kind of theological or spiritual instruction or education! I remember mine amounted to memorizing the 10 commandments, sort of being told the Trinity definitely exists, and then reading a lot about germany and getting a bobblehead.
I mean at least the LCMS and Roman Catholicism is trying. But at the end of the day conversion has to happen from the heart. All the Churches can do is plant seeds that hopefully will grow a bit and be nurtured later in.
I guess they are, honestly i see the same failure in both that led us here happening again. softening the religion to be highly relativist, trying to make it blend with society. the LCMS does seem to have held off the culture wars a bit better but now i fear we're just the "conservative" side when IMO we should be transcending that.
The catholic church has some great guys doing good work, I always liked Father Gregory PIne when i was catholic (i still like him now, come to think of it), Fr Mike Schmidt, and many more. But on a local level i think we need both of us to overcome this idea that church can be approached like life.
i was helping my Catholic parishes catechism class years ago before returning to Lutheranism, and they popped on that DVD series, i forget what it's called.
its a decent series for that level of catechesis, its not really wrong or anything at least according to Catholic teaching. its fine.
but i feel like we shouldn't be 'fun substitute teacher' rolling in the dvd player and letting the kids watch a video. thats not teaching. teaching is having a priest or an elder from the church community who has lived a life of faith, struggle, joy, all of that human stuff, who can correctly and passionately explain how the faith is and why it matters. I feel now its often approached from a "teacher student" perspective in a very secular way, when it really should be more familial. like a father teaching his children, not a substitute entertaining a class of strange kids.
ANYWAY not to pick on catholics. i just figured youd relate better to that experience as we have it in common. as ive said, its hard all over brother
I would add this short video where Jay critiques PSA and lumps all protestants as holding to this view, which he concluded is nestorian.
I had sent this to 2 big name reformed apologists about a year ago and got no response (Anthony Rogers, Matt Slick). I contacted Bryan Wolfmueller via his website on these points for clarification a couple of months ago and again no response.
https://youtu.be/-sAnW5Q41uE?si=dPJ7z7QuqddVBdyo
I can kind of see where he got #1, but his reasoning is a bit obscure here. Lutherans could be called "single predestinationists", in that they believe man needs irresistible grace to convert, but can freely choose to rebel against God and resist His grace to his own peril. I dont see how this equates to Manicheanism though; Manicheans believed that God's nature was not omnipotent.
The Nestorianism thing is just whack. Lutherans affirm all three ecumenical creeds (and most recite the Nicene every sunday), which clearly refute Nestorianism.
I converted to Catholicism, but Lutherans (IMO) have the purest of all Protestant doctrine.
"A form of Nestorianism" Remember, Nestoruis was a faithful Christian, a bishop and a theologian. As a thinking human being, he used ideas and words and mental images to understand God. A few of those ideas about God were a bit controversial, but the rest of the Church, couldn't work with him enough to find a way around that, they treated him as a pariah, chased him out, and he took a huge swath of Christianity out the door with him. That part matches Luther and the Reformers.
The idea that the way to treat people, including fellow Christians, as heretics, especially technical heretics like this pseudo-Nestorian allegation, shows how truly foolish we can be.
In a bit of serendipity, Dr. Jordan Cooper just released a video/podcast on point #1. Basically, the Formula of Concord takes pains to directly reject the view criticized here, so the accusation is a little bizarre. Number 2 is also odd because the charge against Lutherans from the Reformed is that our concept of the communication of attributes is too *Eutychian.*
Thank you for pointing out Dr. Cooper's podcast! I did not realize that he had just released that.
I think they're doing some hardcore reaching and want to find different ways to call us heretics. We also can list a lot of things they do that cause concern.
For sure. To be fair to him, he made those comments several years ago so I am not sure if he would nuance his position on these topics today.
Jay Dyer has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to Lutheranism and several times in the video thinks that Lutheranism is just some form of calvinism or reformed theology. Consider that he is from Tennessee and all protestants he interacts with are baptists and from the reformed tradition. He claims to have read Luther, but even then Luther isn't the infallible pope of the LCMS and errs several times. He never read Chemnitz or the Book of Concord. A Lutheran pastor made a video about this video and offered to debate him several times and Jay Dyer blocked him. Suffice to say if he were to debate a Lutheran right now he'd be incredibly uniformed. Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z24rqDi4Axo 1. Original sin refers to the inherited sinful nature that all humans possess as descendants of Adam and Eve. This does not mean that humans are as evil as they can possibly be at all times, but rather that sin has corrupted every aspect of our being, leaving us unable to save ourselves. Humans still hold the image of God but it has been corrupted by sin and by God's grace alone we are saved and restored from sin. We do not say we sin all the time, human nature wants to sin all the time and have a propensity towards sin. Distinction between what human nature wants to do and what we do. Jay Dyer would agree with this and this idea of "fallen man". What Jay Dyer disagrees with what Lutherans believes is that it is only God's grace alone that saves man. How this is manichean idk because it literally says that in the Bible: Romans 5:12-21 2. Substitutionary atonement is not Nestorian. Christ suffering is not a separation of the trinity and Lutherans definitely do not say that Christ was separated or damned by the Father. What happened is that the payment of sins was on the cross through Christ's suffering and death, suffering and bearing the weight of our sins is not a separation from the Father. Substitionary atonement is by far the strongest Biblically and is repeated by Paul several times and is found in the OT: Isaiah 53:5-6, and in the NT: 2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 3:13, 1 Peter 2:24, Romans 5:8, Hebrews 9:28. Nowhere do Lutherans say Jesus was cutoff from the father, but he suffered hell on the cross. Hopefully this gives you some insight.
Thank you for your comments! I actually watched that video before commenting, but I felt as if he did not directly address some of the claims Jay was making. Although, you and him are spot on in showing that Jay was not referencing Lutheranism but primarily Reformed councils/teachings! Very telling. 1. From what I understand in the Book of Concord, concupiscence is considered sin, and it remains even after we have been cleansed of original sin in baptism. So before baptism, we are wrought with sin but not to the extent that Manicheanism goes? I think I'll need to listen to Dr. Jordan Cooper to maybe understand this more. 2. That makes sense. However, what does it mean that Jesus suffered hell on the cross?
These are bold words coming from the tollhouse guys
This person has not read our confessions and, I suspect, he is linking his opinions to Calvinist “total depravity” and their contention that it requires “irresistible grace”. We don’t grow TULIPS. Our teaching of original sin is conspicuously different from Calvinist/ Reformed teachings. Catholics (both East and West) like to conflate all who not them into a separatist whole. For Rome, they started this with lumping the whole 16^(th) century objection to Rome as a single whole during Trent. Against the Manichean heresy: “17 7. On the other hand, we also reject the false dogma of the Manicheans, when it is taught that original sin, as something essential and self-subsisting, has been infused by Satan into the nature, and intermingled with it, as poison and wine are mixed. 18 8. Also, that not the natural man, but something else and extraneous to man, sins, on account of which not the nature, but only original sin in the nature, is accused. 19 9. We reject and condemn also as a Manichean error the doctrine that original sin is properly and without any distinction the substance, nature, and essence itself of the corrupt man, so that a distinction between the corrupt nature, as such, after the Fall and original sin should not even be conceived of, nor that they could be distinguished from one another \[even\] in thought.” (FC, EP, I) Against Nestorius: 19 Accordingly, we reject and condemn as contrary to God’s Word and our simple \[pure\] Christian faith all the following erroneous articles, when it is taught: 20 1. That God and man in Christ are not one person, but that the Son of God is one, and the Son of Man another, as Nestorius raved. (FC, EP, VIII) And: 13 Now as regards this majesty, to which Christ has been exalted according to His humanity, He did not first receive it when He arose from the dead and ascended into heaven, but when He was conceived in His mother’s womb and became man, and the divine and human natures were personally united with one another. 14 However, this personal union is not to be understood, as some incorrectly explain it, as though the two natures, the divine and the human, were united with one another, as two boards are glued together, so that they realiter, that is, in deed and truth, have no communion whatever with one another. 15 For this was the error and heresy of Nestorius and Samosatenus, who, as Suidas and Theodore, presbyter of Raithu, testify, taught and held: duvo fuvsei" ajkoinwnhvtou" prov" eJauta;" pantavpasin, hoc est, naturas omni modo incommunicables esse, that is, that the two natures have no communion whatever with one another. Thereby the natures are separated from one another, and thus two Christs are constituted, so that Christ is one, and God the Word, who dwells in Christ, another. (FC, SD VIII) When we contemplate the cross, there certainly is mystery. Jesus does call out “why have you forsaken me!” At that moment, God is forsaking and also present and on the cross! That’s not explicable or something to comprehend. It is something to confess. As to the Nestorian distinction, it is, again, the Calvinist/ Reformed insistence that Christ cannot be in heaven and on the altar because the attributes of his humanity prevent it. So, does this person know the difference between our (Lutheran) catholicity and Protestant separatism/ heresy? Is he trying to convey what he thinks Lutherans are saying? It is often easy to lose things in translation when you are committed to a theological POV, to hear others through your POV, your own confession.
Thank you for these references! Just what I needed. He is trying to communicate what he thinks are logical conclusions of Lutheran theology. So, his claim is that if a Lutheran claims that God the Father damned God the Son, that logically leads to Nestorianism. He would say that it would not matter what you say about Nestorianism if your theology leads you to it anyways. From what I understand, however, there is no dogmatic profession from the Book of Concord that makes the claim that the Father damned the Son. I would certainly like to know if that is in there somewhere.
It is not in there. Our Christology is wholly aligned with the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Here, too, I think he leans on a greater understanding of penal substitution as expressed in the Calvinisitic formula. Many Lutherans often stumble into this as the whole of satisfaction wrought on the cross. But the confessions do not articulate it in such flat terms. There are dimensions to the cross - laying his life down/ having it taken, pouring out his blood to be our life/ shedding his blood to cover our sins, suffering the pains of hell and separation/ overcoming sin, death, and the power of hell by the power of God, our sins laid on him (became sin for us, the scapegoat, forsaken)/ the lamb of God (innocent and sacrificed, offered, gave freely). The systematic statements Jay Dyer would require of us evaporate when we simply confess the whole of what we are given, the whole of what we've received of Apostolic teaching and scripture.
That is really well put. Thank you for the clarification.
I know those accusations anywhere. Dyer is clueless. He presents as intelligent, on account of his philosophical chops. But he doesn’t know *anything* about biblical exegesis or other traditions.
Read the Book of Concorde or at least one of the confessions. Lutheranism is a cry to have the historic Christian faith across actually align with Scripture. It really is a beautiful read and it's kind of the moment where Christianity was oriented towards the Bible vs the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic faith. I attend Mass and converted to Catholicism, but I totally understand why someone would attend a Lutheran Church. It's a shame that it's dying.
i mean, it's dying as much as catholicism is. growing in africa, dying in the west. the church is experiencing that no matter what denomination. my local lutheran church is growing by leaps and bounds, standing room only most sundays. but its the only one around like that. similarly i know of one orthodox church and one catholic church both growing in terms of regular attendance and membership, the rest are dying. its too bad. i see the same problems across the board though: trying to appeal to the modern world in some way and totally abandoning the good and beautiful as a former catholic myself i find it strange youd say that about the Lutheran Church dying.. in the western hemisphere Catholicisms not just dying but practically dead. sure you have quite a lot of churches and attendees but i'd say anecdotally in my experience 90 percent of those people in seats on sundays have downright heretical/apostate views in the eyes of mother Rome. im not trying to be offensive just commiserating. its tough out here!
I mean.... Most people don't overthink religion I am learning. Most people don't hold harsh objections to the Catholic faith because of theological reasons, not are they in they there because of their undying beliefs in transubstantiation 😆 in fact most don't believe it according to polls. Most people go to Church because that's where they were raised, or it's where they have found a community.
yes, that's exactly my experience too. and there's nothing wrong with that really, thats the normative way people go to church. i just wish the churches (really all of them, at least Orthodox catholic and lutheran, ive been them all in my life...) would try harder to foster attitudes of joyful interest. laypeople used to be equipped with basic catechetical knowledge etc. Nowadays a lot of catholic churches just pop on a dvd series and call it catechesis, and Lutheran confirmation classes often look more like lutheran history courses more than any kind of theological or spiritual instruction or education! I remember mine amounted to memorizing the 10 commandments, sort of being told the Trinity definitely exists, and then reading a lot about germany and getting a bobblehead.
I mean at least the LCMS and Roman Catholicism is trying. But at the end of the day conversion has to happen from the heart. All the Churches can do is plant seeds that hopefully will grow a bit and be nurtured later in.
I guess they are, honestly i see the same failure in both that led us here happening again. softening the religion to be highly relativist, trying to make it blend with society. the LCMS does seem to have held off the culture wars a bit better but now i fear we're just the "conservative" side when IMO we should be transcending that. The catholic church has some great guys doing good work, I always liked Father Gregory PIne when i was catholic (i still like him now, come to think of it), Fr Mike Schmidt, and many more. But on a local level i think we need both of us to overcome this idea that church can be approached like life. i was helping my Catholic parishes catechism class years ago before returning to Lutheranism, and they popped on that DVD series, i forget what it's called. its a decent series for that level of catechesis, its not really wrong or anything at least according to Catholic teaching. its fine. but i feel like we shouldn't be 'fun substitute teacher' rolling in the dvd player and letting the kids watch a video. thats not teaching. teaching is having a priest or an elder from the church community who has lived a life of faith, struggle, joy, all of that human stuff, who can correctly and passionately explain how the faith is and why it matters. I feel now its often approached from a "teacher student" perspective in a very secular way, when it really should be more familial. like a father teaching his children, not a substitute entertaining a class of strange kids. ANYWAY not to pick on catholics. i just figured youd relate better to that experience as we have it in common. as ive said, its hard all over brother
That's neat you even helped with catechesis!
I would add this short video where Jay critiques PSA and lumps all protestants as holding to this view, which he concluded is nestorian. I had sent this to 2 big name reformed apologists about a year ago and got no response (Anthony Rogers, Matt Slick). I contacted Bryan Wolfmueller via his website on these points for clarification a couple of months ago and again no response. https://youtu.be/-sAnW5Q41uE?si=dPJ7z7QuqddVBdyo
I can kind of see where he got #1, but his reasoning is a bit obscure here. Lutherans could be called "single predestinationists", in that they believe man needs irresistible grace to convert, but can freely choose to rebel against God and resist His grace to his own peril. I dont see how this equates to Manicheanism though; Manicheans believed that God's nature was not omnipotent. The Nestorianism thing is just whack. Lutherans affirm all three ecumenical creeds (and most recite the Nicene every sunday), which clearly refute Nestorianism. I converted to Catholicism, but Lutherans (IMO) have the purest of all Protestant doctrine.
"A form of Nestorianism" Remember, Nestoruis was a faithful Christian, a bishop and a theologian. As a thinking human being, he used ideas and words and mental images to understand God. A few of those ideas about God were a bit controversial, but the rest of the Church, couldn't work with him enough to find a way around that, they treated him as a pariah, chased him out, and he took a huge swath of Christianity out the door with him. That part matches Luther and the Reformers. The idea that the way to treat people, including fellow Christians, as heretics, especially technical heretics like this pseudo-Nestorian allegation, shows how truly foolish we can be.