Comments

Hi Rick - interesting post. Will read it more carefully later on.

My initial thought on the subject is that Calvinistic limited atonement is preferable to the Arminian scheme, even if it falls short of the orthodox biblical doctrine.

Arminianism appears, on a superficial level, to say that Christ died for all. However, what Arminianism *actually* says, in effect, is that Christ died for *no-one*, since He cannot save us by His death unless we fulfil our side of the bargain (and so what really saves us is our "decision for Christ").

At least our Calvinist brothers and sisters recognise that, as JI Packer puts it in his classic intro to Owen's "Death of Death", "The cross *saved*; the cross *saves*"; and that we can sing the following words and truly mean it:

"He died that we might be forgiven,
He died to make us good;
That we might go at last to Heaven,
Saved by His precious blood"

I agree.

In fact, it was J.I. Packer's intro to "Death of Death" that turned me from a four point to a five point Calvinist way back when.

I could almost sign Dordt. If it had no history, and we didn't already have Concord, I probably would. But over time, I think the TULIP acronym overshadowed the propositions of Dordt, and created a monster.

This is where I think Article XI of the Formula is great. You get not only propositions, but some guidance in how to think about the doctrine. And guard rails are put up so that two ditches can be avoided. While unconditional election is affirmed, we are told we must not imagine it as a military muster where "This one shall be saved, and this one damned." (This was likely Chemnitz's writing.)

Great post! As a recent convert from Calvinism, it wasn't all that long ago that I was using the arguments you presented in your piece. The most common being that of "Did Christ die for unbelief?" I suppose another way of phrasing that question would be, "Does God save men apart from faith?" That's really what the question seems to be asking. Or maybe, "Can the atonement be applied without the instrumentality of faith?" Ironic then that a calvinist would turn around and use that same faith as a means of assurance. I mean, if it is negligible in one instance, then why not in another? Kobra

Hi Kobra,

Thanks.

Yes. People do get tripped up on "Did Christ die for unbelief?" It's a messy question, to say the least. It could mean "Did Christ die in such a way that unbelief could be paid for." Or it could mean "Did Christ die with the intention of saving those who would never believe in their unbelief."

Then there is the whole question of unbelief being a sin. Is it a sin? Yes. But it does not damn by being a more heinous sin than others. It damns because forgiveness is received through faith. Without that faith, you do not receive the forgiveness. But with faith, you can receive forgiveness even for past unbelief.

I know what you mean by the ironies of Calvinists and assurance. Some of these are understadable attempts at trying to make sense of the Biblical text and find comfort where you can. Others (like accepting Calvinism after an Arminian conversion without questioning said conversion) just seem to involve lack of consistency. Still others involve machinations I can barely follow.

"Does God save men apart from faith?" The Reformed do not deny that God saves men by grace through faith, but this in no way answers the question of the extent (and intent) of atonement. Both the Arminian and Lutheran make atonement potential salvation whereas the Bible expresses atonement as an intention of God to save "His people" and atone for "His people". Deuteronomy 32:43 "Rejoice, O nations, with His people; For He will avenge the blood of His servants, And will render vengeance on His adversaries, And will atone for His land and His people." When the Israelites made the sacrifices in the wilderness and in the temple, the sacrifices were never intended for the Caananites, nor the Egyptians but specifically for the people chosen by God. Likewise, when prophesying of the coming Messiah, God clearly explains that He intends to atone for the sins of His people. Atonement always was intended to cleanse a specific people, never made for the world in general. In Eze 36 wherein the New Covenant is prophecied, God intently states that "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleans you from all your filthiness and from all your idols." God's intent is to cleanse His people. Elsewhere this concept is further expressed: Titus 2:14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to *** purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.*** Far from the idea of universal atonement, here is a clear declaration that the intent of Christ was to purchase a specific people from every tribe, tongue, people and nation. This is exclusive language, not the all-inclusive view of the Lutheran or Arminian. Thus the question then remains... if Christ died for each and every person who ever lived, and if that death adequately paid for sin (and if unbelief is a sin), what keeps universalism from being true? The Lutheran Kurt Marquart responds, "Forgiveness exists “objectively” already before faith. Faith does not create forgiveness but only receives, accepts, appropriates it." Thus the Lutheran then seemingly makes faith the currency of atonement, purchasing the already accomplished and available atonement from the hands of God. Faith then becomes the one command that men must accomplish to be saved. But faith is not like that, faith is not a command that succeeds where the Law failed, faith is a result of grace, not the means to get grace. Faith is not one more command to be obeyed or broken but as a contrast to the works of the Law a graciously provided provision by God, not universal in nature, but specificly intended to save a number of unworthy sinners. Lutherans rightly state that faith "receives, accepts, appropriates (forgiveness)", but faith is not universal nor is forgiveness. God is not obligated, never was obligated, to provide a sacrifice for each and every person whoever lived, but graciously saves some undeserving sinners by graciously gifting them with faith. Atonement needn't be universal to be gracious. Yes, salvation is by grace through faith, but it is not of ourselves, it is a gift of God and it is gifted according to His purpose which He set forth in eternity past. Finally, as to the question of assurance, I'd like to have a Lutheran provide a Biblical exegesis of assurance, showing how they deny that faith or good works provide assurance, especially given the Scriptures which state otherwise.

"Then there is the whole question of unbelief being a sin. Is it a sin? Yes. But it does not damn by being a more heinous sin than others. It damns because forgiveness is received through faith. " So faith IS yet one more command men must accomplish to be saved?

Only the calvinist has a hypothetical Gospel. It is hypothetical in that Christ may or may not have died for a person unless he is elect. Thus the Gospel, which is a proclamation, is not a proclamation that Christ HAS died for sin, but that Christ MAY have died for your sin IF you are elect. Talk about hypothetical! Therefore, a calvinist preacher cannot stand before a congregation and preach that Christ died for their sins on the cross with any theological consistency. For there has to be that nagging question in the back of his calvinistic skull (if he is consistent) asking, "How can I know if they are all elect? I will be lying if I preach that Christ has TRULY died for all their sins." Also, calvinistic theology presents a hypothetical condemnation. In that, all those who are born elect are kinda condemned/damned (but not really) until they believe. That period of time is a mere technicality that is resolved usually by saying we can't mix the temporal with the eternal. Ironic considering that this is one of the very errors at the heart of the calvinistic theological system. All in all what calvinism is, and I was guilty of this myself, is a system that props up a false god, with a false love, expressed in a hypothetical proclamation of the Gospel, and primarily for God's self-gratification. If that isn't God made in man's image I don't know what is. Kobra

Mr. Burke, The "Gospel" you are proclaiming is a Gospel which says to the sinner, "You may have no comfort, because it is surely true that God wishes to save some and not others. You can have no certainty of salvation, for Christ may not have died for you." If anyone proclaims this Gospel, let him be eternally condemned. (Galatians 1) It is not the Gospel received by Paul from Christ and proclaimed to the whole Gentile world. It is not the Gospel of the God who died for the whole world. It is the Gospel of Satan, who wishes to rob the baptized of their comfort, make them fear for their salvation, and cause them to see God as an arbitrary being of hate. The God proclaimed by this "Gospel" is not God at all, and not worthy of our worship. Rather, worthy is the Lamb who was slain, who has justified all by his blood (Romans 3).

I notice that neither reply deals with the points I brought up. ----------------------- "Therefore, a calvinist preacher cannot stand before a congregation and preach that Christ died for their sins on the cross with any theological consistency." Kobra: On what basis is it stated that the Gospel is limited to the idea that 'Christ died for *your* sins'? Secondly on what basis is the 'hypothetical' call of the Gospel dimenished by the facts of atonement? Nothing in Scripture states that Christ -had- to pay for the sins of each and every person who ever lived to make the command of "repent" relevant any more than the sacrifices of the OT were required to apply to the Caananites for Rahab to be saved. ----------------- Chaz, You find comfort in the application of symbols which you must admit, in the end of things, do not obtain that which they represent in every case. The claim that somehow baptism is an objective (rather than subjective) means of assurance is without grounds. Many people come to faith long after they're infants, their baptism is not performed before they believe, but after, even in Lutheran churches. Yet the claim is that it is in the baptism that they're to find assurance not in their own faith and especially not in the works they perform (even though the large volume of Scriptures point to good works as evidence.) Yet faith is as much a gift of God as baptism is, or is claimed to be. Thus, ultimately you must admit that baptism is no less subjective for the adult convert than either faith or good works. ---------------- Also, your appeal to Gal 1 to condemn what I believe simply shows that it is you, not I, who are of the Judiazing spirit. The Calvinist recognizes that the Arminian and the Lutheran, while preaching a hobbled and corrupted message (as we all do), still in fact point ultimately to the Word as that by which faith comes, except in the cases of apostate denoms (ECLA anyone?) The point of Galatians is not, at all, that Christ died for each and ever person who ever lived, or even that assurance is found in one's baptism, rather, that it is not by the works of the Law that one is justified or even perfected. I ask that if you seek to condemn what I believe, you do so on the basis of proper exegesis and not appeals to great swaths of Scripture which have nothing to do with the topic. ------------------------------- Finally, Romans 3 speaks nothing of the -extent- of atonement. As often as you, Arminians, and universalists attempt to misapply Paul's words to express some idea of universal atonement, be it objective or 'real', the Scripture stand in stark contrast to this idea simply on the basis of God's which is clearly declared in the Old and New Testaments wherein God establishes that Christ purchased not "each and ever person who ever lived" or even "every tribe nation and tongue" but rather "men *FROM* every tribe and tongue and people and nation." ----------------------------------- As always, at the end of the discussion the Lutheran must throw his or her hands up in the air and claim that God's sovereign decree, predestination, atonement, and salvation are simply unknowable mysteries that we dare not delve into, no matter how often and clearly Paul and the other authors (and Author) of Scripture explain them.

Mr. Burke, You might want to look at the text of Romans 3 a bit more carefully. πάντες in Romans 3:21 is the subject of the verb "have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." In verse 22, we find the verb δικαιούμενοι. It is nominative plural, just as πάντες is. πάντες is the only possible noun for δικαιούμενοι to modify. All sin, therefore, and all are justified. As long as you deny this, you deny the Gospel and stand under Paul's condemnation in Romans 1.

When you cite the Scriptures about God saving His people, do you ask yourself what an Old Testament person would have thought that meant? They would have thought it meant Israel.

Here you must be careful. When you say that Christ bought people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation, many of those tribes, tongues, peoples, and nations did not exist, yet. So we are not in a position where Christ is paying only for sins already committed by people who already belong to his people.

As a Lutheran, I can say that Christ did not die for the sake of finally saving those who would never become his people. But that doesn't mean that if those people had heard and believed that there was something in the nature of the Atonement such that it could not save them.

I Christ died for each and every person who ever lived, and if that death adequately paid for sin (and if unbelief is a sin), what keeps universalism from being true?

Christ died. As Charles Hodge states, there is no difference in the nature of the atonement between Lutheran and Reformed. (Though I think there is between a Lutheran and a Reformed who conceives it as John Owen does.) Did it pay adequately for all sin? Yes. But even the Reformed say it is sufficient for all. But it was not intended to be applied where faith isnot present. That's what keeps universalism from being true.

Paul expresses the target of the justified in Romans three as not "each and every man who ever lived" but both Jews and Gentiles. The entire principle of justification is based on the 'gift by His grace' which is something that, in Romans 5, Paul expresses as something not universal, but specific in intent to "those who receive the gift of grace". The difference here is "in Christ" or "in Adam". Those in Adam are condemned and those "in Christ" are saved... one does not go from being "in Adam" to "in Christ" through any act or response of their own, but by the work of God who "reconciled us to Himself."

Faith then does not obtain something offered, as if the person had this one thing to do in order to merit grace, but rather faith is gifted to one so as to partake in the grace.

"When you say that Christ bought people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation, many of those tribes, tongues, peoples, and nations did not exist, yet. So we are not in a position where Christ is paying only for sins already committed by people who already belong to his people."

Nonsense. Christ's death actually saves those for whom it was given. The debt is actually paid, not potentially paid, the punishment was actually rendered.

You know full well that Charles Hodge would disagree with your major premise, as it was he who said:

“The sin of Adam did not make the condemnation of all men merely possible; it was the ground of their actual condemnation. So the righteousness of Christ did not make the salvation of men merely possible, it secured the actual salvation of those for whom He wrought.”

I don't appeal to Luther to claim we're in agreement on Particular Redemption, please don't attempt to appeal to Hodge to suggest that the Lutheran and Reformed positions are somehow compatible in this way.

The Hodge quote that you cited must be read in such a way as not to conflict with his other statements. "The secret purpose of God in providing such a substitute for man, has nothing to do with the nature of his work, or with its appropriateness. The righteousness of Christ being of infinite value or merit, and being in its nature precisely what all men need, may be offered to all men. It is thus offered to the elect and to the non-elect; and it is offered to both classes conditionally." (Systematic Theology, volume 2, page 555)

I can find little in Hodge's chapter "For Whom did Christ Die" that I could not sign. But his explanation of the extent of the Atonement is very different from that of other Reformed writers. They make it sound as if the Atonement was not only in the secret purpose of God not intended finally to apply to the non-elect. (The Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article XI, 26 states that "only the elect 'whose names are written in the book of life' will be saved.) But that it is of such a nature that it could not be, since the application was made at the cross itself.

As to who gets cited to prove what, I think you're off base. Luther may have at some points held to particular redemption. I know of quotations where he clearly does not.

But you may say: Who knows whether he also bears my sin? I do indeed believe He took away the sins of St. Peter, St. Paul, and other saints; they were pious people. Now if I, too, were St. Peter or St. Paul--. Do you, then, not hear what St. John says in this place: This is the Lamb of God, that takes away the sin of the world? Surely, you cannot deny that you are a part of the world of human beings; for you were born of a man and a woman, you are not a cow or a hog. In consequence, your sins must certainly be included as well as those of St. Peter or St. Paul. And you are not able to atone for your sin any more than these have been able to atone for their sin. No one is excepted here. [Martin Luther, from a sermon on John, 1537] WA 46,682f.

But what is really more important here are the confessional positions. No Lutheran is bound to Luther. We're bound to the Lutheran confessions. Likewise no Calvnist is bound to Calvin. They're bound to Reformed confessions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Rick, but don't lutherans believe that God attaches the gift of faith (for lack of better phraseology) to the Word and Sacraments. So, IOW, God both enables men (frees their wills) and offers the gift of faith through both Word and Sacrament. Thus, everytime the Word is preached and Sacraments administered, all those within earshot are enabled to believe though they may also resist. It seems to me the primary difference lies in where the Holy Spirit does His work (through W & S), and who immediately benefits from his work (all those who hear and witness Christ's testimony via W & S). Kobra

I would agree with that.

That's one reason I don't like Burke's suggestion that in Lutheranism we see faith as the one work we have to do to merit justification. We speak of faith as a gift and not a human contribution. But we do believe we receive the benefits of Christ's death through the divinely-created instrument of faith.

But this question as to the nature of faith is secondary to the nature of the Atonement. Burke talks about Christ dying for his people in such a way that the natural picture would be that this people already exists before Christ died for them. And that when this redemption is accomplished, there is no further need to apply it. Or that to suggest that it need be applied is to suggest that it was not fully accomplished.

"And that when this redemption is accomplished, there is no further need to apply it. Or that to suggest that it need be applied is to suggest that it was not fully accomplished."

This comes close to calvinism's position, but at least in calvin's position he doesn't deny the neccessity of application. What Calvin does do is make the giving of the gift of faith exclusive--only the elect are given the gift. Therefore, while Calvin would assert that the Spirit normatively utilizes Word and Sacrament to deliver the gift of faith, he would deny that the Spirit delivers faith to the heart of every person present. Whereas in lutheranism the gift is inherent in the Word and Sacrament, and is delivered to all those who hear and see. Anyway, that is where I believe the disconnect lies for us on both sides of this discussion Now we move onto "Irresistible Grace." ;-)

Kobra

"Thus, everytime the Word is preached and Sacraments administered, all those within earshot are enabled to believe though they may also resist. "

Ah... a Lutheran twist on Prevenient Grace? God enables all, they then of their new will choose? How does this square with the Scriptures that show that not all are enabled to respond or their "hearts opened"? Seems this is just a way for Lutherans to have their cake and eat it too... that is, to accept the Bondage of the Will via the fall but deny it at the same time. This is really little different than the Roman Catholic or even Arminian view of preveinent grace.

Kobra says, "Calvin would assert that the Spirit normatively utilizes Word and Sacrament to deliver the gift of faith, he would deny that the Spirit delivers faith to the heart of every person present." Is it therefore your position now that this is untrue? That the Spirit actively delivers faith to every person present?

How do you respond to Calvin Biblical warrant for such belief?

"Is it therefore your position now that this is untrue? That the Spirit actively delivers faith to every person present? How do you respond to Calvin Biblical warrant for such belief?"

Yes, I fully, and gladly, reject calvinism. I do so on the basis of a couple of verses:

John 1:18 - No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Colossians 2:9 - For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

You may have to extrapolate out from these verses to understand, but being a calvinist you should have no problem with logic. Here is a hint: All my beliefs about the who God is are rooted in the incarnate Christ. Kobra

I guess I don't deserve a proper, exegetical response, being a heretical calvinist. Since i cannot understand your nuance just throw verses at me and say "there, I've refuted you".

I though I knew you better than that, Kobra. I'm truly saddened.

Wow, I didn't mean to slight you with the post, Micah, but was simply in a hurry and didn't have time to post as much as I'd like to have posted.


First, let me explain why I did post what I posted hastily. What I intended was to show that even before we get to any other passages, we are starting in very different places. The passages I referred to are the basis for a lutheran understanding of God, and how he works. Calvin, on the contrary, begins with an abstract vision (faceless) God who is primarily made up of principle statements such as, "God is sovereign." This is what drives Calvin's theology to the point that no verse can be read without conforming it to the notion of God's sovereignty. The lutheran does not deny the sovereignty of God, but it isn't allowed to drive the lutheran's theology. Instead we desire that God be seen and explained through the person and work of Christ, and thus allow THIS to drive the theology.


So, because we are starting from such different places theologically--and neither of us know Greek--how is squabbling over grammar really going to help things. Besides, grammar alone is not enough for understanding a verse properly anyway. We must bring theology to it, and not simply rely on grammar, or we will be led astray, and just plain miss it.


Lastly, it is ironic that you would accuse me of running from "exegesis" when it appears that you ran from the exegetical points provided above by Chaz. Though, instead of believing you did run, I will assume the best and believe that you just didn't see it.


Your bro, Kobra

Romans 8:7 - because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so Romans 8:8 - and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Romans 8:9 - However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
Micah wanted me to address these verses in light of what I'd said, and so I will do so--briefly.
Lutheran theology does not deny that a natural man--in the flesh--has no ability to believe the Gospel and thus (on account of Christ's righteousness) be pleasing to God. Therefore, nothing I've said in the above posts has contradicted this passage. Rather, my posts have only contradicted a calvinistic reading of the passage. Kobra

You seem to acknowledge that Rom 8:7-9 are contrasting man in flesh vs the believer (man in Spirit). On what basis then does a person (according to Rom 8:9 specifically) go from being unable to please God to being able to do so, and, how does that compare to your understanding "everytime the Word is preached and Sacraments administered, all those within earshot are enabled to believe though they may also resist"?

I don't believe Romans 8:9 is addressing the conversion of a person, but simply the position of that person. In light of your reading of Romans 8:9, would I be wrong then to believe that Peter, Thomas, and John did not belong to Christ before the day of Pentecost? Were they not converted until the day of Pentecost? Kobra

No, for even in the Old Testament we find that believers are 'filled' with the Spirit, including David and others. Does, or does not, Romans 8:9 establish the contrast between the person in 8:7-8 and the believer, say, in Rom 7:25?

Certainly I affirm that a natural man, without God's intrusion, will never come to a knowledge of the truth. We agree there for sure. What I deny is that this passage sheds any light on how the Spirit normatively works for the salvation of man. It tells us that without the Spirit a man is lost, but that's about it. The reason I brought up Pentecost in my questions was that there is nothing inherent in the verse to tell one that there was ever a time when men walked without the indwelling Spirit and were still Christian. We have to bring a theology to the text in order to understand it rightly. Unfortunately, we are bringing to very different theologies to the text. Kobra

Kobra,
I understood why you brought up the Pentecost question, however, given that believers in the OT were also indwelt with the Spirit, it has no bearing on the question which remains unanswered even though you admitted previously that the passage did in fact speak to a contrast between the unbeliever (and unregenerate) vs the one for whom the declaration of Rom 8:1 is true.
Paul establishes this contrast in 8:4-6 and goes on to more fully explain the effects of sin on the unregenerate individual. It is in verse 9 that the contrast is fully explained.

6For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

The difference then between the person in vs7-8 is not simply that they've heard the Gospel or partaken the Sacraments, but rather they have been brought to life anew by the Spirit of God dwelling in them. This is promised in Eze 36 and elsewhere and is directly connected to the central issue of this blog post.
God intently regenerates and places His Spirit into those whom He desires not universally so that "all those within earshot are enabled to believe though they may also resist" but rather God intently regenerates those whom He desires that in or through hearing the Word they receive faith.

Paul says, "you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you."
On what Biblical basis therefore do you make the claim that all those who merely come under the hearing of the Gospel or partake of the Sacraments are "enabled to believe though they may also resist" and that (my words, which you agreed to) "the Spirit actively delivers faith to every person present?"
Is it therefore your position that the Spirit of God indwells each and every person and actively delivers faith to those who hear the Gospel? And if so, on what basis are they condemned by God, whatsoever, since they therefore belong to Christ, just as the Apostle states in v9?

Sorry I've been away for a couple days.

Kobra's statement that "Thus, everytime the Word is preached and Sacraments administered, all those within earshot are enabled to believe though they may also resist" is a possible statement of our position, but allows both good readings and bad readings. I would like to clarify what statements like this are trying to convey.

The first thing they mean to convey is that the Word which brings us to faith is the external word of the Gospel. The point in emphasizing this is so that someone doesn't have to say "Well, I heard the outward call, but since I didn't hear voices, I was not addressed."

As to the Spirit, Paul in Galatians asks, "Received ye the Spirit by works of the Law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Galatians 3:2) And in Romans he says "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" (Romans 10:17). He says this after asking how shall people hear without a preacher (10:14). So a preacher preaches, the word is heard, faith is created, and the Spirit is received.

Our point in saying that there is a possibility of conversion whenever the word is preached is to emphasize that it is the hearing of the word that creates faith.

If we go into the question of Election, it is clear that it is known that some will never believe. So is does it make sense to say it is possible for them to believe?

I think this is similar to speaking of Providence. We know that our days are numbered. If someone's years are numbered at 99, we know they won't die in a fatal car accident at 33. But we don't therefore take our understanding of Providence and retool our understanding of the strength of materials. We don't say that their car is made of invincible materials in order to explain how they won't die before their time. Their car being made of the same materials as that of the one who dies at 33, Providence still has his way.

Likewise with conversion. The same materials that converted one did not convert another. Yes, one was elect. But the non-elect received the same call. Sometimes that person received even more opportunities.

I would rather not say that to everyone who hears, their will is freed to believe, though they may resist. I would rather say that to everyone who hears, the message that could free their will to believe is heard, but they may resist. I don't believe that everyone ends up in a free, neutral position at some point. I remember early on trying that position on in the school cafeteria at Christ College Irvine (now Concordia University Irvine). My Lutheran friends pointed out that that was synergism, and shot it down. I attempted several ways to make it work. It didn't.

Yeah, Rick, thanks for clarifying the position. I did overemphasize to better contrast the calvinistic of dragging election into a place where it should never be allowed to intrude.

Also, what I've been learning is that in lutheran theology there is no ordo salutis (at least not like anything in calvinism). This is helpful as I shake off what remains of my calvinism.

To better clarify my position, though I believe you did well, I must say that I deny that the Spirit has to do two works when the Gospel is preached: 1) IN, UNDER, and AROUND the Word and Sacraments AND ALSO 2) IN the person who will believe. Rather I am saying that He works equally for ALL who are present, and that He works solely through Word and Sacrament. Therefore, all have an equal opportunity to believe the Gospel and receive Christ, and not just the elect. That was my point in the statement.

Kobra

Will no one attempt to answer Romans 8?

I definitely agree with #1.

#2 I agree with if you mean the Spirit need not work IN the person PRIOR to hearing. Or IN the person during hearing through some other means than hearing.

Equal opportunity could have many meanings. Those who hear and do not hear the Gospel do not have equal opportunity. Among those who do hear, as I stated, there may even be cases where considered as to the clarity of the preaching, the non-elect may have had better opportunity (e.g. those who rejected Peter's Pentecost sermon). But they did not believe. (Or believed and fell into final unbelief.)

Does God "work equally for ALL who are present?" If so, break that down further... does God "equally" work in the hearts of every individual present during the preaching Gospel, ie: does God actively do what He promised in the prophecies relating to the New Covenant (Eze 36, Jer 31 et al) in everone present? Again, please explain this view in light of Romans 8:7-9

My answer to your Romans 8 question can be found in my Romans 10 and Galatians 3 citations above. The Spirit is received through the hearing of faith.

The Spirit does not indwell anybody prior to hearing the Gospel. But in a real sense, the Spirit enters through the person's ear. (We are not talking about the Spirit's omnipresence here, since by nature, the Spirit could be said to BE everywhere. So that is not indwelling.) When the Spirit is not received through faith, people are said to resist the Spirit (Acts 7:51).

"When the Spirit is not received through faith..."
But from whence does 'faith' come? Do we not agree that it is a gift of God? Do you see faith coming apart from the gift of Spirit?

Is it your position that God gives the gift of faith but not believing to indivdiuals? Or is Kobra right in saying that by hearing the Word people are enabled to believe but also resist? if so, how is salvation not dependent on the individual to cooperate with God (synergism)?

You state: "The Spirit does not indwell anybody prior to hearing the Gospel. But in a real sense, the Spirit enters through the person's ear." And to a degree I agree with this position, but it is never suggested in Scripture that everyone who hears has the Spirit of God enter thru their ear. Rather, Scripture implies that some do not "have ears to hear" and believe the message of the Gospel and it is apparent from Scripture that the ability to hear and believe is not inherent in man...

Thus, returning once more to Romans 8:9, the Apostle explains the contrast this way: "you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you."

As our Lord says, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear...", that ability is part-and-parcel with the regenerative process worked by God. One is not regenerated BECAUSE of their faith, nor BY their faith, but prior to it, would you not agree?

How then is one regenerated? Again, returning to Romans 8, we find the answer:

11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

One is regenerated by the Spirit coming to dwell in them. This ties in directly to Eph 2:5 etc wherein God makes His people "alive together with Christ". It is not because of faith, but unto faith.

Micah, I did answer your question about Romans 8. I told you that it wasn't addressing the issue. I believe you are trying to force fit it somewhere that it doesn't belong. IOW, I believe that Paul is addressing believers and non-believers and not how those people became believers or remained unbelievers. Kobra

First, let me apologize for the lack of paragraph breaks in my posts. Haven't gotten the hang of that yet.
Second, you read me correctly, Rick. Glad we are on the same page for your sake. ;-)
Kobra

use < br > (no spaces) to make the cool paragraph breaks.