Reformed and Lutheran Views of Assurance Contrasted 

Keep doing what you're doing mate, I'm Reformed but have been taking a good look at Lutheranism. I really appreciate your thoughts!

Pastor Cooper you are 100% spot on speaking about McArthur and Washer. When I was following them and struggled with assurance having a terrified conscience before a holy God they offered nothing but doubt and cast me back upon my works. I had no choice but to conclude I was not of the elect and was one of the people you mentioned that walked away from the faith. Praise God I heard the gospel proclaimed by a Lutheran minister and am no longer trapped in such a hopeless and gospel-less theology.

Jordan, about 5 years ago, I stumbled onto your critique of Paul Washer's preparationism and dear brother it has impacted my life for the greater. I'm so thankful for your testimony, which is similar to mine and can't thank you enough for your labor in this area of theology. God is good to us!

I come from a Reformed background and the work of the Presbyterian theologian John Robbins from the Trinity Foundation really set me straight on this issue. When you start looking to your own works and your own affections to be saved then you inevitably start doing works in order to have assurance, then we're right back at works righteousness. The Westminster Confession of Faith states that good works are the FRUIT of assurance, not the root of assurance.

Paul Washer and Macarthur’s sermons almost completely destroyed my faith. Thank you Pr Cooper.

I’ve been introspecting for the past 3 months and I’ve actually told people that I wanted to give up. I’ve been teetering on the edge of sanity some days. I’m thankful to have found your videos. Especially your breakdown of Paul Washer. Keep up the good work.

Man I glad you did this video. Reformed theology really created a legalistic Christianity that actually sent me to the hospital due to extreme introspection. You hit the nail on the head. It took many years to heal from this and I’m still dealing with it once in a while. as a wels Luthern I love Luthern teachings and theology. It cools the conscience like a cold fresh drink of spring water.

Thanks for that.. ive been a charismatic Anglican evangelist for years and never realised i held a Lutheran view on assurance. Ive preached against the extreme Calvinist view "fruit inspector" approach but your talk gave me a historical context.

To Paul Washers credit I have heard him encourage a man who felt like he wouldn’t measure up. Paul Washer said his actions and efforts and discipline were greater than his own because he was putting to much pressure on himself.

Thank you, Dr. Cooper!

As a Calvinist, I would like to know how 2 Cor. 13:5ff. and Heb. 12:14 can make sense given the Lutheran understanding of assurance. The verses say: //5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?---unless indeed you fail to meet the test! 6 I hope you will find out that we have not failed the test. 7 But we pray to God that you may not do wrong---not that we may appear to have met the test, but that you may do what is right, though we may seem to have failed. // Heb. 12:14 says: Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. If Lutheranism were true, wouldn't Paul's original audience just have to look to their baptism? Wouldn't there be no point in the author of Hebrews to enjoin his readers to pursue/strive for holiness because without it no one would see the Lord?

Ive never heard this perspective before. Dr. Cooper, Thank you for doing this study. Super insightful AND HELPFUL. *Is there a book out there that focuses on the Lutheran view of assurance, as you've explained it here in this video?

Music to my ears 🙌

Really like this video, thank you. Could you make or have you made a similar video On Arminianism?

I totally agree with you about Catholicism being more on-point than the John MacArthur types. When we were wrestling with leaving our Reformed upbringing, I found myself saying “Limited Atonement is 100 times worse and less scriptural than praying to saints”. I am so thankful to now be free from a tradition that told me that Jesus didn’t die for the whole world, that I couldn’t be sure of my salvation, and that people in Hell were there to satisfy God’s desire for wrath. We’re becoming members of an LCMS Lutheran church in just a few weeks, and I have so much PEACE now. ❤️

Thanks for the great video. God bless!

Catholic here: despite our theological differences, I really appreciate the clarity and depth of your analyses. Very interesting to explore soteriology from a Protestant standpoint!

Thanks for the answer. Makes the differences clear. Hope to cross paths again sometime.

Very good content sir. Thanks!

i have a question could it be in the reformed camp they have alot of gnostic infulences withbin there theology the way they sound sounds like some of the gnostic ideas of searching with in. just a question?

Also, I am not a Calvinist, but Calvin does provide a way for people to know they don't have false faith, and he doesn't base it on an analysis of one's own works. He says those with real faith have receive a sense of absolute assurance that those with false faith never receive. Therefore, in Calvin's view, true faith can be known when when one senses absolute assurance.

That’s a very interesting point about Calvinist asking that question about “wanting to go to hell.” I actually just did a video on my channel based on a portion of Luther’s Romans commentary where he talks about that exact idea, and basically it appears that this is an application of the law: that to be perfect is in fact to desire to suffer hell of it was God’s will… that is the perfection demanded of the law. Meanwhile Christ did prefer to go to suffer for us, fulfilling all righteousness of the law. Thanks be to God.

How do you handle the scripture regarding being dead in our trespasses and sin? I’m genuinely asking. Reformed teachers will point out that dead men cannot make moves and we are incapable of making the choice outside of God intervening.

Just a little confused. How can God have the intent of saving everybody with sending his Son knowing that everyone is not going to be saved? Ironically, though I don’t understand this area, I do understand the universal grace concept (may not agree though) but still presented well.

Respectfully, do you not think that you are being unfair to Calvin with regard to the Trinity? I think that you have misread Calvin's understanding of the autotheism of Christ, especially when he does explicitly say in the Institutes that: "The Scriptures teach that there is essentially but one God, and, therefore, that the essence both of the Son and Spirit is unbegotten; but inasmuch as the Father is first in order, and of himself begat his own Wisdom, he, as we lately observed, is justly regarded as the principle and fountain of all the Godhead" (Institutes 1.13.25). and "Although the essence does not contribute to the distinction, as if it were a part or member, the persons are not without it, or external to it; for the Father, if he were not God, could not be the Father; nor could the Son possibly be Son unless he were God. We say, then, that the Godhead is absolutely of itself. And hence also we hold that the Son, REGARDED AS GOD [my emphasis], and without reference to person, is also of himself; THOUGH WE ALSO SAY THAT, REGARDED AS SON, he is of the Father. Thus his ESSENCE is without beginning, WHILE HIS PERSON HAS ITS BEGINNING IN GOD. And, indeed, the orthodox writers who in former times spoke of the Trinity, used this term ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE PERSONS." (same place). I think that your statement is a misrepresentation of Calvin's own position which he lays out quite extensively in the institutes. Calvin AFFIRMS the eternal generation of the Son, he states in many places in Book 1 Chapter 13 that the son has his person from the Father. He even quotes Athanasius in defense of this, and though I know that John Murray may have asserted otherwise, a fair reading of Calvin sets it as being congruent with church tradition before it. So, you don't have to totally agree with Calvin, but misrepresenting is not helpful.

with respect, the "means of grace" doctrine taught in lutheranism will always keep me reformed because it sounds like i'm doing something to "receive" grace and that im not saved by grace alone WITHOUT having to 'DO' something, thereby contradicting romans 11:6.

13:00 - I have just read J Mac's book "Saved Without a Doubt," and the checklist is actually what the book is pretty much about. I have a few things that I can't check-off confidently, so I'm working on them (loving the church more by becoming involved, helping out where I'm talented (baking), and looking for opportunities to share my faith more). It is confusing, knowing I can do nothing to earn salvation, yet I also just read Matt chapter 25. I feel I am the servant who buried his master's silver, and I'm desperately digging it up, looking for how to invest it before he returns! The sheep and the goats are separated because of what they did for one another, and I know I don't do enough. But Jesus did it all -- I can not earn His favour. It is confusing.

Well, as long as they baptise in the triune name and partake in the the Lord's Supper, aren't they saved by His sacrifice just like the rest of us? Or does it require something special in their hearts for the sacraments to work? If so, what does it take, and how do you know when you have it?

Can you please link the podcast that you reference in regards to universal objective justification?

Wow! “Luther would be harder on MacArthur than he would be on Rome.” Bold! I like it. Does that mean that the Eucharist is better than a symbolic view on the last supper?

I just listened to the full podcast that this video was part of. Since you didn’t post the full podcast on RU-vid I wasn’t sure where to ask this question. But I’ll post it here anyway. In part of your podcast you mentioned the place of self examination and basically stated that first John wasn’t written so that we might know that we truly believe. That it wasn’t giving tests to see if our lives match up with what John says a true Christian will. But this is exactly what John states in first John chapter 5 verse 13 “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” what things did John write in his first epistle that those who read it would be able to determine if they had truly believed?

I'm probably not understanding correctly, are you saying once a baby is baptized they are saved and as they grow up, if they continue to attend church and receive the Lord's supper and hear the word of God they stay saved?

I'm up to 3 minutes, and this is way over my head, lol. Interested to see how Lutheranism differs from my reformed swaying, after agreeing with and learning from videos by Lutherans (Steven Kosar, Fighting for the Faith, Longing for Truth1).

Yep. 19:00: I've not only seen Christians leave the faith due to the torment and uncertainty of "Is God going to save me?" Not only have I seen it, I've experienced it firsthand. In the Eastern Orthodox system, there really is no assurance of salvation. However, if any assurance is to be found in the Eastern system, they say it springs from the character of God as loving and humble. We can have assurance that God's judgments are always right and good, regardless of where we individually end up. Although the East is also less occupied with "where we end up" (i.e., "going to heaven") and more with Theosis or union and deification. Strange to me that EO aren't all universalists like David Bentley Hart. When I synthesize all the views and scriptures on assurance, my personal conclusion is in agreement with Lutheran position: my baptism mixed with faith is objective fact that I am in Christ and He is in me. The Baptismal rite is the certificate of justification and "washing of regeneration," (Titus 3:5). I personally think our God is so loving and merciful that one really would just have to reject all His grace in a blasphemous way, consistently and proudly, or fall into grave sin to the point where he loses his faith, to lose one's salvation. I don't see our God as a cruel dictator stomping around in heaven looking for someone to condemn. Rather, our God seems to me to be always looking for loopholes and ways to set aside His own rules and even His own logic and ontology to rescue us! My belief is one would have to really try to wind up in Hell. It's not a place anyone winds up by accident.

If there's one thing Paul washer helped me with was getting serious about my relationship with God. I was a very apathetic nominal Christian. He really hammers in on true repentance because of what Christ did for us. I've listened to probably over 100 hours worth of his sermons and lectures and I honestly didn't know he was Calvinist until someone told me. I don't think I can recall one specific time that he spoke about predestined election for salvation. If someone can give me an example I'd like to see it.

Great video and I appreciate the insights. There's a lot to the Lutheran faith I admire and have benefited from over the past year, so I enjoy learning more. I'm curious what you think the Lutheran rejection of perseverance of the saints does to assurance. As a non Lutheran, that to me seems like it'd make it impossible to have true assurance, knowing I could have real faith, lose it, and be condemned. Especially if holding onto that faith depends on me(even if it's through means of grace, I still have to choose to receive them). I'm curious what a Lutheran response is to that?

I have never heard washer say you must look inside for assurance

27 minutes is not enough time to truly give a true critic of the reformed view of assurance. Much of what is brought up was the fringes of the reformed camp. Sorry not convinced, but I appreciate the video.

The thing that you are missing in Paul Washer and John MacArthur's theology, is that if you examine yourself, and see that your fruit is bad, then you flee to Christ in repentance and faith. And that is where your assurance is. It constantly points you back to Christ. As Paul Washer teaches, the more you progress in Sanctification the more you'll start to see how sinful you are, and the more it will drive you to the Cross. The Cross is your assurance, but it must be a real assurance. One that is reflected in Sanctification, and Ongoing Repentance. It's not like you reach a point where you look at your works and go, "Job done." and dust off your hands, with a satisfied grin on your face. No. You may examine yourself and see the fruit of the Spirit growing in your life, and praise God for that, but again, you'll still see the flaws, and that will drive you ever back to the Cross, ever back to the true font, that alone can wash away our sins. And the whole time, you must confess and believe, that He who began a good work in you, will complete it. That is assurance. EDIT: That being said, I hold to Unlimited Atonement, and to the Biblical position that a person can truly Apostatize, by hardening their heart and willfully returning to their sin, and refusing to repent. So I should add, that as Dr. Cooper said, the biggest source (and foundation of our Assurance) is understanding the extent of the Atonement, and knowing that the universal desire of the Father is that all will be saved, and that the intent of the Father in sending the Son and the Spirit is that all would be saved; and that the universal intent of the Son on the cross was to die for the sins of all people; and that it is the intent of the Holy Spirit that He apply this salvation to all people. Therefore, knowing that God is for us, who can be against us? Trust in Christ, and you will be saved.

1 John was literally written so that you have assurance of salvation (1 John 5:10-13 I add the prior verses so you know where your assurance rest in). So Paul Washer when he walks anyone through this normally goes through 1 John and sometimes if they still doubt he strongly encourage them to commit a gross sin, why because when they naturally say no he ask why not after all eat drink cause tomorrow you die, they normally say I can't, he asks why, and almost universal if they are of God (because 1 John also talks about those who are His will remain in Him 1 John 2:19) because I fear Him. And when they say that they realize I am saved because God has put His fear into man in his fallen state cares nothing about God.

John Calvin explains it thoroughly in his commentary on Acts 17:26-30...that God 'offers Himself in the gospel' to all men (meaning that T.Beza seems to have misrepresented J.Calvin, maybe to have a more logical systematic 'assurance' for faith).

I listened to this once again after some time. I do find a bit of ambivalence and a quickly glossed over issue which in the end lands the Lutheran not too far away from the dilemma than what is said for Reformed. By stating that the Lutheran God works through universal grace that can be resisted by human effort then I can never have assurance that i won't one day rise up and ultimately resist grace.

The checklist from MacArthur is in the back of the study bible

What if someone is baptised and does not believe in Christ?

Genuine question: what passages would you use to show that baptism & the lord's supper are intended to provide assurance of saving faith (i.e. salvation)? It seems that's precisely the question 1 John is intended to answer ("how do you 'know' that you have 'come to know' Him?"), and John does so by pointing to various things (do you love God, keep his commandments, love your brother, have the inward testimony of the Spirit, etc). I don't see John pointing to the sacraments for assurance, which, to me, significantly weakens the Lutheran's argument here. Thanks for the video!

Thanks for bringing us up to date on Martin Luther's understanding of assurance. I am neither a Lutheran or Presbyterian so the question I have is, has God called us to metaphysics or simple faith in the words of Christ. The greatest Objectivity we could have is the scriptures themselves it is the "More sure word of prophecy" according to Peter. Latching on to scripture and simply believing them is better than the lord's supper or water baptism. Paul expressed the fear that many might be "corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." Truth is objectivity can be just as misleading as subjectivity. Scripture says, "Faith comes by hearing, (not by sacraments) and hearing by the word of God. The problem with most of us is knowledge itself. The more knowledge we accumulate the more our conscience is quick to remind us of our increased accountability. I suppose this is why James warns us not to be many teachers for he says,"We shall receive the greater condemnation." I guess you could say that increased knowledge should produce increased acts of duty. In other words the fruits of the Spirit worked out in action. When this is not the result all we can expect is inner turmoil, self contradiction and recriminations. If Christianity only existed in faith and knowledge it would be less troubling for our conscience, but alas it also requires obedience. Unfortunately for some of us there is no such thing as auto pilot in the christian faith.

Thanks Jordan for your videos. On the assurance of salvation I'm not convinced being baptized provides this assurance any better than some alternatives you discussed. Some of the baptized also fall away from the faith. The problem with systematic theology (I say this as someone who does appreciate systematic theology a lot) is that is is trying to account for mysterious things which are not always clearly explained in the scriptures e.g. why some people hear the Word and others not. We do our best but no system can account for everything - nevertheless there are systems which are clearly more faithful to the scriptures and orthodox than others. I appreciate many aspects of reformed theology, but some aspects struggle to remain convincing in light of scripture e.g. limited atonement, nevertheless what it is trying to do in the system (or any point in any system) is crucial to understand. The system helps to get our head around the teaching of scripture, understand areas where we know much and where little, what teachings are more in line with scripture, which less and which are out of line, what tensions exist, what passages talk to which pastoral questions and why, etc. Is it your view that we have to absolutely choose one system over the other assuming you agree with what I have written? What aspects of Lutheranism are you less comfortable with? Would you have been happy to remain in the Reformed movement if Lutheran church membership was not available for you? Sorry a lot of questions here. Peace!

Ps.149:4 promises assurance of 'salvation' to God's elect...those following the Shepherd 'of the sheep'.

I'm 1689. I've been looking into Lutheran thought, because I'm a big fan of Luther's writings. I like what you had to say about the objectivity of the sacraments. I just don't know how I could ever get away from the 5 points of Calvinism. The idea that Christ died for me and left it up to me to accept Him is the least assuring thing I can conceive of.

I would point out that Calvin would be equally as harsh, and arguably did so in his dealings with the Radicals, as Luther towards MacArthur and Washer. Calvin also believed that one should look to their baptism for assurance. (Institutes Ch 15, p. 1304, 1306-1307, Calvins Commentary 1 Peter 3) From a Historical Theology and Confessional standpoint there is nothing truly Reformed about either, technically not even the Five Points. The Canons of Dort, the confessional defining of the Five Points, defines Unconditional Election as covenantal foundational and includes the presumptive election of covenant children. (First Head, Art. 17) Hence, no Baptist can truly be a Five Point Calvinist as defined by its confessional standard.

Jesus Objective Statement of assurance: John 6:37-40 (ESV) [37] All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. [38] For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. [39] And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. [40] For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

There's something to grab onto Romes sacraments....I agree. A works Gospel.

Thank you for an excellent presentation. I completely agree with you about MacArthur and Washer (there are others too). They teach that assurance is achieved through introspection, an analysis of the fruit of our faith. You are expressing the truth, that assurance is objective, not subjective. But this is where I must disagree with you in love, that assurance is not achieved through looking to the objective truth of our water baptism, but through relying upon the objective truth of Christ’s active and passive obedience FOR me. Both justification and assurance are by faith in Jesus, not through the sacraments. But again, I thank you for your pleasant presentation. God bless you

Lastly, Lutherans believe you can loose your salvations…enough said !

Brother Cooper, i love this video. However, you were critiquing Calvinism Dispensationalism.... but not reformed theology. Reformed Theology does not teach what Washer or MacArthur teaches. In Reformed Theology, the object is Christ Alone. Faith is simply understanding, believing, and assent. Asking the question "how do I know I am saved" or "how do I know I am the elect?". We emphasize not our works but our faith in Christ. We believe in the 3 fold division of faith (understanding, assent, and believing). I dont point to their work but the gospel. In other words, do you believe the gospel its for you, do you understand the gospel, do you agree with gospel? I think your issue is that you are forgetting or avoiding the other doctrine of Reformed Theology which is that faith is a gift. The means of Grace are landmarks to assure us and to point us to the gospel.

Paul Washer has always appeared to me to be a sombre character, perhaps more melancholic in disposition. Macarthur appears to be on the other end though, just in terms of his natural temperament. The introspective teaching which you have explored here regarding those trends within the popular reformed culture is particularly dangerous to those intuitive melancholic types who are already predisposed towards introversion, rather than extroversion. I am of this disposition and I have observed that we are accustomed to bifurcating between the inner and outer worlds. Quite regularly our inner world appears to be more "real," than the outer world, which is made up of appearances. Incidentally, this is also why these types of people are drawn towards dualistic philosophies and theologies that are quite "mystical." I was drawn to Platonism for this exact reason, though it only reinforces this kind of mental solipsism, which goes hand in hand with certain idealist views of reality that hold the mind as the chief architect of how we experience reality. It, of course, goes without saying that this manner of teaching throws objectivity out the window and if the right life circumstances are presented in the form of personal misfortune, can quickly result in nihilism and just plan despair. The antidote for those of us who are Christians and care about theological positions is to lay the emphasis upon Christ as the objective revelation of God and one we can experience tangibly as in the Lord's Supper. This is precisely what has attracted me to Lutheranism. A worship style that isn't solipsistic, as most contemporary worship tends to be, where you are never quite certain as to whether you are experiencing God or yourself-ergo something liturgical with a rich connection to our shared Christian history. In addition, it must also be sacramental with the accentuation of God as given for us in Christ through participation in the Eucharist. These two themes, liturgy, and sacrament are life-changing for one who already has an understanding of the gospel and has grown tired of mere words (as tends to be the case even in Christian academic circles- where life-giving truth is buried under a pile of hairsplitting footnotes) and the reality of the gospel must be experienced afresh. Lutheranism, then, has been for me a liturgical, evangelical, and sacramental revitalization of my faith.

Does Lutheranism give room to maybe sound like a MacArthur or Paul Washer for those who are false professors? I 100% agree that those who are genuine need to take hold of something objective & outside of themselves, but I live in a Bible belt area with majorly false professors who do not know the sin-killing life that the Christian life demands, and who place their assurance in a sinners prayer or altar call. Certainly we cannot continue to give them false assurance by telling them to look outside themselves, when the issue is inside. Jesus says you’ll know a tree by it’s fruits. I’d love to hear any Lutheran perspective on tackling nominal groups such as these

How do you get completely away from your own works in this discussion? If faith is alone but never remains alone, that means that anyone with a true saving faith will produce good works without fail. And thus, John 5:29, those who have done good will be raised to resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. This always drives one back to look at their own works. How can it not? And the matter of fact is, doesn't scripture itself lead us to that? I like the focus on objective reality, such as receiving grace through the sacraments. It's appealing to me. But I can't get past the fruit as a part of assurance. John 15 says any branch that does not produce fruit is cast into the fire. And the most specific instance of this is in 1 John 4, dealing with "confidence for the day of judgment." (vs 17) This passage says that perfect love casts out fear of judgment. In the passage, perfect love is defined as, "if we love one another, God abides in us and His love has been perfected in us." (vs 12) So the passage seems to be saying that the love of God, which is received through faith (vs 15-16), gives us confidence when we abide in it. We abide in it when we believe it and when we love one another. We love one another because He first loved us. But all of this is wrapped up in our assurance. That is what John is communicating here. Isn't this what Jesus also communicates? If you do not forgive others their trespasses against you, neither will your Father in heaven forgive you. These are the things that make the completely objective view hard for me, even though I would prefer the objective view. Of course, there is the Objective fact that God has loved us through Christ, and receiving that love may have the effect of filing us with a love for others. Perhaps, by believing and enjoying the objective love of God to us, we can be motivated to love others, not just as an example or common influence, where we of ourselves emulate God. But rather, we may love because in loving others, the love of God dwells in us. So faith, receiving the love of God, and loving others are closely linked. Because in some sense I receive(or abide in) God's love when I love others, so this command is not burdensome. But I suppose believing God's love for us is also an objective reality because of the incarnation and crucifixion, but do we enjoy the fruits of that reality without living it out? Maybe our problem is looking at ourselves to test whether we're in or out, rather than reckoning it to be true that since He died for me I can abide in His love and likewise love others. That way we can feel that assurance while looking outward, at others, rather than inward at ourselves.

I am not sure the limited / unlimited atonement plays a role in assurance. I have assurance because I know Christ died for me and took all of my sin , and perfectly satisfied for me. But did Christ do that for my neighbour ? How would I know, I do not judge others, I live it up to God. Assurance is given by the Holy Spirit that through the word reveals to us that Christ died for us, but the Holy Spirit does not reveal to us whether Christ died for others or not. The “for me” is what matters in salvation, regardless whether Christ died for other people or not. Also I am very concerned with anybody that tells me they came to faith when they received their infant baptism ? How do they know ? They could have been sanctified in the womb like Jeremiah and John the Baptist for all I know. I trust the conversion of a Wesley or a John Bunyan , or my conversion for that matter, where all of us can point to a moment in time in our adult lives when we suddenly trusted that Christ alone and his righteousness alone is what God looks at to declare us saved. I cannot tell if somebody that tells me they came to faith as infants when water was poured on their heads is born again, I certainly cannot, specially when they are making no confession whatsoever that Christ’s death and resurrection is the sole cause of their salvation.

Interesting conversation. My understanding is that Luther didnt give Zwingly and his followers much assurance when he condemned him at the marburg colloquy. If I have missed something here please let me know.

26:16 bookmark

When parents brought their children to Jesus, the disciples told Jesus to send those snot nosed children away. Jesus looked into the crowd, saw the 3 elect children and told them to send the 297 other children away. Right!?! Not at all. He told them to forbid them not and blessed them ALL. Why would He do that if Calvinism were even 1% true? TRUTH IN LOVE

Calvin's view of assurance was a Biblical one of not looking to inward impressions or self-evaluation of performance but of looking outward resting on the Finished redemptive work of Jesus. To this, the Holy Spirit bears witness to our spirits. Subsequent generations of Calvinists muddied and mutated this finding expression in some of their confessions and brought works into the equation. This was pronounced in the preparationists among 17th century Puritans and precursors to the likes of John McArthur, Paul Washer and Stephen Lawson today. Their extreme Lordship Calvinism was not what Calvin taught and more to the point, is not according to the Scriptures.

The elect are the chosen people, the children of Israel, i.e. the Jews. Wait a minute: Psalm 117 suggests, even people of a heathen/pagan background could be part of the elect? Is the talk about „ the elect“ referring to individuals or is it about the question, if God might welcome outsiders into the faith too? In that case, we are not Talking about exclusivity of individuals, but rather, about the inclusion of all mankind, right? Correct me, if I am wrong.

We need your books as audiobooks.

infant baptism is something that is done to you not an act of obedience after hearing and believing. I used to be WELS Lutheran and left for that reason.Let's not confuse foreknowledge with predestination.

No Calvinist dilemma. It's a minor pastoral issue. Once people learn the doctrine of the Bible and their tradition then the what ifs leave. Calvinists are not running around crying. We believe in rock hard undeniable assurance. Notice how RC Sproul, the most prolific Reformed mind of our day, is never mentioned here.

Dr. Cooper, one flaw I see here, is you say Baptism provides an objective basis to know that, at one point in time, you did, as a matter of fact, receive the grace of God. But you would agree, when it comes to adult Baptism, that adults do not receive saving grace in Baptism unless they have subjective (personal) faith when they are Baptized. Therefore, objective Baptism would not seem to eliminate what you seem to think is a problem: knowing with certainty that you have subjective faith. Because you can't know with certainty that you had subjective faith when you were Baptized (if you were Baptized as an adult), then you can't know the objective act of Baptism actually gave you saving grace.

Why do all of y’all complicate it, salvation, Romans 10 nine and 10. Yes I believe in the sacraments particularly the Lord supper I certainly dipper from the Baptist on that one but isn’t it dangerous to tell someone because your parents had you christened when you were a baby where do you find that in the Bible as your source source of being secure in the faith, people confuse water baptism, and I don’t see how you’re baptized unless you get good and wet somehow, not necessarily immersion as opposed to baptism of the Spirit when you believe reference the first chapter of the patients

Through the concept of Total Depravity, we believe that the wicked have their will enslaved by sin. In this way, they do not have a sincere desire to please God. If you have this will, it is because your will has been freed from the slavery of sin by Christ. You may think that this self-analysis is very subjective, which is why there is progressiveness in obedience to God, which is nothing more or less than your testimony. But basically, If you are baptized and professed Jesus as lord, if you want to obey God despite the presence of sin and do not live your life in deliberate, conscious sin then you are saved. You can argue that through the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, only at the end will the person know that they are in fact one of the elects, as faith must last until the end, but how does the doctrine of resistibility change this? Can't a person reject it in the end? What if you die at a time when you were far from the Faith? This is what I don't understand, you pose "problems" in Calvin's account that I don't see how, in practice, your theology solves the "problem".

I disagree, a lot. I would say the Reformed tradition is to rest in Christ's perfect work and not in our own works. We obey God's law gladly, fueled by our love for Christ and a desire to keep his commandments. I don't think that your examples of Washer & MacArthur are very good representations of the Reformed view of assurance.

Inward introspection for assurance is guilty of the very kind of Gnosticism the ancient church went to huge lengths to refute. Quite frankly, every variation of Eastern mysticism teaches us to look at salvation fully in an inward way. I’m sorry, it’s just NOT the Gospel at all.

Just watched: better examples Calvinist RC Sproul, Dr. Greg Bahnsen/Van Til, Reformed Baptist James White, etc.

I’m an independent Baptist, but ironically I agree far far more with the Lutheran view on assurance than I do with the reformed view on 1st John and looking to works for assurance, when works condemn you to begin with. It’s always the best to look to John 19:30 for assurance. I’ve really seen and empathize with Lutheranism on this issue

Calvin's simply both further from truth and more incoherent than Catholicism.AND despite Calvinists verbally affirming sola fide, I am closer to thinking the Pope believes it than any Calvinist I know of. My happily uneducated Lutheran opinion. Delivered for y'all.

Without a limited atonement, you have a ton of people who go to hell that Jesus died for. Instead of "universal" atonement, perhaps you should use the term "insufficient" atonement, because it is subordinate to your will.

I have tried to bring the Good news gospel for all men to many but most refuse. I will continue to witness to the lost Calvinists of the World as the Lord says" He who wins souls is wise." 10But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. 11Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. 12This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” Luke 2 @ This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people 1 Timothy 2 : 3-6 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 Sorry you WILL NOT accept as a child the simple truth of Gods Love for mankind. TRUTH IN LOVE

The things Calvin himself wrote about "evanescent grace" are absolutely horrific.

I love Paul Washer and believe he is a dear brother and faithful evangelist. Interesting perspective nonetheless. Grace and peace

This is From Martin Luther. Don’t misuse his name for your heresy. Babies do not have FAITH. It is a sign of the covenant, the same as, and, replacing circumcision in the old Testament, because Blood-sign is no longer required. Therefore let us open our eyes and learn to pay heed more to the word than to the sign, more to faith than to the work or use of the sign. We know that wherever there is a divine promise, there faith is required, and that these two are so necessary to each other that neither can be effective apart from the other. For it is not possible to believe unless there is a promise, and the promise is not established unless it is believed. But where these two meet, they give a real and most certain efficacy to the sacraments. HENCE, TO SEEK THE EFFICACY OF THE SACRAMENT APART FROM THE PROMISE AND APART FROM THE FAITH IS TO LABOR IN VAIN AND TO FIND CONDEMNATION (LW 36:67).

I like how you are exposing the negative effects of this kind of Lordship Salvation reading of Calvinism, but I just want to emphasize from personal experience that it’s not just that the anxiety can cause people to leave the faith, but that it can cause an extreme dark night of the soul for those who do manage to stay in Christ while battling this toxic way of thinking. I know that’s not the point of the video so I don’t mean to fault you in any way but it seems like something I don’t see anyone talking about. It can often seem like “this makes people leave the faith” is the only consequence of Lordship Salvation, but there is more to it than that

Considering returning home to the LCMS from the OPC.

God be praised! I left Presbyterian Reformedism like a year and a half ago and became Lutheran. Was made Lutheran, I guess. One of the things thst came to frustrate over time was the mealy-mouthed explanations of the Sacraments. Baptism was a "sign and seal" of a Covenant but you may still be unsaved, but even though it was God's election to damnation it will be your fault. I NEVER heard "Remember your baptism." Why would I have? And Holy Communion was "non-judicial discipline," (?!?) not LIFE, Jesus' Body and Blood, Forgiveness, Grace. Law was preached and called Gospel. Things thst are Gospel were considered law and stern. I did almost leave for nothing. Thanks be to God for a LIFE "raft" of true doctrine, which I was so happy to find.

WAAYY TOO MANY ADDS!!

I'm unsure about what is actually being affirmed as the Lutheran position on assurance. If it is that baptism always creates faith and a Lutheran can be assured he has faith because he's been baptized, then I can't agree. Even if it was true that all who are baptized are given faith (which I don't agree is the case) then one can lose faith without even realising it by succumbing to temptations of various sorts. One can become worldly and still think that one has true faith when that isn't the case. So it's necessary to inwardly examine oneself to see if one still retains faith which is what Paul taught when he said: "Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? - unless indeed you fail to meet the test!" (2 Corinthians 13:5 ESV). So whilst I agree that Christ's atonement is universal, and that one doesn't need to worry about whether one's sins are objectively forgiven, one can't simply refer to one's baptism as guaranteeing that one is actually forgiven without examining oneself to make sure that one has true faith. One's faith might not be genuine. One might be trusting in other things rather than Christ. One could be living in unrepentant sin kidding oneself that all was ok. So there's no escape from introspection. One needs to look inwards to ensure that one has true faith.

So the Calvinist believes in limited grace that is irresistible, whereas the Lutheran believes in an unlimited grace that is resistible. The Wesleyan/Methodist is in full agreement with the Lutheran at this point (and most older traditions too, I think). Of course, Wesley also wanted to emphasize the subjective “inner witness of the Spirit with your spirit” in addition to the outward and public promises in word and sacrament.

Reformed belief is and has always been, faith alone in Christ alone. Ephesians 2:8 and 9, of course. Silly guy, no works are added sin scripture to salvation. Ans johnny mac wouldn't agree with tou, that he has some list. No, he would say Sola fide

How green is the grass on the other side of the fence?not very good I See ,but the pasture beyond that fence on the mount looks good.2 days walking the herd..gush we made it only to find sign. No trespassing..all this is mine,,oh ,,well who would know,,I 'm so far up the mountain..just a little,,who would know...?

There's a pastoral and a metaphysical element to questions of redemptive universality, but I don't think you can escape falling on one of two horns. In metaphysical terms, unless you would argue that some people are incorrigibly reprobate, totally incapable of choosing salvation no matter the circumstances, then why someone will, over the course of their life, harden to salvation is something ultimately in God's hands. You could have been other than you, you could have been born in another country, grew up around different people, have various events manifesting the gospel, etc. But there's an ultimate unknowability in this, but only that ultimately God is sovereign over all such events. This isn't a Reformed/Calvinist distinction, as Thomists would agree to this kind of predestinarian metaphysics. The only alternative on this point is a kind of Origenism, where God sees some quality about someone in an almost pre-existent world of foreknowing how people would act without grace. At a pastoral level, yes, world's of difference depending on concepts of sacrament, covenant, justification, atonement (though some Reformed adhere to universal atonement, like the English Calvinists at Dordt). But at metaphysical level, Thomists, Lutherans, and Reformed would (theoretically) be on the same side against Molinism and Arminianism.

Macarthur and Washer's interpretation of Matt 7 is not about faith. They said its about works and a change life. They elevate works and law keeping over faith.

Paul Washer merely brings out, from Matt.7:21-23, that 'many' are doing their own will, not the will of the Father, and God 'looketh on the heart' at our motives and what we love most. You totally miss the point, that assurance comes from the Spirit (Rom.8:16). Maybe you have no heart knowledge...God's elect cries 'day and night' unto Him. Prov.10:19,29

I’m not entirely sure how the Lutheran view (which is identical with the Catholic view) is better than the Reformed. Certainly there are clear promises associated with baptism and the Eucharist. If someone asks me “are you saved” then I could respond “Yes, I received communion this morning and am assured of eternal life John 6:54.” However, it is still possible to receive communion unworthily and damn myself (1 Cor 11). Therefore, even a Lutheran/Catholic would still need to examine one’s own conscience to even approach the sacrament. That puts them in the same exact place as the Reformed Christian.

I don't think it's fair to laugh at MacArthur's list of ways to know you are saved and reduce that to reliance on your own works, when you did the same thing maybe 5 minutes earlier - by saying that this is how you know you are saved: being baptised, participating in the Lord's supper, and listening to the Word preached. That also is a list, and that also are things you did/do.

Much of what you say about Reformed theology getting backed into works-based salvation, I think you can also reduce Lutheran theology to as well, based on very similar grounds. If I can reject God's salvation, how do I know that I haven't rejected it? I've been baptized, sure, but I'm still sinning up a storm. You know how you can look at the way a supposed Christian is living their life and realize that they're the furthest thing from a Christian that could exist? ("You will know them by their fruits.") They've clearly rejected the Holy Spirit. But how do I know my life doesn't look like that to people living holier lives than me? So Lutherans must either claim that ANYONE who is baptized is saved, even if they've explicitly rejected it, or they must be unsure of whether they've REALLY accepted God's salvation.

True, Catholics do have assurance that the Lord will act in a powerful and loving way and so can step away from Altar, the font or the confessional confirmed in God's friendship Many reformed Christians have no such assurance

Look up “Paul Washer how many times have you got saved” to see an example of what he’s talking about. Yikes!

Two more things: if you have a predestination view that goes stronger than Molinism, you will logically imply the same sorts of problems that limited grace involves when it comes to assurance. You may know God gives everyone grace, but if predestination involves a decision on God's part rather than mere foreknowledge, then you can't know the same thing the limited grace person can't know, namely, whether you are one of the elect. And also, finally, your criticism of looking to works for evidence/assurance neither represents what Calvin said (since for him full assurance was only given to the elect and therefore the experience of it guaranteed you were elect), but also, it really seems to deny what is quite obvious to authentic Christian experience: that the fruits of the Holy Spirit in your own life are not hard to detect.

15:18... For 'we which have believed...is entered into His rest, he also having ceased from his own works' (Heb.4:3,10). Thus, has drawn near 'with a true heart in full assurance of faith...' 'Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus' (Heb.10:22,19). From then on, it seems that you wax absurd...throwing so much into the mix. Maybe you 'must needs be born again' and 'receive with meekness the engrafted Word...' Why are your eyes fixed on men?

Wow you've misrepresented John Macarthur...

Trinity? Think Water: Liquid - Ice - Steam. Tree: Roots - Trunks - Branches. Nature can explain it.🙂