The Augsburg Apology Article XVIII: Of Free Will.
- Thread starter Moses Medina
- Start date
- Status
shturt678
Senior Veteran
Da Rev ... trying to also accept ur refute of my putting Scriptures over the Symbolical Books ... although a great summation, need to use caution, e.g., show me were i'm also in error with Art.18 under Bondage of the Will in Spiritual Matters ... Article 18 continues ... "This is accomplished by the Holy Spirit, who is given through the Word of God, ..." ... i also was taught at a Seminary School, have been purging errors that were taught, for almost three decades now, and still have more to purge ... in the majors sir, may this be another one... i thought the Holy Spirit is given by Sacrament (also God's means of grace), not by the Word of God??? Hopefully u can show me how i'm misunderstanding what was taught me ... getting old now and could very well not be attentive ... thank u again sir.
Upvote
0
So you're a quatenus subscriber to the Book of Concord. Alright, that's your choice. However, your opinion, which you're freely entitle to, is not the Lutheran teaching and in fact puts you outside the realm of historic Lutheranism. You're with the ELCA at this point, after all, somebody could subscribe to the Catechism of the Catholic Church or even the Koran insofar as (quatenus) it agrees with the Bible. The point of the Confessions are to establish for the Lutheran Church what the Scriptures say, so when it comes down to it the Church can say this is what the Scriptures say.
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity. This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself a ransom for allthis was attested at the right time. For this I was appointed a herald and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument. - 1 Tim 2:1-8
Honestly, you're free to go to a Calvinist church, that's your right. Just don't say what you're believing is Lutheran, it's not and it's condemned in the Scriptures and the Book of Concord. Not every single writing Luther wrote is authoritative for the Lutheran Church. If you really want to know what Luther believed, the Smalcald Articles are where to go. That's what he wrote as his theological testament.
Upvote
0
I have no problem accepting that Christ died for all and that God seeks to save everyone through Christ but this doesn't militate against accepting predestination to hell. Luther held that God predestines people to Hell and that Christ wanted to save everyone in The Bondage of the Will and I agree with him. Also Luther highly extolled this book to the end of his life so he wouldn't have agreed with the Formula of Concord's rejection of predestination to hell just as I don't. So Luther also would have been outside of official Lutheran teaching after the Formula was subscibed to. The point is official historic Lutheran teaching on predestination after the 1580's wasn't the same as it had been when Luther was alive and this was because the writers of the Formula misunderstood Luther and misinterpreted the teaching of the Bible. Historic Lutheranism post the 1580's has simply gone wrong on predestination and Luther were he alive today would completely agree.
Upvote
0
Let me please assure you that I'm conservative in my theology and in no way liberal. I only have an issue with the Formula of Concord's teaching on predestination - in every other respect I accept the teaching of the Book of Concord.
If my understanding of the Bible and Luther's teaching in The Bondage of the Will was faulty and in error on predestination then I would be only too happy to change but I can't in all honesty believe my understanding is wrong. Before I read The Bondage of the Will I didn't know what exactly to believe with respect to predestination and it was Luther that convinced me through this book that there is indeed predestination to hell as well as heaven, but I'd much rather that there was no such thing as predestination to hell as it is a hard thing to believe and seems harsh and unjust. So I can well understand why it is abhorrent to many people to believe it. I don't want to have to believe it either but it seems to me if I'm to be true to the Scriptures I must accept it.
I've studied the Book of Concord in the past and agree with everything it teaches except the Formula's denial of predestination to hell. I can't accept that and I'm sure Luther wouldn't have done either.
The reason why the Formula's position on predestination is such a live issue which refuses to lie down is because the Formula's position is wrong and Luther's The Bongage of the Will shows it to be wrong. Also from my recollection of reading in the past there were others of Luther's friends who also endorsed predestination to hell, so it wasn't just Luther who endorsed this. And in fact if I remember rightly Melancthon after Luther's death objected to Luther's teaching on absolute predestination. So I think I'm right to not hold to the position of the Formula on predestination because both the Scriptures and Luther (who taught according to the Scriptures) are against it.
If my understanding of the Bible and Luther's teaching in The Bondage of the Will was faulty and in error on predestination then I would be only too happy to change but I can't in all honesty believe my understanding is wrong. Before I read The Bondage of the Will I didn't know what exactly to believe with respect to predestination and it was Luther that convinced me through this book that there is indeed predestination to hell as well as heaven, but I'd much rather that there was no such thing as predestination to hell as it is a hard thing to believe and seems harsh and unjust. So I can well understand why it is abhorrent to many people to believe it. I don't want to have to believe it either but it seems to me if I'm to be true to the Scriptures I must accept it.
I've studied the Book of Concord in the past and agree with everything it teaches except the Formula's denial of predestination to hell. I can't accept that and I'm sure Luther wouldn't have done either.
The reason why the Formula's position on predestination is such a live issue which refuses to lie down is because the Formula's position is wrong and Luther's The Bongage of the Will shows it to be wrong. Also from my recollection of reading in the past there were others of Luther's friends who also endorsed predestination to hell, so it wasn't just Luther who endorsed this. And in fact if I remember rightly Melancthon after Luther's death objected to Luther's teaching on absolute predestination. So I think I'm right to not hold to the position of the Formula on predestination because both the Scriptures and Luther (who taught according to the Scriptures) are against it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
shturt678
Senior Veteran
To Edward65 Thank u so so much for caring about God's precious Word, God's means of grace ... just wanted to put my two-bits in ... i put the Symbolical Books of Lutheranism secondary to the Scriptures ergo Rom.9:15 with my OPINION beginning with my rendition: "Yeah (only confirming here that form Moses stands for all time), to Moses he declares: I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy and will pity whomever I will pity (Exod.331:19)."
If i'm correct, been a long time, Calvinism has God extend mercy and pity to only a few of the wretched and lost. For the great mass of the wretched God has no mercy, no pity but only judgment, damnation. I hope i have this in the ball-park? Now my response: OPINION ONLY ... been too too long and forget a lot ... In the mercy and the pity a peculiar sovereignty is substituted for the blessed quality which makes each what it really is in God, the response of his nature to man's wretchedness and not at all an answer to man's works.
The error is laying a peculiar limiting stress on the relative clauses: "on whomever I will have mercy ... whomever I will pity." These clauses do not means that God will not allow anyone to restrict him in exercising his mercy and his pity, restrict him to men and their works which they suppose they have, or their claims and rights (such as physical birth) which they imagine are theirs. They are taken to mean that God intended to show mercy and pity only to a few who were chosen by him in an absolute way. The fact that such a sovereignty in God would be the very embodiment of unrighteousness and injustice is brushed away by simple Calvinistic denial and by such pleas as that God owes nothing to the non-elect.
I can go into the interpretation of the former as only gave a sort of summation of v.15 and haven't even touched v.16 ... more of my opinion upon request and absolutely do not put myself above refute, IITim.3:16, not "reprove" but "refute," LOL with u, hence let me know where the error is, or errors., thank u for ur patience.
If i'm correct, been a long time, Calvinism has God extend mercy and pity to only a few of the wretched and lost. For the great mass of the wretched God has no mercy, no pity but only judgment, damnation. I hope i have this in the ball-park? Now my response: OPINION ONLY ... been too too long and forget a lot ... In the mercy and the pity a peculiar sovereignty is substituted for the blessed quality which makes each what it really is in God, the response of his nature to man's wretchedness and not at all an answer to man's works.
The error is laying a peculiar limiting stress on the relative clauses: "on whomever I will have mercy ... whomever I will pity." These clauses do not means that God will not allow anyone to restrict him in exercising his mercy and his pity, restrict him to men and their works which they suppose they have, or their claims and rights (such as physical birth) which they imagine are theirs. They are taken to mean that God intended to show mercy and pity only to a few who were chosen by him in an absolute way. The fact that such a sovereignty in God would be the very embodiment of unrighteousness and injustice is brushed away by simple Calvinistic denial and by such pleas as that God owes nothing to the non-elect.
I can go into the interpretation of the former as only gave a sort of summation of v.15 and haven't even touched v.16 ... more of my opinion upon request and absolutely do not put myself above refute, IITim.3:16, not "reprove" but "refute," LOL with u, hence let me know where the error is, or errors., thank u for ur patience.
Upvote
0
You're making some assumptions here concerning what Luther may or may not have believed. You can't use the word "obviously" here. Luther's other writings and the Confessional statements of the Lutheran Church, along with Scripture, teach otherwise.
Again, if you read Romans 9 in the context of Scripture as a whole, it does not teach predestination to hell. God does not condemn anyone to hell. Man's sinful nature has assured that already. That's what On the Bondage of the Will is about.
You are most certainly a Calvinist. It would be beneficial for you to remove the Lutheran icon from your header lest it gives someone the false impression that you are Lutheran and are making statements to what true Lutherans actually teach and believe.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
We're not going to agree on this obviously. I think it automatically follows that since Luther held that God wills and fore-ordains everything that happens that he believes in predestination to heaven and hell because being saved and damned is a result of whether one has faith or not. So if a person doesn't have faith that is because God has fore-ordained that he shouldn't have.
Again I can't agree that the Scriptures don't teach predestination to Hell. Romans 9 to me clearly teaches this.
Also I'm not a Calvinist. I agree with Luther and not with the Formula on predestination and if Luther's teaching on predestination is the same as Calvin's that's just incidental. I don't wish to be labelled a Calvinist. I don't agree with Calvin's teaching on the Lord's Supper and other matters.
Also there is no danger that I'm going to mislead people into thinking that what I believe on predestination is accepted by mainstream Lutheranism. I make a point of stating that I don't agree with confessional Lutheranism on this and believe that confessional Lutheranism has erred in rejecting predestination to Hell. That's my reason for bringing the subject of predestination up to separate myself from the faulty stance of the Formula of Concord on this and make it plain that I don't accept that Luther would have endorsed the Formula on predestination. So I'm a Lutheran who agrees with Luther not the Formula.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Choices, Choices, Choices - YouTube Starting at 7:40.
There's also the article that has been given which discusses On the Bondage of the Will in its context, but, it seems like you've already made your decision.
You can't be a Lutheran and disagree with the Formula. It's like being a Roman Catholic and saying: "Well, I disagree with the teaching of papal infallibility." Or, being a Baptist, but saying: "We should baptize infants." I'm not trying to insult you, you're completely free to be whatever you want, but if you are so bold as to say that the Formula contains errors, well then, you're not a Lutheran in any meaningful sense.
Upvote
0
Monseigneur_Gentilhomme
Newbie
This was one of the points of contention between the phillipists and the Gnesio-Lutherans.
There is no simple answer. Both the Confessional Lutherans and the Confessional Reformed debate this question among themselves and historically there is much overlap. Though the Reformed seemed to tollerate a broader view than the Lutherans, thus allowing semi-pelegian tendencies to come in very early on (with the Arminians). But as a Reformed person, I am comfortable with the language of the Augsburg Confession on that point and I see no contradiction with the Canons of the Synod of Dort, however Dort wants to put the accent on depravity much more than the Book of Concord does. It's a question of pastoral application in my estimation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnesio-Lutherans
There is no simple answer. Both the Confessional Lutherans and the Confessional Reformed debate this question among themselves and historically there is much overlap. Though the Reformed seemed to tollerate a broader view than the Lutherans, thus allowing semi-pelegian tendencies to come in very early on (with the Arminians). But as a Reformed person, I am comfortable with the language of the Augsburg Confession on that point and I see no contradiction with the Canons of the Synod of Dort, however Dort wants to put the accent on depravity much more than the Book of Concord does. It's a question of pastoral application in my estimation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnesio-Lutherans
Upvote
0
Dr. Luther prevailed against Erasmus not because Luther was a Calvinist, but because Erasmus was a Pelagian.
Upvote
0
Your statement isn't correct. If you study Luther's Bondage Of The Will without any preconceived ideas about what he said there's no way you could ever conclude that Luther only endorsed predestination to heaven. If you read Luther's Bondage without any biased opinions about what he must have said and just let Luther speak for himself without injecting a foreign interpretation into the text there's only one thing you can conclude and that is that Luther believed and taught both predestination to heaven and predestination to Hell. There's absolutely no other way you could possibly understand him. If that makes him a Calvinist as regards predestination because he endorsed double predestination then according to that definition Luther was a Calvinist.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
shturt678
Senior Veteran
Thank you for the refutation and correction. I could be mistaken as I thought Mr. Luther prevailed with "bondage of the will" in the sense that no one has the power to apply one's self to the things that make for salvation, that is, "enslaved-will" or "bondage of the will." No freedom of man in this sense. I could very well be injecting a foreign interpretation into the text, just show me the text regarding book, chapter, and verse. In the mean time accept your rebuke and go over again Luther's works, I have them all, and see where I perverted them. Won't be the first time and probably not the last. I thank you again for revealing this to me.
Oh, oh, another mistake, you were not directing this to me, sorry, will leave my mistake posted anyway to humble me, need to pay more attention. Thank you.
Oh, oh, another mistake, you were not directing this to me, sorry, will leave my mistake posted anyway to humble me, need to pay more attention. Thank you.
Upvote
0
OK here are some quotes from The Bondage of the Will translated by H Atherton which shows that Luther held that our will was not only enslaved in that it couldn't choose salvation but also was incapable of choosing damnation.
Section 23 "IN the last part of your Preface, where you deter us from this kind of doctrine, you think your victory is almost gained.
"What (you say) can be more useless than that this paradox should be proclaimed openly to the worldthat whatever is done by us, is not done by Free-will, but from mere necessity. And that of
Augustine alsothat God works in us both good and evil: that He rewards His good works in us, and punishes His evil works in us." (You are mightily copious here in giving, or rather, in expostulating concerning a reason.) "What a flood-gate of iniquity (you say) would these things, publicly proclaimed, open unto men! What bad man would amend his life! Who would believe that he was loved of God! Who would war against his flesh!" I wonder, that in so great vehemency, and contending zeal, you did not
remember our main subject, and saywhere then would be found "Freewill.""
From section 25 "Thus the human will is, as it were, a beast between the two. If God sit thereon, it wills and goes where God will: as the Psalm saith, "I am become as it were a beast before thee, and I am continually with thee." (Ps. lxxiii. 22-23.) If Satan sit thereon, it wills and goes as Satan will. Nor is it in the power of its own will to choose, to which rider it will run, nor which it will seek; but the riders themselves contend, which shall have and hold it."
From section 26 "....but that, God-ward, or in things which pertain unto salvation or damnation, he has no "Free-will," but is a captive, slave, and servant, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan."
From section 66 "It belongs also to this same God Incarnate, to
weep, to lament, and to sigh over the perdition of the wicked, even
while that will of Majesty, from purpose, leaves and reprobates some, that they might perish. Nor does it become us to inquire
why He does so, but to revere that God who can do, and wills to do, such things."
why He does so, but to revere that God who can do, and wills to do, such things."
From section 81 "And if God be thus robbed of His power and wisdom to elect, what will there be remaining but that idol Fortune, under the name of which, all things take place at random! Nay, we shall at length come to this: that men may be saved and damned without God's knowing anything at all about it; as not having determined by certain election who should be saved and who should be damned; but having set before all men in general His hardening goodness and long-suffering, and His mercy shewing correction and punishment, and left them to choose for themselves whether they would be saved or damned; while He, in the mean time, should be gone, as Homer says, to an Ethiopian feast!"
Sorry about the way some of the quotes have copied but I can't improve the way they appear for some reason.
Upvote
0
shturt678
Senior Veteran
I was hoping Edward65 you would be a little more specific regarding where I'm perverting "free-will"? Beginning with the following so that I can purge out the errors, from another Lutheran. Thank you for understand.
Free-will is the power to apply one's self to the things that make for salvation. "Enslaved-will" is God's power that all things happen by necessity and there is no freedom of man as in Free-will. If we could start here where I'm in error, I would sure appreciate it??? Thank you again.
Maybe here you will have an easier time: Grace cannot be rejected as this promotes "Free-will" where actually we all have an "enslaved-will" - all happens by necessity - IPet.1:20, Christ's sacrifice was seen by God as eternally present, i.e., before time existed, timelessly (God foresaw). Please reveal errors again. Thank you, giving you plenty of ammunition.
Wow, been awhile but found Luther's translated words: "Free-will" after the fall, even when doing the best it can, commits a mortal sin. Help me see where I mis-quoted, etc. Thank you again.
Show me where perverting the former than we can move to other areas perverting. Thank you so much for helping me.
Free-will is the power to apply one's self to the things that make for salvation. "Enslaved-will" is God's power that all things happen by necessity and there is no freedom of man as in Free-will. If we could start here where I'm in error, I would sure appreciate it??? Thank you again.
Maybe here you will have an easier time: Grace cannot be rejected as this promotes "Free-will" where actually we all have an "enslaved-will" - all happens by necessity - IPet.1:20, Christ's sacrifice was seen by God as eternally present, i.e., before time existed, timelessly (God foresaw). Please reveal errors again. Thank you, giving you plenty of ammunition.
Wow, been awhile but found Luther's translated words: "Free-will" after the fall, even when doing the best it can, commits a mortal sin. Help me see where I mis-quoted, etc. Thank you again.
Show me where perverting the former than we can move to other areas perverting. Thank you so much for helping me.
Upvote
0
I think you must be misunderstanding what exactly I was arguing in my last but one post. Let me just explain what exactly I was saying in response to bach90.
bach90 made the assertion that "Dr. Luther prevailed against Erasmus not because Luther was a Calvinist, but because Erasmus was a Pelagian". So bach90 by saying this was meaning that the reason that Luther won the debate against Erasmus wasn't because Luther held to double predestination (i.e. predestination to both heaven and hell) but was simply because Erasmus believed in free will and Luther didn't. bach90 you see doesn't believe that Luther believed in double predestination only predestination to heaven.
So in response to this I was making the point that Luther believed in both predestination to heaven and predestination to hell and it was erroneous to believe he didn't.
The reason why Luther won the debate against Erasmus so conclusively was because he believed and argued for total predestination. He didn't make any distinction between predestination to heaven and predestination to hell, he argued for both and that everything that happens is necessitated by God's will and foreknowledge. So this is why Erasmus was defeated because Luther from Scripture ruled out all free will i.e. not just free will to apply oneself to salvation but also free will to choose damnation.
So in my response to your last but one post I gave you quotes from Luther's Bondage Of The Will which showed that Luther rejected free will in both salvation and damnation and I quoted him saying that God reprobates some (i.e. predestines them to hell) and in my last quote that God elects people to be damned as well as saved.
So that is all I was arguing for so I'm not sure what exactly you're meaning in your last post. You haven't perverted anything. It's just that you haven't mentioned that there is no free will with respect to damnation as well as salvation.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Status
Similar threads
