Martin Luther's Teaching on Predestination.

[ChristOurCaptain]

That being said, the Calvinistic response to your point is that someone who forsakes Christ and lives a life of sin was never really saved to begin with. After all, I can call myself an elephant, but my false profession doesn't make it true.

Exactly, and this throws any kind of assurance of salvation out the window.
Heck, even Rome's heresy is preferable to this one (in as much as cholera is preferable to the bubonic plague).

No, it just leads to Biblical Christianity, aka, Confessional Lutheranism.

Word

 

[Edward65]

"Non-believers sin willfully"...therefore non-believers have a free will?

No, it doesn't follow that because non-believers sin wilfully that therefore they have free will. If they had free will then it follows that they would be able to change their wills and decide not to sin wilfully and willingly want to serve God by obeying all His Commandments. But of course as Luther maintained we can only become believers through God's grace by God given faith without works. Only then are our wills changed so that we willingly avoid sin.

So we don't have any free will to change our desire to commit sin. We're by nature sinful due to the fall of our first parents and can't change our corrupt will to conform to God's Commandments. His Commandments are viewed as irksome because they don't allow us to hate our enemies, and indulge our sexual urges etc. So it's only by God's direct intervention through election to salvation that our wills are changed by God through irresistible conversion, and we don't cooperate with this in any way. Everything happens by God's predestination and not in any way by some imaginary free will.

 

[Edward65]

My Pastor and I were just discussing this last night. It's Crypto-Calvinist theology. Not only does Scripture not support it, but it is addressed and condemned in Articles VII and VIII of the Formula of Concord.

As such, it is incomparable with orthodox Confessional Lutheranism. Churches which teach or accept this, regardless of name, are not Lutheran, but Reformed.

Scripture does teach predestination to heaven and hell and so does Luther. I quoted Luther above saying with respect to Paul in Romans that “In chapters 9, 10, and 11 he teaches of God’s eternal predestination—out of which originally proceeds who shall believe or not, who can or cannot get rid of sin.." So Luther doesn't agree with you that it's not the teaching of Scripture. Scripture does teach what Luther says it does. Romans 9 clearly teaches that God's decision to have mercy or harden a person happens before they're born. The Formula of Concord is wrong on this and both Paul and Luther teach that it is wrong.

Also what sort of example are you trying to promote when you show a picture of Luther on four glasses of beer with the inscription "Sin Boldly" on them? This comes across that it's OK to have too much to drink because that's how Luther behaved. You're bringing the name of Luther into disrepute by showing such an image. Luther never intentionally drank to excess. He drank some beer mainly as a way of getting to sleep because of insomnia and also because in Luther's day the water wasn't safe, and tea and coffee wasn't drunk in Western Europe at that time.

Also the phrase "sin boldly" wasn't meant as an exhortation to sin. That's the very opposite of what Luther taught. This phrase has been taken out of context. This is what Luther said:

"If you are a preacher of Grace, then preach a true, not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. For he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here we have to sin. This life in not the dwelling place of righteousness but, as Peter says, we look for a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. . . . Pray boldly-you too are a mighty sinner." (Weimar ed. vol. 2, p. 371; Letters I, "Luther's Works," American Ed., Vol 48. p. 281- 282)

So Luther by saying "sin boldly" only meant that one should recognise that one is an actual sinner. Also when he said: "As long as we are here we have to sin" he didn't mean that we have to intentionally sin. He only meant that we can't help sinning from weakness because we're still encumbered with our corrupt human nature due to the Fall.

 

[abacabb]

Exactly, and this throws any kind of assurance of salvation out the window.
Heck, even Rome's heresy is preferable to this one (in as much as cholera is preferable to the bubonic plague).



Word

It's simple. People can feel assured that they are save. Only God knows if its true. I believe because simply God promises it. I don't doubt the promise. I don't see how it makes me a heretic.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

It's simple. People can feel assured that they are save. Only God knows if its true. I believe because simply God promises it. I don't doubt the promise. I don't see how it makes me a heretic.

What we "feel" is completely and utterly irrelevant.
What is ACTUALLY the case, is what's relevant. In calvinism, you can never be sure whether you're a Christian or not, and therefore whether you're saved, or not.
In the RCC, you can be sure that if you don't die in a state of "mortal sin", you'll be saved, albeit after having gone through Purgatory.

And that's, way too "human" to be taken seriously, is infinitely better than the calvinist: "Yeah, you think you're saved...you might and might not be. *shrug* You'll find out eventually, won't you??"

Both are heresies, but Geneva's is worse than Rome's.

Furthermore, to the poster above who quoted Luther: Luther made mistakes too, that Lutherans today refuse to accept. The virulent anti-semitism of his late years, is one example. This nonsense above is another. Your point is invalid.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

From the very moment of creation, mankind was predestined to eternal life. Having been made in God's image, God, in His infinite wisdom gave us free-will; not to believe in Him because Adam and Eve new God as their Father, and God knew them as His children. This free will, like that of the fallen angels is one way, we can only chose to defy God.

This has not changed. God is our Father, we are His children; we have no choice in this. God is the perfect parent, He wishes only the best for his children (all of mankind); salvation and eternal life. We, however, just like earthly children with earthly parents, we can chose to defy our heavenly Father the way some children chose to defy and estrange themselves from there parents.

This is exactly what our Lord illustrated for us in the parable of the prodigal son. The son squandered his inheritance and became estranged from his Father, just as we can turn away from God (by our choice) and lose our salvation. While he was hopeless and knew he deserved nothing more from from his father, the father still loved his son and restored his position.

This shows us that we only have free-will to reject, not to accept God; this also shows us that we can fall from grace and lose our salvation, yet repent and have it restored.

This blows double predestination right out of the water, as it does once saved, always saved.

Calvinism does not fit with Scripture.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

So Luther by saying "sin boldly" only meant that one should recognise that one is an actual sinner. Also when he said: "As long as we are here we have to sin" he didn't mean that we have to intentionally sin. He only meant that we can't help sinning from weakness because we're still encumbered with our corrupt human nature due to the Fall.

So you obviously have never read this in context. The point Luther makes is that since we all sin, there is no point in hiding that fact, rather in boldness we are to recognize our sins, so that we can even more boldly repent.

Only those who believe that they are once and always saved and therefore believe that they can not sin, therefore believe that they have no reason to repent. It is this belief that Luther is preaching against when he says "sin boldly" rather than hiding one's sins behind OSAS.

I think you should leave actual Lutherans speak to Lutheran doctrine.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Exactly, and this throws any kind of assurance of salvation out the window.
Heck, even Rome's heresy is preferable to this one (in as much as cholera is preferable to the bubonic plague).



Word

Luther also said that he would sooner drink Christ's blood with the Pope than wine with Zwingli.

 

[Albion]

From the very moment of creation, mankind was predestined to eternal life. Having been made in God's image, God, in His infinite wisdom gave us free-will; not to believe in Him because Adam and Eve new God as their Father, and God knew them as His children. This free will, like that of the fallen angels is one way, we can only chose to defy God.

This has not changed. God is our Father, we are His children; we have no choice in this. God is the perfect parent, He wishes only the best for his children (all of mankind); salvation and eternal life. We, however, just like earthly children with earthly parents, we can chose to defy our heavenly Father the way some children chose to defy and estrange themselves from there parents.

This is exactly what our Lord illustrated for us in the parable of the prodigal son. The son squandered his inheritance and became estranged from his Father, just as we can turn away from God (by our choice) and lose our salvation. While he was hopeless and knew he deserved nothing more from from his father, the father still loved his son and restored his position.

This shows us that we only have free-will to reject, not to accept God; this also shows us that we can fall from grace and lose our salvation, yet repent and have it restored.

This blows double predestination right out of the water, as it does once saved, always saved.

Well, no. It's a spirited defense of the awkward hybrid position conventionally taken by Lutheran churches, but it hardly blows anything out of the water.

1. God created Adam with free will. That's so. However, predestination deals with the status of mankind after the fall, just as everything else that Adam ruined for us by his poor choice--physical death, bearing children in pain, etc. If Adam's original condition were what we operate under ourselves, you'd be arguing that it's great that we don't have to die a physical death and so on.

2. In the prodigal son parable, you ASSUME that the outcome was in doubt, but yet you actually do not know that he wasn't destined to return and repent prior to his death. There's nothing about predestination that scripts the ups and downs of life, just a certain end result.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

Luther also said that he would sooner drink Christ's blood with the Pope than wine with Zwingli.

I'm of the same opinion

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

2. In the prodigal son parable, you ASSUME that the outcome was in doubt, but yet you actually do not know that he wasn't destined to return and repent prior to his death. There's nothing about predestination that scripts the ups and downs of life, just a certain end result.

You also ASSUME that I'm not the Emperor of China, but yet you actually do not know that I'm not.

What ridiculousness!
Jesus gave no indication whatsoever that the outcome was set in stone. None. So the burden of proof is on you.
Mark is right: OSAS and double-predestination is a non-starter, biblically speaking.

 

[Albion]

You also ASSUME that I'm not the Emperor of China, but yet you actually do not know that I'm not.

On the contrary, neither I nor anyone has assumed that you either are or are not the Emperor of China, so your point is...pointless. But I could say that you just don't understand the issue.


.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

On the contrary, neither I nor anyone has assumed that you are the Emperor of China, so your point is...pointless. But I could say that you just don't understand the issue.

I understand it perfectly. And I also understand, that, as the one who claimed that the prodigal son was destined to return, you must prove this.

 

[Albion]

I understand it perfectly.

If you did, you could defend it effectively rather than just jumping up and down and asking me for further explanations of the parts you don't understand. There is absolutely zero, zip in the parable of the prodigal son that refutes predestination. It doesn't even bear upon it. If you don't see that right away, you certainly do not understand "perfectly." Not only that, but I see that you didn't even follow what I was saying. I refer to your claim that I supposedly said the parable proves predestination, when what I'd said is that it doesn't refute it.

 

[MamaZ]

"Non-believers sin willfully"...therefore non-believers have a free will?

Actually not really. They sin willfully because they are natural sinners since birth. Those who are born again and a new life inside of them. Gods Spirit. Men who do not know the Lord are slaves to sin.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Actually not really. They sin willfully because they are natural sinners since birth. Those who are born again and a new life inside of them. Gods Spirit. Men who do not know the Lord are slaves to sin.

Many who do know the Lord are slaves to sin also; even the devil knows the Lord.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Many who do know the Lord are slaves to sin also; even the devil knows the Lord.

Might I add that those who do know the Lord, who trust in Him for their salvation, and who do not sin wilfully, still sin inadvertently. I've known enough "Born Again" OSAS Christians, that I can assuredly say that in light of the 10 commandments, they sin, and they sin almost as often and as grievously as I do; and I was "born again" in Christ, through His grace which I received at my infant baptism.

OSAS is a crock, and is often used as a licence to sin.

 

[MamaZ]

Many who do know the Lord are slaves to sin also; even the devil knows the Lord.

Many who think they know the Lord are slaves to sin. Those born of His spirit actually arn't slaves to sin. Even though the devil know the Lord, he is not human and does not have the Lord in him and is not the temple of the HS. We all as humans have weaknesses and do sin. But we do not live a life of sin. We slip and we fall. Those who are slaves to sin believe it is great fun and have no concience as to how bad sin really is. It takes new birth to walk in the spirit of Christ. I do not believe a baby being baptized in water is born again.

 

[BlackSepulcher]

OSAS is a crock, and is often used as a licence to sin.

'Perseverance of the saints' is the best theology of OSAS. Too bad it's all wrong anyway

 

[bach90]

No, it doesn't follow that because non-believers sin wilfully that therefore they have free will. If they had free will then it follows that they would be able to change their wills and decide not to sin wilfully and willingly want to serve God by obeying all His Commandments. But of course as Luther maintained we can only become believers through God's grace by God given faith without works. Only then are our wills changed so that we willingly avoid sin.

So we don't have any free will to change our desire to commit sin. We're by nature sinful due to the fall of our first parents and can't change our corrupt will to conform to God's Commandments. His Commandments are viewed as irksome because they don't allow us to hate our enemies, and indulge our sexual urges etc. So it's only by God's direct intervention through election to salvation that our wills are changed by God through irresistible conversion, and we don't cooperate with this in any way. Everything happens by God's predestination and not in any way by some imaginary free will.

You assume someone with a free will will always choose to serve God and his commandments. Certainly didn't work out that way for Eve.

Actually not really. They sin willfully because they are natural sinners since birth. Those who are born again and a new life inside of them. Gods Spirit. Men who do not know the Lord are slaves to sin.

I was quoting someone else.


I'm saying, just according to logic without regards to theology, if one can will to sin...then it necessarily follows that they have a will, so, if one doesn't have a will they can't will sin. How much you want to say that that "will" is free or not free is the point at issue. Of course, no philosopher or theologian has ever given an adequate definition of free will. If the will is free to do evil, it follows a fortiori, that the will can abstain from evil. If I can do something I must also have the possibility of not doing something unless such action must be done out of necessity whether or not I choose for it to happen or not. The consequence of that though would be that God is the author of evil, because he is not, it must be that we both posses the ability to choose evil and make the decision to do it, therefore, humans can freely will an evil action.

I actually do believe in the third use of the law though, like any Lutheran, so you're more than free to tell a Christian, "Stop sinning." To just chuck it up in the air and say, "Well, I'm going to sin anyway" is ridiculous. Christians need to make the effort to follow the commandments even if the goal can't be accomplished. By commandments, I mean the Ten Commandments, not the one's which the local Evangelical or RC church made up 3 weeks ago in the flyer (surprising how often they overlap).