Martin Luther's Teaching on Predestination.

[squint]

fwiw, it is the custom of Northern climate Lutherans to bully anyone severely to their face just to make them mad before we put our arms around them in LOVE and LAUGHTER.

IF they don't flinch, they'll be JUST FINE. And if they want to burn us alive in fire forever, well, we might not help them put up any hay or if we do, they'll be latter on the list, unless they come over and have coffee and be civil.



s

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I presume their doctrinal sets are VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL to the LCMS and that the locale is the only differentiation?

IF not, I stand corrected. Where I grew up the LCMS were the radical right wing hardliner Lutherans.

The others of us were (and are) considerably 'kinder' in our extensions to our neighbors, and a lot of that came about because we had to be in the harsh northern climates. And a LOT of the former Lutheran congregations moved into the EVANGELICAL FREE body when they died out in the rural congregations and the church was only 'in town.'

We actually had to rely on our neighbors who did not believe 'like us.'

And that tended to grow liberal over time.

s

We too relied on our neighbours who also did not believe like us; they were Irish Catholic; very few protestants, fewer still Anglicans.

fwiw, it is the custom of Northern climate Lutherans to bully anyone severely to their face just to make them mad before we put our arms around them in LOVE and LAUGHTER.

IF they don't flinch, they'll be JUST FINE. And if they want to burn us alive in fire forever, well, we might not help them put up any hay or if we do, they'll be latter on the list, unless they come over and have coffee and be civil.



s

Yup, argue to "beat hell" (literally and figuratively); coffee during the day, beer, cider and whisky later in the day. Few Irish hunted, but their Priest did. Almost all Lutherans hunted, so the Priest hunted with us. After the hunt, we also drank together; he bought as often as the rest of us.

When he died a few years back, there were almost as many Lutherans at his funeral as there were Catholics.

While the Lutherans and Catholics never consigned each other to the fires of hell, the few reformed protestants did condemn the Catholics, and us as well, for associating with them.

Different circumstances, different outlooks I guess.

Squint, given the chance, I would gladly drink and discuss theology or what ever with you; and would buy the first round.

Please forgive me for being a bit of an ass; it's easier to talk face in my experience.

 

[PaladinValer]

Was our Lord Jesus Christ incarnated as an Angel? Was He incarnated as a coniferous tree? He was incarnated as a human, so the context of the discussion can only be about mankind, not angels and demons, not foliage and shrubberies.

Shrubbery - YouTube

Nih! Peng! Neee-wom! Nih!

And I'll say the word that cannot be said to the Knights of Nih unless you bring me the skin of the Killer Rabbit, slain by crushing said rabbit with the largest tree in the forrest cut down by a herring obtained by trading in a shrubbery for said herring!

 

[Edward65]

Confessional Lutherans voluntarily bind themselves to the Book of Concord, much but not all of which was written by Luther or written under his guidance, and some of which antedates and postdates Luther.

We do so because the BoC is an accurate presentation and summary of the doctrines taught in Holy Scripture, which is the sole rule and norm of our theology.

I believe what the Book of Concord teaches with respect to those parts which antedated and were written by or under Luther's guidance, but when it comes to some of what the Formula of Concord teaches with respect to predestination, conversion and damnation I can't accept that it's Scriptural, and I'm certain that Luther would have rejected it. The reason I say this is because the Formula teaches contradictory things and both sides of a logical contradiction can't be true. To believe they can be is sheer madness and a deception of Satan.

Let me point out the contradictions:

The Formula Epitome says in article II on Free Will:

2. “Likewise, we believe, teach, and confess that the unregenerated human will is not only turned away from God but has also become God‘s enemy, that it has only the desire and will to do evil and whatever is opposed to God, as it is written, ―The inclination of the human heart is evil from youth‖ [Gen. 8:21*]. Likewise, ―The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God‘s law—indeed, it cannot‖ [Rom. 8:7*]. As little as a corpse can make itself alive for bodily, earthly life, so little can people who through sin are spiritually dead raise themselves up to a spiritual life, as it is written, ―When we were dead through our trespasses, God made us alive together with Christ‖ [Eph. 2:5*]”.

Since therefore the Formula rightly teaches that we are naturally hostile to God it follows logically that we can only be converted through irresistible grace, because unless it was irresistible we couldn’t be converted because our natural hostility to God would reject all attempts by God to convert us, and consequently no one would be saved. However the Solid Declaration Article XI on Election says that God’s grace is resistible:


78] “But the reason why not all who hear it believe, and some are therefore condemned the more deeply [eternally to severer punishments], is not because God had begrudged them their salvation; but it is their own fault, as they have heard the Word in such a manner as not to learn, but only to despise, blaspheme, and disgrace it, and have resisted the Holy Ghost, who through the Word wished to work in them…”

So that’s the first contradiction.


Secondly seeing as some people are saved and some people aren’t saved yet both groups are equally hostile to God , this shows that God has elected (i.e. chosen) who to save and who not to save (i.e. damn). However the Formula Epitome in Article XI denies that God elects who to damn.

4. “The predestination or eternal election of God, however, extends only over the godly, beloved children of God…”

So that's the second contradiction.


Thirdly if as Article XI says the Holy Spirit is equally efficacious in the Word towards those who are damned just as much as He is towards those who are saved, then it logically follows that there must be some difference between the saved and the lost in the way they respond to converting grace. Those who are saved must allow the Holy Spirit to work in them (whilst the damned must not allow this), yet this is denied in Article II where it rightly says:

5] “Against both these parties the pure teachers of the Augsburg Confession have taught and to our conversion and the salvation of our souls he is by nature blind, that, when the Word of God is preached, he neither does nor can understand it, but regards it as foolishness; also, that he does not of himself draw nigh to God, but is and remains an enemy of God, until he is converted, becomes a believer [is endowed with faith], is regenerated and renewed, by the power of the Holy Ghost through the Word when preached and heard, out of pure grace, without any cooperation of his own.”

So that's the third contradiction.


Also the idea (i.e. mistaken idea) that the Holy Spirit is always efficacious in the Word, and that men are lost through resisting the Holy Spirit's attempt to convert them (or else are lost because they pay no attention to the Word), breaks down with respect to the heathen. There have been millions of people both before the time of Christ and afterwards, who have never heard of Christ and who consequently were never in a position to (supposedly) reject the Holy Spirit's attempt to convert them (or ignore the Word). So the Formula's explanation of why people are damned can't possibly be true in the case of the heathen who have never even heard the Gospel.

The reason why the heathen are damned is because God has elected and predestined them to be damned, but always of course in view of the fact that they are fallen and sinful.


There’s four reasons why the Formula of Concord on the subjects of predestination, conversion and damnation is confused and teaching some things truly and some things falsely.

No Christian should ever without reservation subscribe to the Book of Concord. It's not possible that both sides of a contradiction can be true, and since the Formula of Concord contains contradictions it needs a radical overhaul, and correcting according to the teaching of Scripture. If Luther could have seen the chaotic nature of the teaching of the Formula on predestination, conversion and damnation he would have been up in arms that such teaching should be foisted onto people under the guise of true Lutheranism, and he would have instantly set about correcting it. He would have insisted that no one should subscribe to it until it was fully corrected and conformed to the teaching of God's Word.

 

[Tangible]

Your "contradictions" are mere strawmen. You're not showing parts of the Confessions that supposedly contradict each other, you are putting forth your own interpretation and then showing how it does not agree with what the Confessions actually say.

As to your first point, the Confessions teach, as do the Holy Scriptures, that God's grace is irresistible, and that it can be resisted. Incomprehensible? Maybe. But that's what it says, so that's what we confess. We build our theology around scripture, not reason.

The second "contradiction" is simply what Lutherans teach regarding single predestination - predestination to salvation for those who are in Christ. Period. Again, that's not just an idea, it's what scripture teaches. So that's why we confess it, even if it isn't reasonable.

And so forth.

Like your fellow Reformed Christians, you attempt to subject God's Word to human reason - a recipe for false doctrine and faith-damaging theology.

 

[PaladinValer]

Arguing with Lutherans on how to read their Confessions is like arguing with a Vatican Catholic on how to read their Catechism...or we Anglicans on how to read the KJV...it makes no sense since these works were done under their respective auspices and we know what we mean by them...

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Nih! Peng! Neee-wom! Nih!

And I'll say the word that cannot be said to the Knights of Nih unless you bring me the skin of the Killer Rabbit, slain by crushing said rabbit with the largest tree in the forrest cut down by a herring obtained by trading ina shrubbery for said herring!

Gotta Love it!

Your "contradictions" are mere strawmen. You're not showing parts of the Confessions that supposedly contradict each other, you are putting forth your own interpretation and then showing how it does not agree with what the Confessions actually say.

As to your first point, the Confessions teach, as do the Holy Scriptures, that God's grace is irresistible, and that it can be resisted. Incomprehensible? Maybe. But that's what it says, so that's what we confess. We build our theology around scripture, not reason.

The second "contradiction" is simply what Lutherans teach regarding single predestination - predestination to salvation for those who are in Christ. Period. Again, that's not just an idea, it's what scripture teaches. So that's why we confess it, even if it isn't reasonable.

And so forth.

Like your fellow Reformed Christians, you attempt to subject God's Word to human reason - a recipe for false doctrine and faith-damaging theology.

Tangible, my hat is off to you yet again, well stated.

Arguing with Lutherans on how to read their Confessions is like arguing with a Vatican Catholic on how to read their Catechism...or we Anglicans on how to read the KJV...it makes no sense since these works were done under their respective auspices and we know what we mean by them...

Paladin, you nailed it too!

 

[Edward65]

Your "contradictions" are mere strawmen. You're not showing parts of the Confessions that supposedly contradict each other, you are putting forth your own interpretation and then showing how it does not agree with what the Confessions actually say.

As to your first point, the Confessions teach, as do the Holy Scriptures, that God's grace is irresistible, and that it can be resisted. Incomprehensible? Maybe. But that's what it says, so that's what we confess. We build our theology around scripture, not reason.

The second "contradiction" is simply what Lutherans teach regarding single predestination - predestination to salvation for those who are in Christ. Period. Again, that's not just an idea, it's what scripture teaches. So that's why we confess it, even if it isn't reasonable.

And so forth.

Like your fellow Reformed Christians, you attempt to subject God's Word to human reason - a recipe for false doctrine and faith-damaging theology.

I haven’t erected any straw men. I’ve quoted directly from the Formula and where I haven’t, as when I said the Holy Spirit is always efficacious in the Word, that’s clearly the position of the Formula. Also nowhere in the Formula does it state a belief in irresistible grace. It speaks only of grace being resistible. The three contradictions I’ve outlined above are valid. Also you accept that there’s a contradiction with respect to predestination. It is obviously contradictory to believe that people can only be saved if God predestines them to be saved, but they can only be damned if they choose to be. They’re obviously damned because God chooses not to predestine them to be saved, not because they’ve chosen themselves to be damned.

The fact that you can believe what you’ve outlined above is the teaching of Scripture just shows how deceived you are. Your mind should be telling you that you’ve misinterpreted the Bible. To believe that the Bible teaches contradictory things is Alice in Wonderland territory.

 

[Tangible]

Wow, you know you're right. I'm going to ignore all the pastors and teachers in my church and listen to an anonymous voice on the internet because he used LOGIC to argue his point.



Or not.

 

[Tangible]

.

 

[Albion]

Forgive me if I'm getting a bit cheesed; over the last few days I've been assailed by those who tell me my understanding of my Churches theology is completely wrong, that the confessions do not say what they do; all this from those who have never read any more than a quote here and there from our Confessions (let alone study them); then pick and chose points out of context to support their position.

Despite what I wrote (and stand by), I do appreciate how you're feeling. As an aside, consider how I often feel when those who ARE members of one of the churches of my denomination dress me down for daring to support the historic beliefs and still-current formularies of our church...because they have exempted themselves from all of that and consider themselves to be the "real" Anglicans for having done so!

I can much more easily deal with those who--as in the case you were cheesed about--are NOT now, and presumably never have been, members of my faith but insist upon telling me what my church supposedly believes.

Still in all, there was so much second-guessing of Luther by such a range of "guessers" on this thread, that it did strike me as unseemly even before you reached your own "enough is enough" level.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally Posted by MarkRohfrietsch

You are correct albion. Single predestination to salvation; free-will to reject it.
​

Originally Posted by Albion

Given that this thread seems to have produced a lot of unexpected confusion, your answer here strikes me as clear cut. I like it.
​

This is ridiculous. Agreeing with both Luther and Erasmus is not just confusing it's completely absurd. Luther and Erasmus were theological adversaries over the subject of free will and predestination such that Luther ruled out all free will and came down exclusively on the side of predestination. The subject of free will and predestination is an either or situation. They're mutually exclusive - if you believe one it rules out the other. You can't believe in both and be regarded as a sensible individual. And to believe that God teaches logical contradictions in His Word is nonsense.

So what you actually believe then is that you can only be saved if God predestines you from eternity to be saved, but the only way you can be damned is if you decide yourself not to be saved? That's a contradiction and can't possibly be true.

LOL! I actually really enjoyed reading this post. Very sensible. Thanks!

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

You can preach the Gospel, but as Ref admitted below, under Calvinism you simply cannot consistently (truthfully?) say to any specific person, or to yourself for that matter, that Christ died for you. You can say that Christ died for sinners, for the elect, etc., but you cannot say that any individual is one for whom Christ died.

However, scripture says ...

And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.(Mark 16:15-16, ESV)

LOL! The most ironic thing about the above response is that you post a passage which refutes your view, and does so specifically. That passage from Mark says, "Preach it to everyone and the ones that believe and are baptized will be saved." It doesn't say, "Preach it to everyone and, regardless of whether they believe, Christ still died for them." Um....huh? That makes zero sense and as smart as you are I am confused on how you even couple that passage with your view. You should run and hide when you see that passage. It's in direct contrast to your view, and it's not even difficult to see that.

The glory of the Gospel is that Christ died for His sheep and only His sheep and it is THEM and THEM ONLY who will be justified by His vicarious atonement:

John 17:9
I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.

Well, I don't know what gospel you are referring to as THE gospel, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ is that he died for the sins of all men for all time.

No. That is the gospel of man. The Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Good News, is that ALL for whom Christ died will be made alive with Him and He shall lose none of them. That is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Your anti gospel is that Christ's death was impotent to accomplish anything in the lives of all who go to hell. Either that, or God's goal in the Cross wasn't the ACTUAL salvation of a single person. Your hope relies on nothing more than yourself, for you can only contend that it is when you added your works to the atonement of Christ that it becomes efficacious in atoning for your iniquity. As I've seen with man centered theology for years, that the one who "accepts Christ as his Savior" be glorified is FAR more important than that God sovereignly presides over His creation and, out of the mercy of His sweet benevolence, deigns to rescue a portion of them from their justifiable fate of condemnation.

Somehow, it doesn't seem to be very good news to say to someone, in effect ...

"Christ might have died for you! That is, if you turn out to be one of his elect, which you can never know for sure until you die."

And here you show nothing more than your ignorance. Do you not realize that some of the most prolific evangelists in history have been those who believe in the specific nature of the atonement? Further, it is your ilk that must contend that someone is not a part of the family of God until they do some identifiable work of reconciliation, i.e., ask God in to your heart, say the "sinner's prayer," submit to God, allow God in to your life, etc, etc, etc, yada, yada, yada, ad naseum. We, on the other hand, assume ALL people are God's elect and that we will likely never know who was truly a false believer. We know there are some that will fool others. But, as we are not God, we do not know whether someone's faith is genuine nor are we the ones that make someone stand or fall.

Without even realizing it, you accuse me of something that is far less damning than the tripe you publically embrace. You perceive my understanding of the Gospel to be reflected in this type of evangelical outreach:

"Christ might have died for you! That is, if you turn out to be one of his elect, which you can never know for sure until you die."

That is your characterization of my method. Your's on the other hand, is far less noteworthy:

"Hey, take comfort. Christ absolutely died for you. Now, you should know that, well, there are many people for whom Christ died that still end up in hell. So, even though I can happily tell you that Christ most assuredly died for you, you might still end up in hell. Um...yeah...I know that last part isn't very comforting but, hey, at least He died for you! Woo hoo!"

Yeah. That's better. Pshhht...

You're falsely conflating universal atonement with universal salvation.

The sins of those who will be in hell are just as forgiven as those who will be in heaven. They just don't believe it, and thus have no saving faith in Christ alone that receives the salvation given freely by God.

Wow...just when I thought this couldn't get any weirder...

So, now, I'm to believe that the people in hell are forgiven but, because they don't believe in Christ, they're going to burn in hell. Got it:

Brian Regan on Reading - YouTube

Your view about forgiven people in hell starts at 50 seconds into the vid. My response starts at 1:20. Your own comments are a far bigger indictment against yourself than I could level.

Forgiven people in hell? Seriously? That doesn't even make you feel ridiculous?

If your father leaves you a million dollars, yet you refuse to ever access the account or participate in your family you have effectively disinherited yourself and prevented yourself from benefiting from family membership.

Maybe. But you didn't "effectively" make yourself not a millionaire. Either way, this, like the rest of your post, is nonsensical and is in no way a parallel to Scriptures revelation about the scope of the atonement. A better analogy, using your own silly parameters, is this:

You owe your bank 1 billion dollars. You have zilch. The bank, being the bank, knows you have no money. This crime warrants death. Instead of killing you, the bank manager removes 1 billion dollars of his own money and pays your debt to the bank. He doesn't pay it to you. He pays it to the bank. So, whether you "don't access the account" is irrelevent. You can't access the account. It's not your account. It's the banks account.

Likewise, Christ died for the sins of all and rose for their justification, but those who reject his gifts and promises do not and cannot enjoy the benefits they bring.

Why don't we just tell it like it is. In your view, the efficacy of Christ's death is determined by the creation. In your view, God desired to save everyone without exception, sent His Son to facilitate that very thing, and then, because of the all mighty creation, failed, and now will spend eternity weeping and gnashing his divine teeth in sorrow. Yeah. Really glorifying. Good luck with that.

Thankfully, Scripture clearly tells a different story. Christ died for the sins of all who WILL BE saved, and them only, and His atoning work exactly accomplishes what He intended it to and all He desired to save by His work on the Cross WILL BE saved by His work on the Cross.

Ahhhhhhh....the peace that the truth brings. It, more than anything else is truly is a comfort.

 

[Edward65]

Wow, you know you're right. I'm going to ignore all the pastors and teachers in my church and listen to an anonymous voice on the internet because he used LOGIC to argue his point.

Or not.

You should never believe anyone simply because they tell you something. I'm not asking you to believe what I've said simply because I've said it. I have no authority to teach anything. This is an open debate and anyone is free to say and believe what they want, and I have set down why I'm convinced that true Lutheranism, which is the teaching of the Scriptures, isn't represented by the teaching of the Formula on the subject of predestination. All I would ask you to do is to weigh up the evidence and come to your own conclusions, but don't just accept what your pastors and teachers tell you without being convinced in your own mind that what they teach is truly Scriptural. Please remember before Luther came on the scene people just blindly followed the Roman Catholic Church without realising they were being deceived.

 

[Albion]

LOL! The most ironic thing about the above response is that you post a passage which refutes your view, and does so specifically. That passage from Mark says, "Preach it to everyone and the ones that believe and are baptized will be saved." It doesn't say, "Preach it to everyone and, regardless of whether they believe, Christ still died for them." Um....huh? That makes zero sense and as smart as you are I am confused on how you even couple that passage with your view.

The passage (using your paraphrase) means is exactly what it says--not with any "therefore it leads to the following conclusion" addendum.

And that is this: "the ones that believe and are baptized will be saved." Nothing in that line says that they will be saved BECAUSE they either believe or are baptized. No. It just says they will be.

 

[Reformationist]

The passage (using your paraphrase) means is exactly what it says--not with any "therefore it leads to the following conclusion" addendum.

And that is this: "the ones that believe and are baptized will be saved." Nothing in that line says that they will be saved BECAUSE they either believe or are baptized. No. It just says they will be.

I've not said otherwise. You, on the other hand, contend that Christ died for all without exception, an unbiblical notion which that passage destroys. It clearly distinguishes between those that will be saved and those who won't.

This should be easy, unless you share Tangible's nonsensical view that Christ dies for people that end up in hell. You don't, do you?

God bless

 

[squint]

I've not said otherwise. You, on the other hand, contend that Christ died for all without exception, an unbiblical notion which that passage destroys. It clearly distinguishes between those that will be saved and those who won't.

This should be easy, unless you share Tangible's nonsensical view that Christ dies for people that end up in hell. You don't, do you?

God bless

I don't think the understandings making sense to you or any other was in view.

The difficulty when venturing into terms such as 'predestination' is that the understandings seldom if ever revolve around a single term.

It is one of the most difficult conversations to have in theology.

What 'predestination' means in these formula's is crucial to understand. For example if queried in detail, the pre/free combo will usually yield up a predestination meaning as 'if' freewill prevails 'then' conforming to the Image of The Son is predestined. IOW predestination is perhaps 'rightfully' linked to Perseverance, a point often neglected by double pre hardliners.

jes sayin' it does make some sense if one takes the time to sort through the pieces.

Not sayin' I agree. I'm just used to a wide array of 'exposure to alternatives' on the subject matter, which has gotten exceptionally diverse over the last couple decades.

s

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Despite what I wrote (and stand by), I do appreciate how you're feeling. As an aside, consider how I often feel when those who ARE members of one of the churches of my denomination dress me down for daring to support the historic beliefs and still-current formularies of our church...because they have exempted themselves from all of that and consider themselves to be the "real" Anglicans for having done so!

I can much more easily deal with those who--as in the case you were cheesed about--are NOT now, and presumably never have been, members of my faith but insist upon telling me what my church supposedly believes.

Still in all, there was so much second-guessing of Luther by such a range of "guessers" on this thread, that it did strike me as unseemly even before you reached your own "enough is enough" level.

Thanks for your understanding, however I should not have boiled over.


I hear you regarding members who know more than the Church does. For a time, I attended a Church with about 1/4 of the members who figured the Church had to conform to their ideas, rather than they conforming to God's word and Our Confessions (both of which they had pledged to uphold "even unto death" at their confirmations). Due to their efforts, the Congregation no longer exists.

 

[Albion]

I hear you regarding members who know more than the Church does. For a time, I attended a Church with about 1/4 of the members who figured the Church had to conform to their ideas, rather than they conforming to God's word and Our Confessions (both of which they had pledged to uphold "even unto death" at their confirmations). Due to their efforts, the Congregation no longer exists.

Man, I know just what you mean there. It's common. And it's as though everyone in our present society takes their promises for nothing but a formality, and no one has any right to expect a single thing from them, under any circumstances, that they don't feel like doing.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Man, I know just what you mean there. It's common. And it's as though everyone in our present society takes their promises for nothing but a formality, and no one has any right to expect a single thing from them, under any circumstances, that they don't feel like doing.

I was speaking about this same thing, but regarding work ethic with my boss, my companies head engineer. Our company wants their employees to take "ownership" of their jobs, yet we add layer upon layer of sensors and devices that not only make things ultra-safe (safety is good), but prevent parts from being miss-loaded into machines, and prevents processes from being missed.

My comment to him was; the more responsibility that we take away from individuals, the more irresponsible they become. Add to this the sense of self from the "me" generation, and the attitude of entitlement that developed on account of it, it's no wonder that few take anything seriously, other than themselves.

Such is, I believe, the differences between the early reformers and many who desire to re-reform their faith; the early reformers, for the most part, desired only to do God's will. The one glaring, historical exception was Henry VIII; however there were already English Bishops looking towards Wittenburg, who's desire was not as selfish as Henry's.

I guess Henry was ahead of his time!