Trying to understand Lutheran election

[FireDragon76]

Would it be correct to say that Lutheranism that it's not so much that a persons election is arbitrary and mysterious as it is concretely rooted in faith in Christ?

How is this different from the idea that Christ is the elected one and that anyone that is united with Christ is therefore also elect? How much does Lutheranism really "need" determinism and a lack of libertarian freedom?

 

[Tigger45]

Hey my friend. You may already know this but posting questions and fellowshiping in other specific denominational forums is alowed in CF and you would get quicker and more responses. Theologia Crucis - Lutherans

 

[FireDragon76]

Hey my friend. You may already know this but posting questions and fellowshiping in other specific denominational forums is alowed in CF and you would get quicker and more responses. Theologia Crucis - Lutherans

OK, I will try that but I was trying to avoid intruding into someone else's space as I am not Lutheran.

 

[Tigger45]

As long as your posts are in fellowship and not teaching against or debating their specific doctrinal beliefs you're good to go. In fact they would welcome your questions and there are some really knowledgeable people other there that could answer your questions very well. Myself not being on of them

 

[Edward65]

Would it be correct to say that Lutheranism that it's not so much that a persons election is arbitrary and mysterious as it is concretely rooted in faith in Christ?

How is this different from the idea that Christ is the elected one and that anyone that is united with Christ is therefore also elect? How much does Lutheranism really "need" determinism and a lack of libertarian freedom?

I notice that you haven't had any replies to your enquiry on the Lutheran forum, so I'd like to point out that the Lutheran view of election isn't the same as Luther's. Luther in the Bondage of the Will (his reply to Erasmus wherein he rejected free will and argued on the basis of Scripture that God predestines everything that happens) held that God elects people before they're born to be either saved or damned in accordance with the teaching of Paul in Romans 9. Lutherans however who endorse the Formula of Concord's teaching on election and predestination reject the Scriptural teaching that God elects and predestines people to hell and will only accept that God elects and predestines people to heaven. This of course is completely illogical and contradictory as if God elects only a certain number of people to be saved it logically follows that the reason why the rest aren't saved is because God hasn't elected to save them (i.e. has elected to damn them). This however is rejected by Lutherans who argue that the only reason why people are damned is because they have rejected God's grace.

What Lutherans actually believe on election is difficult to know since their whole doctrine of election and predestination is steeped in contradiction and illogicality. All I can say is that Luther definitely wouldn't have agreed with their rejection of election and predestination to hell which was adopted after his death in their Formula of Concord.

 

[jdbrown]

What Lutherans actually believe on election is difficult to know since their whole doctrine of election and predestination is steeped in contradiction and illogicality.

This is known as a "happy inconsistency". Lutheranism tends to emphasize the revealed will of God over the hidden will of God. Anything that is not clearly and unambiguously spelled out in Scripture is relegated to being a mystery. I really can't blame them for avoiding all the theological hairsplitting that goes on.

 

[Edward65]

This is known as a "happy inconsistency". Lutheranism tends to emphasize the revealed will of God over the hidden will of God. Anything that is not clearly and unambiguously spelled out in Scripture is relegated to being a mystery. I really can't blame them for avoiding all the theological hairsplitting that goes on.

I don't, and Luther didn't accept that predestination to heaven and hell isn't unambiguously spelt out in Scripture. It's just that Lutherans have made the unwarranted deduction that if God desires everyone's salvation through Christ as 1Tim 2 teaches, it must follow that the Holy Spirit tries to regenerate all who hear the Gospel, and that therefore those who are damned are damned because they resisted the Holy Spirit's attempt to convert them. Luther on the other hand didn't make this unwarranted deduction, and held that the Holy Spirit irresistibly converts only those He wills to, and that those who are lost are predestined to reject the Gospel and so be damned.

The Lutheran position (as opposed to Luther's position) is hopelessly confused because as well as teaching what is in effect free will, they also teach predestination to heaven and that only those elected by God to be saved will be saved. So what the Lutheran position amounts to is an illogical combination of predestination and free will. It is logically contradictory and can't possibly be true. God doesn't teach things in His Word which are contradictory. Some things may appear contradictory but in reality they aren't so. Other things are obviously incomprehensible to us but not logically contradictory. However trying to convince Lutherans that something which is logically contradictory can't be true is a waste of time. They just won't have it, and respond with the assertion that they're only believing what the Scriptures teach when in fact that isn't the case. They've misinterpreted the Bible but can't see that they've done so.

 

[elman]

I don't, and Luther didn't accept that predestination to heaven and hell isn't unambiguously spelt out in Scripture. It's just that Lutherans have made the unwarranted deduction that if God desires everyone's salvation through Christ as 1Tim 2 teaches, it must follow that the Holy Spirit tries to regenerate all who hear the Gospel, and that therefore those who are damned are damned because they resisted the Holy Spirit's attempt to convert them. Luther on the other hand didn't make this unwarranted deduction, and held that the Holy Spirit irresistibly converts only those He wills to, and that those who are lost are predestined to reject the Gospel and so be damned.

The Lutheran position (as opposed to Luther's position) is hopelessly confused because as well as teaching what is in effect free will, they also teach predestination to heaven and that only those elected by God to be saved will be saved. So what the Lutheran position amounts to is an illogical combination of predestination and free will. It is logically contradictory and can't possibly be true. God doesn't teach things in His Word which are contradictory. Some things may appear contradictory but in reality they aren't so. Other things are obviously incomprehensible to us but not logically contradictory. However trying to convince Lutherans that something which is logically contradictory can't be true is a waste of time. They just won't have it, and respond with the assertion that they're only believing what the Scriptures teach when in fact that isn't the case. They've misinterpreted the Bible but can't see that they've done so.

I agree except I see the Bible as having contradictions. It seems to me the Bible teaches clearly that we have been given the ability by God to love our neighbor or not; and our choices effect our eternal destiny. There are also verses that appear to teach predestination. Lack of free will is not compatible with the ability to chose to love or not as Jesus commanded us to do. The Bible teaches God will not lie but it also teaches that God has sent a lying spirit from His throne to lie for Him. Both cannot be true.

 

[FireDragon76]

Romans 9 is about Israel's election, not individual election to life or eternal damnation. Taking it out of the context of St. Paul's apologetic for the equality of gentiles, and turning it into a systematic theology about Predestination, is perverse.

I think I will accept what Lutherans have to say on this issue in their own words, that is only fair. Why let a detractor speak for them? Luther was not a systematic theologian and his theology evolved during his life. I think it would be wrong to take one quote from one book and say that is what he believed for all time.

By the way, I'm very uncomfortable with Calvinist views of election. I believe it is spiritually dangerous and distorts the character of God in the name of being "rational". That easily slips into despair or legalism. I believe in a loving God, not a cosmic mad scientist. Love requires freedom and giving up control to be real. I can't see a loving God orchestrating the entire universe like puppets.

I agree except I see the Bible as having The Bible teaches God will not lie but it also teaches that God has sent a lying spirit from His throne to lie for Him. Both cannot be true.

Hence why we need to approach the Bible with some kind of understanding we will sometimes come away with different conclusions based on our presuppositions. There's no escaping our need for theology and church tradition to inform our faith.

 

[ScottMcAliley]

There's a fine line between God's complete foreknowledge of who will and will not ultimately come to Christ, and His general will that all should come to a saving knowledge of Him. But the line exists. If there is no true free will (at least from our human perspective, in the course of real time), then life is futile and pointless.

 

[elman]

Romans 9 is about Israel's election, not individual election to life or eternal damnation.

Eternal life has never been given to nations. It is only given to individuals. Ezekiel says in Chapter 18 the soul that sins is the one that dies--that is all about individuals.

By the way, I'm very uncomfortable with Calvinist views of election. I believe it is spiritually dangerous and distorts the character of God in the name of being "rational". That easily slips into despair or legalism. I believe in a loving God, not a cosmic mad scientist. Love requires freedom and giving up control to be real. I can't see a loving God orchestrating the entire universe like puppets.

I totally agree.

Hence why we need to approach the Bible with some kind of understanding we will sometimes come away with different conclusions based on our presuppositions. There's no escaping our need for theology and church tradition to inform our faith.

We should not assume church tradition is accurate and correct.

 

[FireDragon76]

Eternal life has never been given to nations. It is only given to individuals. Ezekiel says in Chapter 18 the soul that sins is the one that dies--that is all about individuals.

Yes, but Romans 9 is talking about God's election of Israel against other nations. What Paul is trying to say in Romans is that God has also grafted in the Gentiles into that election at the end of the age (and in Paul mind, we are living in the end of the age), so that by faith Gentiles receive the promises of Abraham. It is not a discourse about individual salvation except inasmuch as people become part of the Church and are saved corporately. Paul is not talking about who goes to heaven or hell, but who is part of the covenant promise of Abraham.

We should not assume church tradition is accurate and correct.

Why not? Why go through life with an inherently skeptical attitude and try to reivent the wheel? You should really look at your own spiritual life for the fruits of the spirit, and look to other peoples to decide what to believe, not just to blind Biblicism where we don't listen to the Spirit at work in our lives and the lives of others. People that want to argue for Biblicism invariably want to control others and make them believe their particular biblical interpretation is authoritative above their own experiences. That's not a good way to know the living God. I don't believe church tradition answers everything but it is a good place to start and it attests to millions of people that have lived out the Christian faith successfully.

 

[elman]

Yes, but Romans 9 is talking about God's election of Israel against other nations. What Paul is trying to say in Romans is that God has also grafted in the Gentiles into that election at the end of the age (and in Paul mind, we are living in the end of the age), so that by faith Gentiles receive the promises of Abraham. It is not a discourse about individual salvation except inasmuch as people become part of the Church and are saved corporately. Paul is not talking about who goes to heaven or hell, but who is part of the covenant promise of Abraham.

I disagree. I believe Paul is talking about that group of individuals that have hope of receiving eternal life. God never saved people by groups. If only Israel was saved, what happened to the people of Ninevah after Jonah preached to them? They were not Israelites. He does not save people by groups at the last Judgment scene in Matt 25. They are divided one at a time into sheep and goats, based on their individual choices to love--not on their nationality.

 

[FireDragon76]

God has purposes for people, such as the Jews. In this sense he elects the Jews, he chooses them for a mission in the world. He made promises to Abraham that he would father a great people and they would bless the world. Jesus is the fulfillment of that promise to Abraham. Thus salvation is not really about going to heaven or hell but about being part of the covenant of Abraham. N.T. Wright is excellent to read on this point and he makes a lot of sense. Hell is a medieval mythology drawn more from pagan sources. The point of the Gospel isn't to get to heaven but to see God renewing the earth and making a new creation through Jesus Christ as the representative of Israel. Eternal life is union with Christ, not getting to heaven when you die. That happens but it only happens through union with Christ, and this is a matter of having the signs and membership of the covenant community. Ecclessiology, what the Church is, is very important. You really don't get saved without the Church, the Body of Christ.

Jesus talking about the sheep and the goats is a parable, it is a metaphor based on commonly understood stories of the day, but he puts his own twist on the story to show what sort of character God has (less interested in religion and righteousness, and more interested in mercy and compassion), it is not necessarily a literal description of the end of the world or the last things. Some people will not want to be true members of the covenant community, and for them I suppose they might end up as the goats and it won't be too good for them. But the nature of salvation is a corporate affair, not an individual affair.

 

[elman]

God has purposes for people, such as the Jews. In this sense he elects the Jews, he chooses them for a mission in the world. He made promises to Abraham that he would father a great people and they would bless the world. Jesus is the fulfillment of that promise to Abraham. Thus salvation is not really about going to heaven or hell but about being part of the covenant of Abraham. N.T. Wright is excellent to read on this point and he makes a lot of sense. Hell is a medieval mythology drawn more from pagan sources. The point of the Gospel isn't to get to heaven but to see God renewing the earth and making a new creation through Jesus Christ as the representative of Israel. Eternal life is union with Christ, not getting to heaven when you die. That happens but it only happens through union with Christ, and this is a matter of having the signs and membership of the covenant community. Ecclessiology, what the Church is, is very important. You really don't get saved without the Church, the Body of Christ.

Jesus talking about the sheep and the goats is a parable, it is a metaphor based on commonly understood stories of the day, but he puts his own twist on the story to show what sort of character God has (less interested in religion and righteousness, and more interested in mercy and compassion), it is not necessarily a literal description of the end of the world or the last things. Some people will not want to be true members of the covenant community, and for them I suppose they might end up as the goats and it won't be too good for them. But the nature of salvation is a corporate affair, not an individual affair.

Salvation is all about receiving the gift of eternal life. God's purposes is the same for all peoples without regard to nationality. It has always been so. The Old Testament is filled with non Jews being close to God. They are even in the linage of Jesus. The individual Jews who sinned died spiritually--that is what Ezekiel 18 teaches very clearly. The teachings of Matt 25 is divine truth and calling it a metaphor does not avoid what it teaches. Goats are not those who are not seen as part of the covenant community. Goats have make themselves not part of the covenant community by being unloving. It is not the church that connects us to eternal life. It is being connected to God Spiritually that makes us a church. This earth is not ever going to be the new creation. The new Creation is you and I being regenerated after we turn from being spiritually dead and disconnected to God. The Kingdom of Heaven is not of this world and never will be. The nature of receiving or not receiving eternal life is an individual affair and not a corporate affair. We do not have hope of eternal life because of being part of a group. We are saved individually or not at all. If we are spiritually alive, that is what makes us part of the group that has hope of receiving eternal life.

 

[Edward65]

I agree except I see the Bible as having contradictions. It seems to me the Bible teaches clearly that we have been given the ability by God to love our neighbor or not; and our choices effect our eternal destiny. There are also verses that appear to teach predestination. Lack of free will is not compatible with the ability to chose to love or not as Jesus commanded us to do. The Bible teaches God will not lie but it also teaches that God has sent a lying spirit from His throne to lie for Him. Both cannot be true.

I can't agree that the Bible contains actual contradictions. Seeming contradictions - yes, but not actual ones. Those verses which seem to teach free will because they require us to believe or obey don't imply that we have the ability to believe or obey. They show us that we need God's grace if we're to become Christians and lead a God pleasing life, not that we can do so from some imaginary free will. The Scriptures teach that we are dead in unbelief and can't come to Christ in order to be saved unless the Father grants it. (John 6:44,64,65; Eph. 2:1-3 etc.)

With regards to your example of a contradiction -that of Micaiah it's worth quoting the whole passage:

[19] And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; [20] and the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another. [21] Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ [22] And the LORD said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ [23] Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you.”
(1 Kings 22:19-23 ESV)

So we can see from this passage that Micaiah as God's prophet said truthfully that God had put a lying spirit in the mouth of the king's prophets. So God wasn't lying there. Also who was it that was doing the lying? Was it God or the lying spirits? It was the lying spirits. So God didn't lie. Therefore there's no contradiction. God never lies and He didn't lie in this example that you give.

 

[Ignatius21]

It is not the church that connects us to eternal life. It is being connected to God Spiritually that makes us a church.

Why are you opposing these two ideas, as though being one necessarily excludes the other? The view of the early Christians, and most of Christianity down to the present day (meaning worldwide over the course of 2000 years) does in fact understand individual salvation as one's participation in the salvation of the whole. The Church does connect us to eternal life, because the Church is really and truly the Body of Christ, the very Body that was raised from the dead. Christ's resurrection is our resurrection. His victory over death and Satan in our victory. In a very real sense, the Church (understood as the Body, not as a human organization to which one may or may not affiliate) is what is saved. We are saved in the Church. We are saved by being united to the Body of Christ.

The view that the Church is the collection--or voluntary association--of individually saved people is a rather modern take on it.

And boy, this really has nothing to do with the Lutheran position on election, does it?

 

[Edward65]

Romans 9 is about Israel's election, not individual election to life or eternal damnation. Taking it out of the context of St. Paul's apologetic for the equality of gentiles, and turning it into a systematic theology about Predestination, is perverse.

I think I will accept what Lutherans have to say on this issue in their own words, that is only fair. Why let a detractor speak for them? Luther was not a systematic theologian and his theology evolved during his life. I think it would be wrong to take one quote from one book and say that is what he believed for all time.

Paul's talking about individual election. He says God has mercy on some and hardens others in unbelief, and that God's like a potter who moulds the clay into vessels of honour or dishonour according to whether He loves or hates people before they're born. So he's talking about predestination to heaven and hell. In Romans 8 Paul discussed those who were predestined to be saved and now in Romans 9 in addition he's explaining that those who aren't predestined to be saved are predestined to be damned.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say it would be wrong to take one quote from one book etc. I haven't given any quotes but perhaps you're referring to someone else in a different thread. With regards to The Bondage of the Will, the whole book is about the fact that we have no free will and that everything is predestined by God to happen, and Luther held this book in high esteem writing 12 years later in 1537 that what he'd said in it he was sure was the unchangeable truth of God. By the way I'm not suggesting that you can't let Lutherans speak for themselves. However by rejecting predestination to hell and teaching that men alone are to be blamed if they're damned because they've resisted the Holy Spirit's attempt to convert them Lutherans have in effect amalgamated free will and predestination into an illogical combination. I should explain here that I'm only talking of confessional Lutherans who subscribe to the Book of Concord, I'm not referring to liberal Lutherans who are Lutheran in name only.

Also it occurred to me that as you haven't yet had a reply to your question on the Lutheran forum may I suggest you post on the confessional Lutheran sub-forum. There are two sub-forums. One for confessional Lutherans (LCMS,WELS,ELC,LCC), and one for more liberal minded Lutherans. If you post on the former you'll probably get a reply. If they do reply perhaps you could also ask them to post on this thread here as well.

 

[elman]

I can't agree that the Bible contains actual contradictions. Seeming contradictions - yes, but not actual ones. Those verses which seem to teach free will because they require us to believe or obey don't imply that we have the ability to believe or obey. They show us that we need God's grace if we're to become Christians and lead a God pleasing life, not that we can do so from some imaginary free will. The Scriptures teach that we are dead in unbelief and can't come to Christ in order to be saved unless the Father grants it. (John 6:44,64,65; Eph. 2:1-3 etc.)

With regards to your example of a contradiction -that of Micaiah it's worth quoting the whole passage:

[19] And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; [20] and the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another. [21] Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ [22] And the LORD said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ [23] Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you.”
(1 Kings 22:19-23 ESV)

So we can see from this passage that Micaiah as God's prophet said truthfully that God had put a lying spirit in the mouth of the king's prophets. So God wasn't lying there. Also who was it that was doing the lying? Was it God or the lying spirits? It was the lying spirits. So God didn't lie. Therefore there's no contradiction. God never lies and He didn't lie in this example that you give.

There is no meaning being conveyed when one says God does not lie, if God recruiting a lying spirit and sending it on a mission to lie for Him is not God lying. I understand you do not want the Bible to contradict itself. Unfortunately it does and this is an example of it.

 

[elman]

Why are you opposing these two ideas, as though being one necessarily excludes the other? The view of the early Christians, and most of Christianity down to the present day (meaning worldwide over the course of 2000 years) does in fact understand individual salvation as one's participation in the salvation of the whole. The Church does connect us to eternal life, because the Church is really and truly the Body of Christ, the very Body that was raised from the dead. Christ's resurrection is our resurrection. His victory over death and Satan in our victory. In a very real sense, the Church (understood as the Body, not as a human organization to which one may or may not affiliate) is what is saved. We are saved in the Church. We are saved by being united to the Body of Christ.

The view that the Church is the collection--or voluntary association--of individually saved people is a rather modern take on it.

And boy, this really has nothing to do with the Lutheran position on election, does it?

Which church is it that I must be a member of to be a sheep in Matt 25? That is the problem. There is no visible church in this physical world that has the authority from God to make that determination. I agree with you that the church that is the body of Christ is not a human organization to which one may or may not affiliate. We are saved--receive eternal life--- by the grace and forgiveness of God and obeying the command to love God and man. If we are saved we are a member of the body of Christ, the church.