Lutheran rejection of double predestination.

[Edward65]

That's a logical fallacy that you are inferring. Just because God has perfect knowledge of the future doesn't mean He determined it. It merely means that He knows it. Logically, He may or may not have have determined part or all of it on the basis of that statement. Foreknowledge is not determinism.

I didn't just affirm God's foreknowledge but also His omnipotence. Since God is omnipotent nothing can happen in the universe which He doesn't will to happen, because no being greater than Him exists which forces him to permit anything. So omnipotence + foreknowledge = predestination and no free-will.

The problem with the Formula of Concord is that its position is nonsensical. It teaches predestination to heaven, but no predestination to hell. It teaches that we have no free-will with respect to salvation, but we do have free-will with respect to damnation. So according to the Formula you can’t choose to accept the Gospel, but you can choose to reject it. But if you can choose to reject it you must be able to choose to not reject it, since choice is always between alternatives. However choosing to not reject the Gospel is the same as choosing to accept it, which according to the Formula you can’t do. So the position of the Formula is nonsensical.

 

[ContraMundum]

I didn't just affirm God's foreknowledge but also His omnipotence. Since God is omnipotent nothing can happen in the universe which He doesn't will to happen, because no being greater than Him exists which forces him to permit anything. So omnipotence + foreknowledge = predestination and no free-will.

Same fallacy. Omnipotence + foreknowledge + your assumptions on how that works = predestination and no free-will.

One can just as easily apply that exact formula to liberatarianism. The assumption on how God chooses to use His omnipotence and foreknowledge is merely different.

Thus: as the Lutheran teachers have said all along: Arminianism, Calvinism and Papism are ultimately using the same method- insertion of reasoned assumption determines doctrine.

You've just proven my previous post to be accurate of your position. That was easy.

Next.

The problem with the Formula of Concord is that its position is nonsensical. It teaches predestination to heaven, but no predestination to hell. It teaches that we have no free-will with respect to salvation, but we do have free-will with respect to damnation. So according to the Formula you can’t choose to accept the Gospel, but you can choose to reject it. But if you can choose to reject it you must be able to choose to not reject it, since choice is always between alternatives. However choosing to not reject the Gospel is the same as choosing to accept it, which according to the Formula you can’t do. So the position of the Formula is nonsensical.

The hidden will of God is supposed to be "logical"? Since when?

 

[Edward65]

Same fallacy. Omnipotence + foreknowledge + your assumptions on how that works = predestination and no free-will.

No not at all my assumptions on how that works but the actual teaching of the Bible. Ephesians 1:11–12 says:

“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.” (ESV)

This statement of Paul's teaches that everything that happens is as a result of God willing it to happen according to what He has decided Himself, and that those who are saved have been predestined by God to be saved, which therefore means that human free will plays no part in salvation. It also follows that in damnation free will plays no part either because Paul says that God works all things according to His will. So there’s no unbiblical assumption involved in affirming that God predestines the course of the world and everyone’s destiny, and that free will plays no part, because that’s the teaching of Scripture. Other Scripture verses also teach the same like Isaiah 46:8-10:

Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ (ESV)

One can see from these verses that God has predestined everything that happens because God knows what’s going to happen from the beginning to the end of the world because He has taken counsel with Himself and decided upon what He wants to achieve and now sets about accomplishing it in the world. Therefore all history is a record of what He has determined beforehand to bring into actuality. So there’s no free will in either salvation or damnation because everything that happens does so because God has willed it to happen. This is also what Luther affirmed in TBOTW:

In Isaiah he saith, “My counsel shall stand, and My will shall be done.” (Isa. xlvi. 10.) And what schoolboy does not understand the meaning of these expressions, “Counsel,” “will,” “shall be done,” “shall stand?” But why should these things be abstruse to us Christians, so that it should be considered irreligious, curious, and vain, to discuss and know them, when heathen poets, and the very commonalty, have them in their mouths in the most frequent use? How often does Virgil alone make mention of Fate? “All things stand fixed by law immutable.” Again, “Fixed is the day of every man.” Again, “If the Fates summon you.” And again, “If thou shalt break the binding chain of Fate.” All this poet aims at, is to show, that in the destruction of Troy, and in raising the Roman empire, Fate did more than all the devoted efforts of men. In a word, he makes even their immortal gods subject to Fate. To this, even Jupiter and Juno must, of necessity, yield. Hence they made the three Parcae immutable, implacable, and irrevocable in decree.

Those men of wisdom knew that which the event itself, with experience, proves; that no man’s own counsels ever succeeded but that the event happened to all contrary to what they thought. Virgil’s Hector says, “Could Troy have stood by human arm, it should have stood by mine.” Hence that common saying was on every one’s tongue, “God’s will be done.” Again, “If God will, we will do it.” Again, “Such was the will of God.” “Such was the will of those above.” “Such was your will,” says Virgil. Whence we may see, that the knowledge of predestination and of the prescience of God, was no less left in the world than the notion of the divinity itself. And those who wished to appear wise, went in their disputations so far, that, their hearts being darkened, they became fools,” (Rom. i. 21-22,) and denied, or pretended not to know, those things which their poets, and the commonalty, and even their own consciences, held to be universally known, most certain, and most true.(Section XI, Cole)

Pagan fate of course isn't the same as Biblical predestination, but the same principle applies namely that a person's life unfolds in a way that shows that he/she isn't in control, and that actual life events overturn human planning.

 

[Edward65]

The hidden will of God is supposed to be "logical"? Since when?

I'll just repeat what I said in my previous post to provide the context for your reply above: The problem with the Formula of Concord is that its position is nonsensical. It teaches predestination to heaven, but no predestination to hell. It teaches that we have no free-will with respect to salvation, but we do have free-will with respect to damnation. So according to the Formula you can’t choose to accept the Gospel, but you can choose to reject it. But if you can choose to reject it you must be able to choose to not reject it, since choice is always between alternatives. However choosing to not reject the Gospel is the same as choosing to accept it, which according to the Formula you can’t do. So the position of the Formula is nonsensical.

A statement has to be logically coherent for it to have any meaning. Statements which are logically contradictory are nonsense statements which can’t possibly be true because they don’t convey any meaning. One can’t be two etc. Basic logic rules out the position of the Formula of Concord as being true. To believe that the Formula's position is true is to be like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland:

"I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again, draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

I know the above is amusing but that’s not the point. The point is that it’s impossible that the Formula’s position could be true in reality because it’s contradictory on the basic level of comprehension, and so to believe it is true means that one has been deceived.

 

[com7fy8]

Where did I say that Christians know they are elect simply because they have faith as if faith wasn't in Christ? You won't find me saying or meaning that. If I referred to faith without adding "in Christ" (which I don't think I did), I can assure you that "in Christ" was implicit because I'm a Christian and believe that salvation is only through faith in Christ.

Jesus Himself said, that He sent Paul to us Gentiles

"to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me." (Acts 26:18)

So, Jesus Himself says we are "sanctified" by "faith". But here He does also say faith in whom > "in Me".

But Paul says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God," (Ephesians 2:8) > here he does not say you are saved "by Jesus", not directly. So, if anyone criticizes you for saying we are saved "by faith" . . . the Holy Spirit, in this scripture, does say we are saved "by faith". So, if the Holy Spirit says we are saved "by faith", I would not be wise to criticize you for saying what the Holy Spirit says through our Apostle Paul.

And Paul makes it clear that we need "faith working through love" (in Galatians 5:6); so I can see we need faith that works by means of God's love. So, saving faith, then, I consider, is not only "believing" in certain beliefs. We need how God's love has us believing and living how His love has us living what we believe the way God means His word. So, we need God in us to have us living the way His love has us living . . . not only how we can get ourselves to do things.

I need to get wise to how I can make a show, even fooling my own self! I can make a Christian show that has me myself convinced, I have discovered!

 

[Arcangl86]

I'll just repeat what I said in my previous post to provide the context for your reply above: The problem with the Formula of Concord is that its position is nonsensical. It teaches predestination to heaven, but no predestination to hell. It teaches that we have no free-will with respect to salvation, but we do have free-will with respect to damnation. So according to the Formula you can’t choose to accept the Gospel, but you can choose to reject it. But if you can choose to reject it you must be able to choose to not reject it, since choice is always between alternatives. However choosing to not reject the Gospel is the same as choosing to accept it, which according to the Formula you can’t do. So the position of the Formula is nonsensical.

A statement has to be logically coherent for it to have any meaning. Statements which are logically contradictory are nonsense statements which can’t possibly be true because they don’t convey any meaning. One can’t be two etc. Basic logic rules out the position of the Formula of Concord as being true. To believe that the Formula's position is true is to be like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland:

"I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again, draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

I know the above is amusing but that’s not the point. The point is that it’s impossible that the Formula’s position could be true in reality because it’s contradictory on the basic level of comprehension, and so to believe it is true means that one has been deceived.

Action and inaction are not the same. Just because you actively choose to do something, does not mean that not doing it is the same as actively doing the other. And you want to talk about logically coherent? Your logic is that God chooses to exercise His sovereignty over earth by allowing us to choose either to do good or not do god. Yet when it comes to salvation, we have no choice whether we accept his gift or not? Also logically inconsistent is the idea that Christ died for the sin of the world, and the Gospel is for everyone, yet only certain people through no act of their own receive salvation.

 

[Edward65]

But Paul says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God," (Ephesians 2:8) > here he does not say you are saved "by Jesus", not directly. So, if anyone criticizes you for saying we are saved "by faith" . . . the Holy Spirit, in this scripture, does say we are saved "by faith". So, if the Holy Spirit says we are saved "by faith", I would not be wise to criticize you for saying what the Holy Spirit says through our Apostle Paul.

And Paul makes it clear that we need "faith working through love" (in Galatians 5:6); so I can see we need faith that works by means of God's love. So, saving faith, then, I consider, is not only "believing" in certain beliefs. We need how God's love has us believing and living how His love has us living what we believe the way God means His word. So, we need God in us to have us living the way His love has us living . . . not only how we can get ourselves to do things.

Of course when Paul refers to faith it’s implicit in what he’s saying that he’s referring to faith in Christ, because unless faith is actually placed in something external to oneself it’s merely an emotion.

I think a belief in limited atonement will tend to cause a person to examine him/herself through introspection to see if they have faith as a disposition of the heart in order to validate their belief that they’re one of the elect, whereas if you believe in unlimited atonement (as I do) you don’t need to be concentrating on whether you feel you have faith as a disposition, but rather be concerned that you do actually have faith and trust in Christ. So the emphasis should be on the object of trust i.e. Christ, and not on the feeling of trust itself.

With respect to your second paragraph above as long as you don’t mean that we’re justified by faith working through love which is the Roman Catholic understanding of justification then I agree. If we have faith this will result in us wanting to help and be of service to others, but of course such good works don’t make us righteous before God.

 

[Edward65]

Action and inaction are not the same. Just because you actively choose to do something, does not mean that not doing it is the same as actively doing the other. And you want to talk about logically coherent? Your logic is that God chooses to exercise His sovereignty over earth by allowing us to choose either to do good or not do god. Yet when it comes to salvation, we have no choice whether we accept his gift or not? Also logically inconsistent is the idea that Christ died for the sin of the world, and the Gospel is for everyone, yet only certain people through no act of their own receive salvation.

Christ said in the Gospels that if we’re not for Him we’re against Him so therefore there’s no middle ground between acceptance and rejection of the Gospel. There isn’t any no-man’s land between being a Christian and not being a Christian. One is either a Christian or a non-believer, therefore if one doesn’t reject the Gospel one accepts it because it’s not possible to be in a state of suspension of judgement as if there was some middle state where one was neither a believer nor non-believer. We’re either a Christian who believes the Gospel or a non-believer who rejects the Gospel.

I reject that we have free will in spiritual matters and hold that God predestines each individual to either heaven or hell. I believe in universal atonement but there’s no logical contradiction in holding both universal atonement and predestination to Hell - as God through His hidden will chooses only some people to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit and benefit from Christ’s atonement. Those who aren’t regenerated are lost. Seems harsh I know, but I believe that although God appears unjust in dealing with humans in this way, in actual fact He isn’t being. It’s just that us poor humans are incapable of seeing the bigger picture that God sees. If we were to see things as God sees them we wouldn’t be tempted to accuse Him of being unjust because He doesn’t elect to save everyone. We’d see that He was acting in a just manner.

 

[ContraMundum]

No not at all my assumptions on how that works but the actual teaching of the Bible. Ephesians 1:11–12 says:

“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.” (ESV)

Doesn't have much bearing on the subject. We're still back at how God operates His sovereignty. Simply put, we are not told.

Pagan fate of course isn't the same as Biblical predestination,

I don't see any material difference in youre theology to the pagan notion of fate (which is not what I was referring to anyway!)

 

[Edward65]

I think a doctrine that is that far into determinism undermines the essential exegetical rule that says conclusions are checked according to the analogy of the Faith- if an interpretation happens that contradicts a well established, clear and unambiguous Bible teaching (like the attributes of God- love, justice, unity etc) then it is a false interpretation. Hard determinism violates God's self-disclosed character.

You're leaving out the fact that the Bible teaches that God is also omnipotent and foreknows and works everything that happens.

“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.” (Eph 1:11-12, ESV)

This passage says He works all things according to His will which means that everything that happens is done in accordance to His will and is brought about by Him, so if a person is damned that's because God has willed that he should die in a state of unbelief.

It's those who deny that God predestines anyone to hell who aren't believing according to the Scriptures and using human reasoning to contradict its teaching. They argue that because God loves the world and sent Christ to atone for everyone's sins that this is incompatible with predestination to hell, and therefore they assert it can't be true.

However this conclusion is false because the Bible teaches that God is all powerful and foreknows and works everything, which means people are predestined to hell.

The teaching of Scripture is that God has two wills. His hidden omnipotent will which rules the universe, and his revealed will in Christ through which He desires the salvation of everyone.

The solution proposed by the Formula of Concord that God predestines only those who go to heaven and not those who go to hell results in an illogical combination of free will and determinism which can't possibly be true.

In order for a statement of belief to be true it has to be logically coherent and not contradict itself. If God predestines only some people to heaven and only they are saved, it follows that those who are damned are predestined to be damned since they can't possibly be saved. Also since everything happens according to God's will as Ephesians says, it follows that God predestines them to hell.

So the Formula's position isn't true.

However your position doesn't actually correspond to the position of the Formula because Lutherans who follow the Formula reject that we have free will with respect to salvation and only accept it with respect to damnation - because they believe in predestination to heaven and not to hell.

However your position is (if I've understood you correctly) that predestination doesn't exclude human free will, and that although people are predestined to heaven they still exercise their free will in deciding to believe the Gospel. However such a notion is illogical and can't possibly be true. Predestination and free will are mutually incompatible. If God predestines something to happen then it's impossible that any human decision could alter this from happening, therefore humans don't have free will if God has predestined the outcome. And since God has predestined the outcome of everything as Scripture teaches there's no free will in humans.

I'm of course aware that this gives rise to the objection of how God can hold people responsible for their sins if they had no choice in the matter, but this is addressed by Paul in Romans 9:

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
(Romans 9:19-21 ESV)

 

[ContraMundum]

Nah...you're still not thinking for yourself here.

We're back to the start- God works all things....how? We're not told. You assume He pre-scribes what kind of coffee you are going to buy. Then you tell me He doesn't. Make up your mind!

The FoC doesn't claim to be logical- because the texts are not logical. That's the most honest statement in Protestantism.

 

[Edward65]

We're back to the start- God works all things....how? We're not told. You assume He pre-scribes what kind of coffee you are going to buy. Then you tell me He doesn't. Make up your mind!

The FoC doesn't claim to be logical- because the texts are not logical. That's the most honest statement in Protestantism.

I haven’t been inconsistent I was simply trying to draw a distinction between the inability of everyone to choose to believe the Gospel due to original sin, and our natural ability to choose (if God allows it) ordinary everyday things to do with our life on earth. But I still hold to absolute predestination and that nothing happens by chance.

Also if the Scriptures aren’t logical then it follows they’re contradictory which simply can’t be. God didn’t communicate with us through the Bible in a way which was contradictory. If that was the case we wouldn’t know what exactly to believe.

You believe the Formula of Concord on predestination follows the rule of having no assumptions to determine its teaching, however I don’t share that belief. The FoC makes the assumption that because God sends the Gospel indiscriminately out into the world that the Holy Spirit is therefore equally efficacious to all who hear the Gospel (and so man is solely responsible for his damnation), however this contradicts Scripture e.g. So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Romans 9:18 ESV); No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…. (John 6:44 ESV)

 

[Arcangl86]

I haven’t been inconsistent I was simply trying to draw a distinction between the inability of everyone to choose to believe the Gospel due to original sin, and our natural ability to choose (if God allows it) ordinary everyday things to do with our life on earth. But I still hold to absolute predestination and that nothing happens by chance.

Also if the Scriptures aren’t logical then it follows they’re contradictory which simply can’t be. God didn’t communicate with us through the Bible in a way which was contradictory. If that was the case we wouldn’t know what exactly to believe.

You believe the Formula of Concord on predestination follows the rule of having no assumptions to determine its teaching, however I don’t share that belief. The FoC makes the assumption that because God sends the Gospel indiscriminately out into the world that the Holy Spirit is therefore equally efficacious to all who hear the Gospel (and so man is solely responsible for his damnation), however this contradicts Scripture e.g. So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Romans 9:18 ESV); No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…. (John 6:44 ESV)

I have a radical idea for you. What if God simply chooses to let people decide to come to Him or not? If He freely makes the choice, his sovereignty still stands. And isn't that the beauty of the Christian faith? That we have a God who loves us and wants to be with us?

 

[Edward65]

I have a radical idea for you. What if God simply chooses to let people decide to come to Him or not? If He freely makes the choice, his sovereignty still stands. And isn't that the beauty of the Christian faith? That we have a God who loves us and wants to be with us?

The idea that we have free will isn't radical. It's the natural assumption of those who aren't convinced or aware of what the Bible actually teaches. I used to believe we had free will myself when I first became a Christian, before being convinced by Scripture that in fact we don't. For instance Acts 4:27-28 says: for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. (ESV). It can't be the case that predestination and human free will are compatible, because if they were, the possibility would exist that those who crucified Christ could potentially have decided not to crucify Him, in which case our atonement wouldn't have been effected and no one would be saved, and Scripture would prove to be false in claiming that He was the Saviour of the world.

 

[com7fy8]

Of course when Paul refers to faith it’s implicit in what he’s saying that he’s referring to faith in Christ, because unless faith is actually placed in something external to oneself it’s merely an emotion.

I think a belief in limited atonement will tend to cause a person to examine him/herself through introspection to see if they have faith as a disposition of the heart in order to validate their belief that they’re one of the elect, whereas if you believe in unlimited atonement (as I do) you don’t need to be concentrating on whether you feel you have faith as a disposition, but rather be concerned that you do actually have faith and trust in Christ. So the emphasis should be on the object of trust i.e. Christ, and not on the feeling of trust itself.

Well, Paul does say "we who first trusted in Christ", in Ephesians 1:12. He did not say we who took a look at ourselves and found that we have saving faith.

With respect to your second paragraph above as long as you don’t mean that we’re justified by faith working through love which is the Roman Catholic understanding of justification then I agree. If we have faith this will result in us wanting to help and be of service to others, but of course such good works don’t make us righteous before God.

I do not mean works save us. Also, I do not mean copy-cat religious works which we are told to do and which any psychopath can imitate. In James chapter 2 we have examples of works, and these to me seem to involve personal loving, in each example. But it is the faith which saves, not the works. But I see that we can't have true saving faith and not have works which are produced by this faith. But the works are not what some leaders can invent and tell us what to do, copy-catting. God our Father is creative, in us, having us doing the works He desires . . . better than what we could think up and invent on our own.

But we need these works of God's love, so we are together with our Father and how He effects us to become more and more like Jesus while we do things in union (1 Corinthians 6:17) with Him, in His love "in our hearts" (Romans 5:5). While we do His works in His love, His love in us is effecting us to change us more and more into the image of Jesus; so I do understand that God's works are essential.

It is like how a little child can not develop right in learning how to love, unless the child has sound and mature people doing wholesome activities with the child, to feed their example to the child. The child needs to be with and share with and relate personally with sound and mature people

 

[Edward65]

Well, Paul does say "we who first trusted in Christ", in Ephesians 1:12. He did not say we who took a look at ourselves and found that we have saving faith.

I do not mean works save us. Also, I do not mean copy-cat religious works which we are told to do and which any psychopath can imitate. In James chapter 2 we have examples of works, and these to me seem to involve personal loving, in each example. But it is the faith which saves, not the works. But I see that we can't have true saving faith and not have works which are produced by this faith. But the works are not what some leaders can invent and tell us what to do, copy-catting. God our Father is creative, in us, having us doing the works He desires . . . better than what we could think up and invent on our own.

But we need these works of God's love, so we are together with our Fatherand how He effects us to become more and more like Jesus while we do things in union (1 Corinthians 6:17) with Him, in His love "in our hearts" (Romans 5:5). While we do His works in His love, His love in us is effecting us to change us more and more into the image of Jesus; so I do understand that God's works are essential.

It is like how a little child can not develop right in learning how to love, unless the child has sound and mature people doing wholesome activities with the child, to feed their example to the child. The child needs to be with and share with and relate personally with sound and mature people

Please see my latest post on the "Bible Passages Show Works Required for Salvation" thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7811548-8/#post65395679

 

[sdowney717]

Double or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination

An interesting article from the other side about both sides ..

--David

Very good reading.

Luther and every Calvinist would agree on at least one point:
God's counsels nor purposes are never arbitrary. They are righteous and good because
God Himself makes them, and God does not reprobate without regard for their sin. God's
reprobation presupposes their sin.


Regarding God's desire for all men to be saved, Luther himself objects. In response to the
claim that 'God desires all men to be saved,' and that 'Christ died for all men,' he writes
that
These points and others like them can be refuted as easily as the first one. For
these verses must always be understood as pertaining to the elect only, as the
apostle says in 2 Tim. 2:10 'everything for the sake of the elect.' For in an absolute
sense Christ did not die for all, because he says: 'This is my blood which is poured
out for you' and 'for many'—He does not say: for all—'for the forgiveness of sins'
(Mark 14:24, Matt. 26:28)57

 

[Edward65]

Very good reading.

The passage below in red was from Luther's Commentary on Romans which dates back to before the Reformation, and his comments (below) don't represent his mature teaching. He definitely believed in unlimited atonement, and taught that Christ died for everyone, later on in his life.


These points and others like them can be refuted as easily as the first one. For these verses must always be understood as pertaining to the elect only, as the apostle says in 2 Tim. 2:10 'everything for the sake of the elect.' For in an absolute sense Christ did not die for all, because he says: 'This is my blood which is poured out for you' and 'for many'—He does not say: for all—'for the forgiveness of sins' (Mark 14:24, Matt. 26:28)57

 

[KEPLER]

I didn't just affirm God's foreknowledge but also His omnipotence. Since God is omnipotent nothing can happen in the universe which He doesn't will to happen, because no being greater than Him exists which forces him to permit anything. So omnipotence + foreknowledge = predestination and no free-will.

Just so we're clear here, you just took the position of the fanatic from Antwerp, n'est pas?

The problem with the Formula of Concord is that its position is nonsensical. It teaches predestination to heaven, but no predestination to hell. It teaches that we have no free-will with respect to salvation, but we do have free-will with respect to damnation. So according to the Formula you can’t choose to accept the Gospel, but you can choose to reject it. But if you can choose to reject it you must be able to choose to not reject it, since choice is always between alternatives. However choosing to not reject the Gospel is the same as choosing to accept it, which according to the Formula you can’t do. So the position of the Formula is nonsensical.

Yes. That is correct. According to our limited human understanding, the positions don't jibe with one another. They are in tension; a paradox. That's fine with us. Our theologians referred to this as the crux theologorum. BoW was fine for what it was, which was a full-on broadside against the works righteousness espoused by Erasmus and the RCC. The polemical statements therein should be read in that context, and only in that context.

 

[Skybringr]

Why be part of double predestination theology when you could simply be atheist.

Seriously, the only difference is that there is a Heaven and a Hell, and what is the point in either, what's even the point of God.

It's about as vain as vain gets. I'd rather be an atheist then a Calvinist, because it makes more sense_

God made me say that, you see. He who cannot lie.

Pfft