trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
9,262
3,691
N/A
✟150,350.00
Country
Czech Republic
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Historically Lutherans deny free will
But it very much depends on definition. For example Leibniz in his Theodicy defined it in the meaning that will is predetermined by causes as everything else. He was a prominent lutheran scholar of Augsburg Confession. While calvinists define it rather morally.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But it very much depends on definition. For example Leibniz in his Theodicy defined it in the meaning that will is predetermined by causes as everything else. He was a prominent lutheran scholar of Augsburg Confession. While calvinists define it rather morally.

One of Martin Luther's most well known writings is "On the Bondage of the Will" where he debates the Catholic scholar Erasmus in opposition to the Catholic understanding of free will.

As for the Augsburg Confession Article XVIII: Of Free Will:

"Of Free Will they teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2,14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the Word. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in his Hypognosticon, Book III: We grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether good or evil. "Good" I call those works which spring from the good in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry a wife, to raise cattle, to learn divers useful arts, or whatsoever good pertains to this life. For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their being. "Evil" I call such works as willing to worship an idol, to commit murder, etc.

They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching "the substance of the act." For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc."
As for Calvinist, Presbyterians represent the largest branch, so, The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter IX Of Free Will:

I. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil [1]

II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God;[2] but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.[3]

III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation:[4] so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,[5] and dead in sin,[6] is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.[7]

IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he frees him from his natural bondage under sin;[8] and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;[9] yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, or only, will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.[10]

V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only.[11]​

Is it therefore your opinion that these two do not agree, nor compatible, nor harmonious? I think to the extent posted here for which they speak to the same subject, these are harmonious, complimentary, and a careful reader should come to the same conclusion.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: trophy33
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
9,262
3,691
N/A
✟150,350.00
Country
Czech Republic
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
One of Martin Luther's most well known writings is "On the Bondage of the Will" where he debates the Catholic scholar Erasmus in opposition to the Catholic understanding of free will.

As for the Augsburg Confession Article XVIII: Of Free Will:

"Of Free Will they teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2,14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the Word. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in his Hypognosticon, Book III: We grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether good or evil. "Good" I call those works which spring from the good in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry a wife, to raise cattle, to learn divers useful arts, or whatsoever good pertains to this life. For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their being. "Evil" I call such works as willing to worship an idol, to commit murder, etc.

They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching "the substance of the act." For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc."
As for Calvinist, Presbyterians represent the largest branch, so, The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter IX Of Free Will:

I. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil [1]

II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God;[2] but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.[3]

III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation:[4] so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,[5] and dead in sin,[6] is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.[7]

IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he frees him from his natural bondage under sin;[8] and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;[9] yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, or only, will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.[10]

V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only.[11]​
Yeah, but lutherans are not Luther. Actually, lutheran churches quite went away from Luther in many areas. All writings of Luther are not official or general lutheran theology. Some of Luther's writing are not accepted by majority of lutherans at all, for example "Against Jews and their lies".
Is it therefore your opinion that these two do not agree, nor compatible, nor harmonious? I think to the extent posted here for which they speak to the same subject, these are harmonious, complimentary, and a careful reader should come to the same conclusion.
In this context, they probably are. But free will can have several definitions and some are not. So I just made a note that we must define what we are talking about, first.
 
Upvote 0

HatGuy

Some guy in a hat
Jun 9, 2014
1,008
786
Visit site
✟123,338.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But @MDC wants to limit the 5 solas to only those who subscribe to the "doctrines of grace", which usually means a Calvinist understanding, and the point is then he shuts out the key reformer who formulated those solas in the first place, namely, Luther.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But @MDC wants to limit the 5 solas to only those who subscribe to the "doctrines of grace", which usually means a Calvinist understanding, and the point is then he shuts out the key reformer who formulated those solas in the first place, namely, Luther.

If it were up to me, and clearly it's not, all Christians would embrace the 5 Solas, including Catholics (they are Latin terms after all) and EO. :D I think several ECF would claim three or four if not all five, consider me optimistic. :D
 
Upvote 0

HatGuy

Some guy in a hat
Jun 9, 2014
1,008
786
Visit site
✟123,338.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If it were up to me, and clearly it's not, all Christians would embrace the 5 Solas, including Catholics (they are Latin terms after all) and EO. :D I think several ECF would claim three or four if not all five, consider me optimistic. :D
Haha yes, me too. :D
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,679
18,559
Orlando, Florida
✟1,262,323.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
The Five Solas seem to be more the result of scholastic theology in the centuries afterwards, and only 3 of the 5 are really identifiably Lutheran. I find soli Deo gloria, in particular, not really emphasized in our tradition to the degree it is in the Reformed churches, where it can sometimes become the dominant theological locus of the whole system.

Some Lutheran scholars maintain the only real Lutheran sola is sola fide, because the others simply weren't significant parts of the dispute with Rome. Protestants have spun it that way in history sense, but that's ignoring the actual details in favor of glossed narratives.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HatGuy
Upvote 0

MDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2017
1,127
511
48
Texas
✟59,701.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Lutherans generally do not engage in philosophical speculation in that manner and proclaim it as doctrine. Our doctrine is principally about proclamation, not philosophy.

We proclaim that all human beings are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves through our own will, but that Christ has died for our sake, and in the waters of baptism sin is washed away and he saves us.
So you are taking Erasmus side on free will from what I get
 
Upvote 0

MDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2017
1,127
511
48
Texas
✟59,701.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
But @MDC wants to limit the 5 solas to only those who subscribe to the "doctrines of grace", which usually means a Calvinist understanding, and the point is then he shuts out the key reformer who formulated those solas in the first place, namely, Luther.
Lutherans in general may reject the doctrines of grace but to say Luther did is your opinion
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,251
✟48,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Some Lutheran scholars maintain the only real Lutheran sola is sola fide, because the others simply weren't significant parts of the dispute with Rome. Protestants have spun it that way in history sense, but that's ignoring the actual details in favor of glossed narratives.

Luther refused to recant at the Diet of Worms unless he could be shown from Scripture that his views were wrong. He said that councils can and have erred.

What's that if not Sola Scriptura?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,679
18,559
Orlando, Florida
✟1,262,323.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
Luther refused to recant at the Diet of Worms unless he could be shown from Scripture that his views were wrong. He said that councils can and have erred.

What's that if not Sola Scriptura?

Luther said "Scriptures and plain reason". Luther wasn't exactly a biblicist operating within modern philosophical assumptions.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,679
18,559
Orlando, Florida
✟1,262,323.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
So you are taking Erasmus side on free will from what I get

No. Bondage of the Will is merely not the be-all, end-all of theology, nor is it fair to insist we understand it only within Reformed categories.

FWIW, one of my favorite Lutheran theologians, Gerhard Forde, considered BotW Luther's best theology. So it's not something I am unfamiliar with. But we don't see it as a rubber stamp of Reformed theology, and neither did Forde.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HatGuy
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,251
✟48,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Luther said "Scriptures and plain reason". Luther wasn't exactly a biblicist operating within modern philosophical assumptions.

"Scriptures and plain reason" sounds like Sola Scriptura to me. I've heard the word "biblicist" bandied about but I'm not sure what it means.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,679
18,559
Orlando, Florida
✟1,262,323.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
"Scriptures and plain reason" sounds like Sola Scriptura to me. I've heard the word "biblicist" bandied about but I'm not sure what it means.

The lack of theological reflection and simple copy-paste bible quoting proof texts you often see on CF. That's biblicism. As one scholar, Christian Smith, noted some time ago, Biblicism makes the Bible impossible.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,251
✟48,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
The lack of theological reflection and simple copy-paste bible quoting proof texts you often see on CF. That's biblicism. As one scholar, Christian Smith, noted some time ago, Biblicism makes the Bible impossible.

So "biblicism" means a thoughtless and shallow use of Scripture to support unbiblical doctrines?

If this is "biblicism" then I agree that Luther was not a biblicist. But why call this "biblicism" since it is so unbiblical?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,679
18,559
Orlando, Florida
✟1,262,323.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
So "biblicism" means a thoughtless and shallow use of Scripture to support unbiblical doctrines?

If this is "biblicism" then I agree that Luther was not a biblicist. But why call this "biblicism" since it is so unbiblical?

I don't know. I didn't invent the term. It just has common currency.
 
Upvote 0

HatGuy

Some guy in a hat
Jun 9, 2014
1,008
786
Visit site
✟123,338.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Lutherans in general may reject the doctrines of grace but to say Luther did is your opinion
Luther taught you could lose your salvation.

He also did not support limited atonement.

And his discussions on free will are different to the Calvinist vs Arminian thing. Yes he considered himself to be a monergist but he uses theology different to Calvin(ists).

He agreed on predestination and probably some form of unconditional election.

This is all a matter of historical fact. And well informed opinion.

Luther wasn't as a systemitician as Calvin was. He didn't feel obligated to make his theology logical. He was far more interested in pastoral applications. (FWIW I think this makes him a better theologian).

Besides, many scholars believe that Calvin himself was probably a four point Calvinist :p.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,679
18,559
Orlando, Florida
✟1,262,323.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
Luther taught you could lose your salvation.

He also did not support limited atonement.

And his discussions on free will are different to the Calvinist vs Arminian thing. Yes he considered himself to be a monergist but he uses theology different to Calvin(ists).

He agreed on predestination and probably some form of unconditional election.

This is all a matter of historical fact. And well informed opinion.

Luther wasn't as a systemitician as Calvin was. He didn't feel obligated to make his theology logical. He was far more interested in pastoral applications. (FWIW I think this makes him a better theologian).

Besides, many scholars believe that Calvin himself was probably a four point Calvinist :p.

Predestination is a matter of Gospel, not Law, for us. It's not a value-neutral fact like it frequently is in Reformed/Arminian debates.

Our stance on unconditional election is ambiguous. It's a bit of both, actually, and just depends on the pastoral situation in question. The main thing is Lutherans have a horizon that focuses on the here and now. It's not future oriented. "Always uncertain the future it is" (for the Star Wars fans out there). Even Katerina Luther's last words were "I will cling to Christ like a burr on cloth". So we have assurance, but that doesn't equate to some kind of presumption necessarily.

I agree Luther was focused on being a pastor. That's why I like being Lutheran, frankly. I've been in churches that are less than sensitive about that, where there's a "greater good" at play above pastoral implications to individuals.
 
Upvote 0

MDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2017
1,127
511
48
Texas
✟59,701.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Luther taught you could lose your salvation.

He also did not support limited atonement.

And his discussions on free will are different to the Calvinist vs Arminian thing. Yes he considered himself to be a monergist but he uses theology different to Calvin(ists).

He agreed on predestination and probably some form of unconditional election.

This is all a matter of historical fact. And well informed opinion.

Luther wasn't as a systemitician as Calvin was. He didn't feel obligated to make his theology logical. He was far more interested in pastoral applications. (FWIW I think this makes him a better theologian).

Besides, many scholars believe that Calvin himself was probably a four point Calvinist :p.
If he was a monergist then all you say is false. You speak more for the crypto Arminians today calling themselves Luthererans. It’s my opinion Luther would not have disagreed with the doctrines of grace which are essentials of the gospel. If you believe the doctrine of justification by faith alone then you possibly couldn’t believe in losing your salvation by lack of works.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2017
1,127
511
48
Texas
✟59,701.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Predestination is a matter of Gospel, not Law, for us. It's not a value-neutral fact like it frequently is in Reformed/Arminian debates.

Our stance on unconditional election is ambiguous. It's a bit of both, actually, and just depends on the pastoral situation in question. The main thing is Lutherans have a horizon that focuses on the here and now. It's not future oriented. "Always uncertain the future it is" (for the Star Wars fans out there). Even Katerina Luther's last words were "I will cling to Christ like a burr on cloth". So we have assurance, but that doesn't equate to some kind of presumption necessarily.

I agree Luther was focused on being a pastor. That's why I like being Lutheran, frankly. I've been in churches that are less than sensitive about that, where there's a "greater good" at play above pastoral implications to individuals.
Ambiguous? What?
 
Upvote 0