Are There Any Double-Predestination Lutherans?

[Albion]

Not your call to make in this forum.

If you feel that way, OK. My understanding is that it's not permitted to debate against the faith of the host group (which I did not do), but that posts in fellowship are permitted. However, if fellowship is not to be extended to me, I certainly do not want to intrude.

 

[Resha Caner]

If you feel that way, OK. My understanding is that it's not permitted to debate against the faith of the host group (which I did not do), but that posts in fellowship are permitted. However, if fellowship is not to be extended to me, I certainly do not want to intrude.

What frustrates me is 2 things:
* You extracted a minor point from my first post and made it the only point of your reply, thereby making it the major point
* I wasn't frustrated when I first posted, but now not even the minor point, but my frustration will become the focus

The frustration, the perceived offense, people's "rights" to post or nor post ... it's not worth it. So, I will try to repeat my main point as succinctly as I can, and then I will not comment further on predestination in this thread.

The typical explanation of passages on predestination by Confessional Lutherans appears to me to proceed as:
a) Some things are beyond our understanding
b) The verses are to be interpreted to mean some are predestined to salvation; none are predestined to damnation
c) If this appears to conflict with logic, then the logic is wrong in some way, but don't try to figure out what the error is. Just accept that it is beyond our understanding.

I have a problem with that. First, I think there are other interpretations of these verses that are perfectly in keeping with Confessional Lutheranism. So, I don't see the need to preserve this "mystery" when I don't see any mystery in the first place.

However, since the LCMS, WELS, etc. are unlikely to budge, I'll not try to argue my interpretation. All I'm asking is for a more sensible explanation. Why do parts b) and c) even need to be there? Are Lutherans afraid to admit that some verses speak of things beyond our understanding? Is that why a half-interpretation has to follow? Why can't we be satisfied with stopping after part a)? Why does it help to give an interpretation you can only defend by disparaging logic (*see note) and which leads you right back to where you started? If it's a mystery, then start there and end there. Avoid all the confusing ducking and dodging that occurs in between.

*Note: Most, when they say single predestination is illogical, are appealing to the most fundamental tenet of logic - the law of non-contradiction. I find the reactions to this comical in that in one way or another the response cedes ever using logic, though I doubt people mean to do that.

 

[Tigger45]

.

 

[FireDragon76]

The contradiction seems to make the doctrine void or empty of objective content - that's what contradictions tend to do. Which is OK because predestination doesn't seem all that important with the types of Lutheranism I have encountered.

Lutherans and Calvinists basically shuffled some of the mystery away from individual salvation into predestination. Calvinists in particular heaped the most mystery onto it: Scottish and English clergy in the 17th century frequently wrote of dealing with parishoners troubled by this doctrine. John Bunyan dealt with a similar type of scrupulosity as Luther did, only instead of worrying about justification (which was an accepted doctrine in England at the time among most Christians), he worried about predestination.

However, that's not to say that nobody believed in predestination before Luther or Calvin. It was fairly commonly emphasized in all western medieval Christianity (which is probably why Luther faced it as an obsession so much, he frequently dealt in the monastery with thoughts that God had created him as an object of wrath and destined him to damnation). Protestants did not come up with this idea de novo.

 

[JM]

If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Lutheranism differ from Luther on this issue?

 

[FireDragon76]

If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Lutheranism differ from Luther on this issue?

There's more to Luther than De Servo Arbitrio. It's strange that conservative Reformed Christians consider that the only book worth reading, as it misreads Reformed theology into Luther's thought. His primary disagrement with Erasmus was whether or not justification was best thought of in Aristotilian terms of acquiring a habit of virtue.

 

[JM]

There's more to Luther than De Servo Arbitrio. It's strange that conservative Reformed Christians consider that the only book worth reading, as it misreads Reformed theology into Luther's thought. His primary disagrement with Erasmus was whether or not justification was best thought of in Aristotilian terms of acquiring a habit of virtue.

I wouldn't say that is accurate. One fella by the last name of Swain (going from memory) has made a cottage industry examining Luther's work and detailed the changes Luther made to his theology as he got older. Others like Sproul and Trueman are considered experts on Luther's theology so no, Reformed folks don't only read Bondage of the Will. I read his commentary on Galatians every few years. It's outstanding.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Taom Ben Robert]

If you feel that way, OK. My understanding is that it's not permitted to debate against the faith of the host group (which I did not do), but that posts in fellowship are permitted. However, if fellowship is not to be extended to me, I certainly do not want to intrude.

You're welcome here my friend

 

[Shane2336]

I have a good friend, who is a Orthodox Presbyterian minister. We were discussing this topic one day and I asked him if he truly believed that God has elected, or condemned, against their will people to eternal separation from God. He said to me, "No, I do not believe that. Man has done that himself." Now, this is a very elementary way of looking at things, but I really liked it. I couldn't disagree with this statement, as I hold to the Scriptural view that all men are (now) born into Sin, not deserving of eternal life in Christ. So, if you too hold to this doctrine, God doesn't send anyone to hell. Man has signed for his place there of his own accord.