Free will

[smaneck]

I like the Gnostic theory where little sparks of God fell into a subset of humans. The humans containing those sparks try to free the sparks to go back to God. This is a more sensible form of predestination. All the sparks will be saved, but they do not reside in all humans. Of course this could be used to justify elitist attitudes.

Which defeats the concept of the sovereignty of grace in Christianity.

" For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast"
Ephesians 2:8-9

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I find it funny how closely Lutheran theology seems to resemble Calvinism - and yet manages to avoid the moral horrors inherent to that particular branch of the Protestant tree.
And all by simply acknowledging our limited understanding.

 

[Vollbracht]

If only others could be so bold to acknowledge their moral superiority while, at the same time, humbly admitting limited understanding.

 

[gord44]

I find it funny how closely Lutheran theology seems to resemble Calvinism - and yet manages to avoid the moral horrors inherent to that particular branch of the Protestant tree.
And all by simply acknowledging our limited understanding.

I found the same. Was a Calvinist and also attended a Lutheran church for a while. Lutherans were pretty chill. Most Calvinist doctrine though is pretty ironclad in nailing down the minute details of it all. From the inside I suppose that can be comforting.

 

[Vollbracht]

The starting point of Calvinist and Lutheran ideas of predestination are, arguably, quite different. What we'd call the Material Principle of any given theological system or idea. The Material Principle of Lutheran theology is the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone, it is the central doctrinal position upon which the entire Lutheran tradition depends. On the other hand the Material Principle of Calvinism is the glory of God.

This is a very good answer, but it should also be pointed out for those who may not know that sola fide and soli Deo gloria are two petals on the same flower.

 

[cloudyday2]

Which defeats the concept of the sovereignty of grace in Christianity.

" For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast"
Ephesians 2:8-9

I'm not sure what you mean, but I didn't get the impression that the Gnostics were boastful. Probably I'm not getting it.

 

[cloudyday2]

You're right; which is why "choosing to not reject God" isn't within the Lutheran understanding. It is not an act of choice at all that bridges the gap between us and God; it is solely the grace of God that bridges that gap, and it moves in one direction only--from God to man.

The will isn't free, it is enslaved to sin. Lutheranism therefore speaks of God overcoming our enslaved will to rescue us. It is the gracious act of God condescending to rescue sinners in spite of their will, in spite of their choices to refuse and reject God.

A good question to ask then is if God overcomes our fallen will to refuse Him, and it is God's desire that all be saved, how then does anyone continue to reject Him? Which brings us back to the Crux Theologorum.

-CryptoLutheran

Does universalism solve the problem? (Sorry if it is against the rules to mention universalism. I know universalism is somewhat taboo on the Exploring Christianity sub forum.)

 

[ViaCrucis]

Does universalism solve the problem? (Sorry if it is against the rules to mention universalism. I know universalism is somewhat taboo on the Exploring Christianity sub forum.)

It solves it insofar as also Calvinism and Arminianism solve the problem. Namely that all are rational explanations that take some Scripture but reject other Scripture.

This, I say, chiefly, of a "hard" universalism--"all will be saved"; not necessarily of a "soft" universalism--"all may be saved."

From a Lutheran perspective the issue is unsolvable, at least in this present age. It's the theological equivalent of trying to divide by zero.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Ack double post.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is a very good answer, but it should also be pointed out for those who may not know that sola fide and soli Deo gloria are two petals on the same flower.

View attachment 160665

One is less likely, historically, to find Soli Dio Gloria as one of the solas; the three solas of the Reformation were Sola Scriptura (or perhaps more accurately Solum Verbum), Sola Gratia, and Sola Fide. The increase from three to five solas is largely a more modern thing.

Though certainly Soli Deo Gloria isn't something a Lutheran would reject, but it'd be incorrect to assume it's intended as one of the petals of the Luther Rose.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[smaneck]

One is less likely, historically, to find Soli Dio Gloria as one of the solas; the three solas of the Reformation were Sola Scriptura (or perhaps more accurately Solum Verbum), Sola Gratia, and Sola Fide. The increase from three to five solas is largely a more modern thing.
-CryptoLutheran

I was wondering where the Calvinist TULIP came from and you are right. It is 20th century.

 

[Vollbracht]

One is less likely, historically, to find Soli Dio Gloria as one of the solas; the three solas of the Reformation were Sola Scriptura (or perhaps more accurately Solum Verbum), Sola Gratia, and Sola Fide. The increase from three to five solas is largely a more modern thing.

Though certainly Soli Deo Gloria isn't something a Lutheran would reject, but it'd be incorrect to assume it's intended as one of the petals of the Luther Rose.

-CryptoLutheran

Fair enough. It was just a shameless attempt to display my fondness for flowers.

 

[Vollbracht]

I was wondering where the Calvinist TULIP came from and you are right. It is 20th century.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/i...w.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html

 

[smaneck]

http://www.reformed.org/documents/i...w.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html

Yeah, but they made into a flower in the 20th century.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The notion of eternal torment is quite repulsive in and of itself, and smacks of a very primitive understanding of justice (as a form of socially accepted revenge).
But when you remove the factor of choice from the equation, and hold that a divine entity deliberately creates sapient beings for the explicit purpose of making them suffer as much and as long as possible, it becomes positively farcical, and even more odious.

I am not a judgmental person, but this concept of deity conjures up several descriptive terms in my mind that would probably be regarded as a rule violation, none of them positive. To me, Calvinist/Reformed Theology is the religious equivalent of Stalinism; "the Party is Always Right" and all that. If I believed this particular world view to be true (and believed that I and my loved ones were saved by grace), I'd STILL feel morally compelled to oppose such a deity, on account of the nameless billions who face an eternity in a cosmic torture camp because they were explicitly created for that kind of suffering.

It's not a term I use too often because it's so simplistic, but this is simply evil.

 

[Vollbracht]

Yeah, but they made into a flower in the 20th century.

So, too, UNCLE was made into an organization. I don't see the relevance, I guess.

 

[Vollbracht]

The notion of eternal torment is quite repulsive in and of itself, and smacks of a very primitive understanding of justice (as a form of socially accepted revenge).
But when you remove the factor of choice from the equation, and hold that a divine entity deliberately creates sapient beings for the explicit purpose of making them suffer as much and as long as possible, it becomes positively farcical, and even more odious.

I am not a judgmental person, but this concept of deity conjures up several descriptive terms in my mind that would probably be regarded as a rule violation, none of them positive. To me, Calvinist/Reformed Theology is the religious equivalent of Stalinism; "the Party is Always Right" and all that. If I believed this particular world view to be true (and believed that I and my loved ones were saved by grace), I'd STILL feel morally compelled to oppose such a deity, on account of the nameless billions who face an eternity in a cosmic torture camp because they were explicitly created for that kind of suffering.

It's not a term I use too often because it's so simplistic, but this is simply evil.

Fine, a Pro-lifer then. No worries.

 

[Vollbracht]

Why would you be sorry?
See, IF there is an anthropomorphic god, and IF he is as benevolent as diverse religions paint "him" to be, and IF said God is as powerful and knowledgeable as depicted, then
a) he could easily point out where the error in my way of thinking lies, and
b) would know perfectly well why I think the way I do, and not take it as a personal slight.

...αναπολογητους.

Have a good night.