Lutheran rejection of double predestination.

[LilLamb219]

BTW- you do know the difference between hard determinism and soft determinism etc...right? Otherwise we may already be talking past each other.

I'm not the one you were asking but I'm unfamiliar with these terms. Could you explain them a little?

 

[ContraMundum]

Predestination to heaven and hell is through means.

The first thing you've said that is actually Lutheran!

One isn’t predestined regardless of one’s faith or lack of it. Rather if one is predestined to be saved God regenerates one and gives one faith, but if one is predestined to be damned God doesn’t regenerate one, but leaves one in one’s unbelief and sinful state inherited from our first parents.

Luther makes the point several times that we aren't to investigate the hidden God (The One who rules the world according to his omnipotent will) but he wasn't denying that God predestines people to heaven and hell, but only that it is impossible for us to know who God has predestined to heaven and hell. His argument is that if we want to know God, then we should only approach Him through Christ, where He offers salvation, and that if we believe in Christ then this is a sure indication that we're predestined to be saved, as we wouldn't come to Christ otherwise:

"If you listen to Him, are baptized in His name, and love His Word, then you are surely predestined and are certain of your salvation. But if you revile or despise the Word, then you are damned; for he who does not believe is condemned" (Mark 16:16).

OK...let me help you here. I've figured out where you are missing the whole Lutheran/Biblical position.

The bit in red is the crucial point here. The Bible teaches and Luther and Lutheranism following teaches that the responsibility for damnation is on man- not by sovereign decree or by God "passing by" sinners, but by man's own resistance to God's grace. It's a subtle point, but the Holy Spirit can be resisted according to scripture. This is the paradox that your Reformed interpretation of the Bible and even TBOTW simply cannot fathom. Monergism and free-will existing side by side in paradox. This position is simply taking plain texts of the Bible and not commiting them to the violence of interpretation to place one over another.

The notion of predestination to Hell is an assumption of human reason, which simply hates living with paradox.

So- seeing that you are into the "plain meaning" of scripture, can you

a) show me one Bible verse that plainly says God determines some people to suffer in Hell for eternity?

and

b) show me the verse that says God does not will all to be saved or does not love the enitre world? (IOW- show me verses that contradict John 3 and 2 Pet 3)

 

[ContraMundum]

I'm not the one you were asking but I'm unfamiliar with these terms. Could you explain them a little?

I was asking Ed...

Really briefly- Hard determinism says God makes a person do something, but they believe they are doing it freely and soft determinism says that God irresistably makes a person willing to do something and doing it.

For Christian soteriology- in hard determinism God makes us sin and then punishes us for it, or He makes us believe and rewards us for it. Soft determinism has more nuances and some philosophers say that perhaps God may be resisted in soft determinism....it gets very complicated.

 

[com7fy8]

Luther of course held to universal atonement, but he didn’t see this as a logical contradiction to double predestination. He explained the apparent paradox in terms of God having two wills - through His hidden will He predestined everything that happens, whilst according to His revealed will He desires everyone’s salvation and sent Christ to atone for everyone’s sins.

1 John 2:2 does say, "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world."

So, yes Jesus did die for any and all people.

And Paul does say, "For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:10)

So, also, God "is the Savior of all men" > this includes any and all evil people. But "those who believe" are the ones who "especially" benefit from how our Father is our Savior. By obeying Him, we are living in how He desires to bless us and care for us. This includes submitting to how He corrects us > Hebrews 12:4-17 > so that we become "partakers of His holiness" and have His love's "peaceable fruit of righteousness".

But those who disobey Him might benefit from how He is their "Savior". God can be the "Savior" of the most evil of people, by how He gives them food and breath to stay alive. Also, "God resists the proud" (in James 4:6, 1 Peter 4:7) > His resistance can help to keep sinners from getting into as much trouble as they could, and can help keep awful people from doing as much harm as they would. So, He is Savior to people, I consider, by resisting the proud.

But best of all is how He is changing us into the image of Jesus, and ruling us with His own peace in our hearts (Colossians 3:15).

So, yes Jesus made atonement for all, and God is "Savior" of "all", but ones most benefit from this, by obeying how our Father desires to share with us and correct us to become like Jesus and personally lead and guide us in His own love (Romans 5:5).

"Now may the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the patience of Christ." (1 Thessalonians 3:5)

 

[Edward65]

I'm not denying faith.

What I'm saying is that Lutherans are Christ-oriented. We look to the Savior. Faith is that connection to the Savior but why point to faith when you can point to the One who redeems?

Too many other denominations say that they're saved because of their faith...but Lutherans state the obvious and what should be said, we're saved because of our Savior. When people say they're saved by faith...faith in what is the question? That's why it's better to just be up front about it in the first place.

If you look back to your previous post you commented on me saying "Christians know they are elected and predestined to be saved because they have faith in Christ". so your comments don't apply to me because I was pointing to Christ.

 

[LilLamb219]

If you look back to your previous post you commented on me saying "Christians know they are elected and predestined to be saved because they have faith in Christ". so your comments don't apply to me because I was pointing to Christ.

Actually, you pointed instead to the person's faith and not specifically the Christ.

You said initially that Christians know that they're elect because they have faith.

Whereas I said Lutherans know they're the elect because they have a Savior (the Christ, the Redeemer, etc.....).

You don't see the difference and I suspect that is why you don't understand Lutheran theology.

 

[Edward65]

This is the real reason why you have a problem with Lutheranism- you've been duped by the Reformed.

You're making a classic Reformed error here- that the choices are "Free-will vs. Determinism". Nope- those are not the only two options. How about affirming both? Your "mentor" Luther did!

You say: You're making a classic Reformed error here- that the choices are "Free-will vs. Determinism". Nope- those are not the only two options. How about affirming both? Your "mentor" Luther did! However this isn’t the case. The Bondage of the Will by it’s very title shows you that Luther rejected free will. In his conclusion to the book he said:

“I SHALL here draw this book to a conclusion: prepared if it were necessary to pursue this Discussion still farther. Though I consider that I have now abundantly satisfied the godly man, who wishes to believe the truth without making resistance. For if we believe it to be true, that God fore-knows and fore-ordains all things; that He can be neither deceived nor hindered in His Prescience and Predestination; and that nothing can take place but according to His Will, (which reason herself is compelled to confess) then, even according to the testimony of reason herself, there can be no “Free-will” — in man, — in angel, — or in any creature!” (Sect. CLXVII, Cole)

Also in your previous post you said that “I read Bondage of the Will and didn't think much of it, as a matter of fact. I'm glad it isn't in the Book of Concord in the way the Catechisms are. It's filled with determinist philosphy, which is then interpreting the Bible texts. So on the one hand you seem to be disagreeing with Luther, yet on the other hand in your post you seem to be saying you agree with him.

I haven’t been deceived by the Reformed, I’m in agreement with Luther and it's also true that the Reformed are in agreement with him as well on predestination, although Calvinists generally reject his belief in unlimited atonement as you'll be aware.

Luther did hold predestination to hell in TBOTW. For instance:

"On your view [Erasmus], God will elect nobody, and no place for election will be left; all that is left is freedom of will to heed or defy the long-suffering and wrath of God. But if God is thus robbed of His power and wisdom in election, what will He be but just that idol, Chance, under whose sway all things happen at random? Eventually, we shall come to this: that men may be saved and damned without God's knowledge! For He will not have marked out by sure election those that should be saved and those that should be damned; He will merely have set before all men His general long-suffering, which forbears and hardens, together with His chastening and punishing mercy, and left it to them to choose whether they would be saved or damned, while He Himself, perchance, goes off, as Homer says, to an Ethiopian banquet!"

So given the fact that Luther held TBOTW in high esteem there’s no truth to the idea that Luther didn’t hold predestination to hell and believed in free will. So you obviously don't agree with Luther.

As regards your interpretation of Romans 9 I don’t agree with it but will need to read up on it to know why you think as you do and how best to counter it.

 

[Edward65]

Actually, you pointed instead to the person's faith and not specifically the Christ.

You said initially that Christians know that they're elect because they have faith.

Whereas I said Lutherans know they're the elect because they have a Savior (the Christ, the Redeemer, etc.....).

You don't see the difference and I suspect that is why you don't understand Lutheran theology.

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.

 

[Edward65]

Actually, you pointed instead to the person's faith and not specifically the Christ.

You said initially that Christians know that they're elect because they have faith.

Whereas I said Lutherans know they're the elect because they have a Savior (the Christ, the Redeemer, etc.....).

You don't see the difference and I suspect that is why you don't understand Lutheran theology.

On further reflection it appears you’re trying to draw a distinction between faith as an inward disposition of the heart divorced from the object of faith, and faith seen as the placing of trust in the external reality of Christ’s atonement for everyone. I wasn’t meaning that faith should simply be thought of as an internal disposition of the heart, but that it should always be seen in conjunction with the object of faith namely Christ.

 

[ContraMundum]

You say: You're making a classic Reformed error here- that the choices are "Free-will vs. Determinism". Nope- those are not the only two options. How about affirming both? Your "mentor" Luther did! However this isn’t the case. The Bondage of the Will by it’s very title shows you that Luther rejected free will. In his conclusion to the book he said:

“I SHALL here draw this book to a conclusion: prepared if it were necessary to pursue this Discussion still farther. Though I consider that I have now abundantly satisfied the godly man, who wishes to believe the truth without making resistance. For if we believe it to be true, that God fore-knows and fore-ordains all things; that He can be neither deceived nor hindered in His Prescience and Predestination; and that nothing can take place but according to His Will, (which reason herself is compelled to confess) then, even according to the testimony of reason herself, there can be no “Free-will” — in man, — in angel, — or in any creature!” (Sect. CLXVII, Cole)

You know Luther wrote other books, right? Read any?

I'm beginning to think you are not very well read regarding Luther, nor the context of the debate between him and Erasmus, because you don't seem to grasp the context of Luther's conclusion- and you aren't the first. IF you had read any of the links I gave you (still waiting on that) you would know that for Luther free will exists in man on matters not pertaining to salvation. That is, the will is in bondage to sin (not that there is no will left in man- hence the title of the book). Luther's position is that of Augustine, which is well known. I'd recommend you check out other books of Luther besides TBOTW, because he wrote more on this subject than that. You will soon find that Luther concurs with Augustine's notion, which he insisted was put into the Augustana. As Luther said ""Confessio Augustana mea; the Augsburg Confession is mine."

"Article XVIII: Of Free Will.

1] Of Free Will they teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work 2] 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 3] 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 4] 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 5] 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 diverse useful arts, or whatsoever good 6]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" 7] I call such works as willing to worship an idol, to commit murder, etc. 8] 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, 9] (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."

If you understand this background you will begin to understand the context of Luther's hard determinism in TBOTW. At present, you have not shown any developed understanding of this. You may already have it, but I haven't seen that yet, so I'm not putting you down or anything.

We seem to be going in circles. You are blindly following the Reformed interpretation of Luther, and I'm following the Bible and I assess Luther by that standard and also by the standard of the many books he wrote- I have a fair share of them right here on my desk as I type. I hate to say but I just think you're not broadly enough read on the man to make all these pontifications about it. Even the links I cited clearly show that you are misunderstanding not just Luther but the matter as a whole.

Also in your previous post you said that “I read Bondage of the Will and didn't think much of it, as a matter of fact. I'm glad it isn't in the Book of Concord in the way the Catechisms are. It's filled with determinist philosphy, which is then interpreting the Bible texts. So on the one hand you seem to be disagreeing with Luther, yet on the other hand in your post you seem to be saying you agree with him.

Nothing wrong with that, is there? Luther is not my God or my only teacher. I agree with him when he agrees with scripture, and I don't agree with him when he doesn't. It's not that complicated really. He has works I think are brilliant (Large Catechism), some that are mildly interesting but nothing to rave about (TBOTW) and even one work I think is an abomination (eg. The Jews and Their Lies)

But at the end of the day, much of his books are his personal opinions, interpretations and so forth. They're not magisterial for anyone- even Lutherans. Unless they made it into the Book of Concord, they're not neccesary to hold to and be called a Lutheran. Am I right LilLamb?

I haven’t been deceived by the Reformed, I’m in agreement with Luther and it's also true that the Reformed are in agreement with him as well on predestination, although Calvinists generally reject his belief in unlimited atonement as you'll be aware.

Luther did hold predestination to hell in TBOTW. For instance:

"On your view [Erasmus], God will elect nobody, and no place for election will be left; all that is left is freedom of will to heed or defy the long-suffering and wrath of God. But if God is thus robbed of His power and wisdom in election, what will He be but just that idol, Chance, under whose sway all things happen at random? Eventually, we shall come to this: that men may be saved and damned without God's knowledge! For He will not have marked out by sure election those that should be saved and those that should be damned; He will merely have set before all men His general long-suffering, which forbears and hardens, together with His chastening and punishing mercy, and left it to them to choose whether they would be saved or damned, while He Himself, perchance, goes off, as Homer says, to an Ethiopian banquet!"

So given the fact that Luther held TBOTW in high esteem there’s no truth to the idea that Luther didn’t hold predestination to hell and believed in free will. So you obviously don't agree with Luther.

Luther holding his own book in high esteem is nothing new. He says that about a lot of books in his long career.

I don't blindly follow any leader or teacher. Luther here is (unfortunately) building a bit of a straw man (Erasmus did have a doctrine of election- just not the same kind as Luther) and using a bit too much hyperbole as well. This quote completely misses an entire focus of the debate on sovereignty (which is why I don't think the book is all that good!) For example: A sovereign God could, through sovereign choice give men complete liberty over their wills. Or a sovereign God could, through sovereign choice choose to distance Himself from all of His creation (as the Deists taught) It's not a question of sovereignty per se, it's a question of how God chooses to exercise it. A sovereign king can forcefully draft soldiers into his army or he can call up volunteers- either way, He's still sovereign!

Or how's this for a curve ball- perhaps God doesn't have only one way of acting out His will with His creation. Perhaps He irresistibly elects some and others are offered resistible grace? Perhaps the conversion of Paul is Divinely different to the conversion of Lydia!

So, you see we can go round and round on this little philosophy train or we can do as the Lutheran Confessions do- what does the Bible actually say?

As noted (and strangely ignored by your response- what's with that?), God offers a choice to Israel in Dt 30. That's plain. There's even verses that speak of free will for the people of God (Ex. 35:21-29, 36:3-7, Lev 7:16, Dt 16:10 etc) So in the Bible there is both choices offered by God for people to make and also free will.

Then there's all that stuff about man's fallen nature and inability to choose salvation or even move towards it that you are familiar with.

Take both sides as read, without interpretation, without reasoning away one side or the other and what do you have? Simple: Article 2 of the FoC!

Great stuff, eh?

As regards your interpretation of Romans 9 I don’t agree with it but will need to read up on it to know why you think as you do and how best to counter it.

Do that all you like, but I'm a pastor and as such I don't have a lot of time for Bible games etc. I just read Rom 9 plainly. I don't need to seek out little arguments, commentaries or magisterial interpretations to counter other opinions and stuff because I have my own grey matter between my ears and a very good working knowledge of Greek. I believe what I believe, and that's what I believe! I may change my beliefs, but that's my own cross to bear- not yours.

 

[Edward65]

"Article XVIII: Of Free Will.

Article XVIII of the Augsburg Confession on free will wasn’t of course composed by Luther but by Melanchthon who was opposed to Luther’s hard determinism and therefore he was disposed to describe free will in a way which appeared to give it more legitimacy than Luther would have done if he’d written it. Melanchthon said “For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God” which Luther no doubt understood in terms of absolute predestination, but that wasn’t Melanchthon's view.

Luther in TBOTW accepted that man was faced with apparent choices concerning his everyday life in the world and that he could seemingly make a choice between alternatives, but this was always governed by what God had decreed would happen in any particular circumstance. So for instance a person could be faced with the choice of should I or should I not marry this particular person and it appears he has the choice to do so because there’s nothing ostensibly stopping him from choosing either, so in that sense he has free will to choose either course of action. However in reality because God has determined beforehand what choice a person is going to make because He has predestined the outcome of all events there is no actual free will or choice available, because it has to be that a person will choose to do that which God has decreed he will choose. (Free-will and God’s foreknowledge of all future events are incompatible).

Those who subscribe to the Formula of Concord’s rejection of predestination to hell are actually following an illogical middle road between Luther and Melanchthon. They’ve modified Luther’s total rejection of free will in spiritual matters and come up with this idea, foreign to Luther, that the Holy Spirit tries to inwardly enlighten all who hear the Gospel, and that man is responsible for his damnation through resisting the Holy Spirit’s attempt to regenerate him. Such theology doesn’t come from Luther however. That’s Melanchthon's theology not Luther’s. (“You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you”. (Acts 7:51 ESV) according to the context doesn’t mean the Jews resisted the Holy Spirit’s regeneration, but rather that they resisted listening to God’s Word which is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and only in that sense resisted the Holy Spirit.)

Luther railed against human reason but not in any way intending to mean that logical contradictions like the Formula’s teaching on predestination could be true, but only in the sense of opposing what is understood as common sense. So for instance it’s not reasonable to believe that miracles happen but it’s not logically contradictory to believe in them, whereas it is logically contradictory to believe that God predestines people to be saved but doesn’t predestine the rest to be damned. Logic dictates that if there are only two options available (i.e. heaven and hell) and God chooses only to save some people to heaven, that the others by default are predestined by God to be damned in hell. That’s necessarily true so to believe that God doesn’t predestine anyone to hell - like Lutherans believe - is just to believe nonsense. It can’t possibly be true under any circumstances, and therefore the Bible certainly doesn’t teach this. Those who subscribe to the Formula of Concord shouldn’t have abandoned all reason and logic and accepted something as true which is so manifestly false.

 

[Arcangl86]

Article XVIII of the Augsburg Confession on free will wasn’t of course composed by Luther but by Melanchthon

While Melanchton did write Augustana, Luther was involved in the process and approved the draft. Of course Malanchton could have altered it afterwards, but I'm doubtful he would.

 

[ContraMundum]

Article XVIII of the Augsburg Confession on free will wasn’t of course composed by Luther but by Melanchthon who was opposed to Luther’s hard determinism and therefore he was disposed to describe free will in a way which appeared to give it more legitimacy than Luther would have done if he’d written it.

Uh...no. Luther had already worked on earlier drafts of the AC, and when it was all said and done, he said that the Augustana was his confession.

As was quoted in the last post...and ignored. What's with that?

Luther in TBOTW accepted that man was faced with apparent choices concerning his everyday life in the world and that he could seemingly make a choice between alternatives, but this was always governed by what God had decreed would happen in any particular circumstance. So for instance a person could be faced with the choice of should I or should I not marry this particular person and it appears he has the choice to do so because there’s nothing ostensibly stopping him from choosing either, so in that sense he has free will to choose either course of action. However in reality because God has determined beforehand what choice a person is going to make because He has predestined the outcome of all events there is no actual free will or choice available, because it has to be that a person will choose to do that which God has decreed he will choose. (Free-will and God’s foreknowledge of all future events are incompatible).

Those who subscribe to the Formula of Concord’s rejection of predestination to hell are actually following an illogical middle road between Luther and Melanchthon.

I've attempted to address Luther's position on the use of reason- and you have ignored it! It's pretty much the key to the whole discussion!!! What's with that!?

They’ve modified Luther’s total rejection of free will in spiritual matters and come up with this idea, foreign to Luther, that the Holy Spirit tries to inwardly enlighten all who hear the Gospel, and that man is responsible for his damnation through resisting the Holy Spirit’s attempt to regenerate him. Such theology doesn’t come from Luther however. That’s Melanchthon's theology not Luther’s. (“You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you”. (Acts 7:51 ESV) according to the context doesn’t mean the Jews resisted the Holy Spirit’s regeneration, but rather that they resisted listening to God’s Word which is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and only in that sense resisted the Holy Spirit.)

Ipso facto- the Holy Spirit can be resisted. It's the plain reading! The BoC is sound!

Luther railed against human reason but not in any way intending to mean that logical contradictions like the Formula’s teaching on predestination could be true, but only in the sense of opposing what is understood as common sense. So for instance it’s not reasonable to believe that miracles happen but it’s not logically contradictory to believe in them, whereas it is logically contradictory to believe that God predestines people to be saved but doesn’t predestine the rest to be damned. Logic dictates that if there are only two options available (i.e. heaven and hell) and God chooses only to save some people to heaven, that the others by default are predestined by God to be damned in hell. That’s necessarily true so to believe that God doesn’t predestine anyone to hell - like Lutherans believe - is just to believe nonsense. It can’t possibly be true under any circumstances, and therefore the Bible certainly doesn’t teach this. Those who subscribe to the Formula of Concord shouldn’t have abandoned all reason and logic and accepted something as true which is so manifestly false.

Uh..no. You've tied yourself in your human reason, and are now preaching a dogma that Bible doesn't say a word about. As yet, not a single hard determinist who believes in double predestination has found a single verse in the Bible that plainly teaches that dogma or a citation from the orthodox ancient church fathers that support such a doctrine. It's a 16thC invention/rationalisation from a small seed planted in haste by one man in 396 AD. Nothing more.

You haven't read a word put before you. You're now just preaching and not conversing. You've ignored and not addressed three points put before you. That's three strikes which means I don't have time for this until you actually address the points presented and consider them before posting.

 

[Edward65]

Luther had already worked on earlier drafts of the AC, and when it was all said and done, he said that the Augustana was his confession.

There’s nothing in Article XVIII which is inconsistent with double predestination: “Of Free Will they teach that man's will …. has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man 3] 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 4] through the Word” That statement doesn’t in any way deny predestination to hell.

The Formula of Concord and yourself reject the truth (which Luther set out in TBOTW) that since God is omnipotent and has perfect foreknowledge of the future that we are under necessity and everything is predestined to happen. So there’s no free will to either accept or reject salvation. Although on the surface it may appear that we have free will because choices are offered in the Scriptures, in actual fact because we’re under necessity we aren’t free to accept the offer of salvation. Rather when the Scriptures say to believe in Christ they show us our inability to do so without God enabling us to - like Christ said “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day”. (John 6:44 ESV)

I don’t accept that Luther in his other writings (some of which I’ve read) deviated from his position in TBOTW. There’s no evidence for any modification of his position but rather quite the reverse. For instance in his Table Talk he’s reported saying:

This do I leave behind me as my will and testament, whereunto I make you witnesses. I hold Erasmus of Rotterdam to be Christ’s most bitter enemy. In his catechism, of all his writings that which I can least endure, he teaches nothing decided; not one word says: Do this, or do not this; he only therein throws error and despair into youthful consciences. He wrote a book against me, called Hyperaspites, wherein he proposed to defend his work on free-will, against which I wrote my De servo Arbitrio, which has never yet been confuted, nor will it ever be by Erasmus, for I am certain that what I wrote on the matter is the unchangeable truth of God. If God live in heaven, Erasmus will one day know and feel what he has done. (DCLXXVI. Hazlitt)

So man’s will is like a beast standing between two riders. If God rides, it wills and goes where God wills: as the Psalm says, ‘I am become as a beast before thee, and I am ever with thee’ (Ps. 73:22-23). If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan wills. Nor may it choose to which rider it will run, or which it will seek; but the riders themselves fight to decide who shall have and hold it (TBOTW)

The argument that because God loves the world and sent Christ to atone for everyone's sins and desires everyone’s salvation it therefore follows that He hasn’t predestined anyone to hell isn’t correct . Lutherans who assert that are in effect just concluding this by using their own human reason without attending to the full teaching of Scripture. They accuse others of forming conclusions and teaching doctrines which aren’t found in Scripture by using their fallen human reason, when that’s exactly what they’re doing.

I believe Luther correctly teaches that God has two wills - His hidden and revealed wills - and that Scripture teaches both absolute predestination according to His hidden will, and that God is a God of love who desires everyone’s salvation according to His revealed will. How these two wills co-exist is of course paradoxical but I’m convinced with Luther that this is indeed the teaching of Scripture.

I answer, as I said before, — we are to argue in one way, concerning the WILL OF GOD preached, revealed, and offered unto us, and worshipped by us; and in another, concerning GOD HIMSELF not preached, not revealed, not offered unto us, and worshipped by us. In whatever, therefore, God hides Himself and will be unknown by us, that is nothing unto us ‘and here, that sentiment’ stands good — ‘What is above us, does not concern us.’ And that no one might think that this distinction is my own, I follow Paul, who, writing to the Thessalonians concerning Antichrist, saith, (2 Thess. ii. 4.) “that he should exalt himself above all that is God, as preached and worshipped:” evidently intimating, that any one might be exalted above God as He is preached and worshipped, that is, above the word and worship of God, by which He is known unto us and has intercourse with us. But, above God not worshipped and preached, that is, as He is in His own nature and majesty, nothing can be exalted, but all things are under His powerful hand.

God, therefore, is to be left to remain in His own Nature and Majesty; for in this respect, we have nothing to do with Him, nor does He wish us to have, in this respect, anything to do with Him: but we have to do with Him, as far as He is clothed in, and delivered to us by, His Word; for in that He presents Himself unto us, and that is His beauty and His glory, in which the Psalmist celebrates Him as being clothed. Wherefore, we say, that the righteous God does not ‘deplore that death of His people which He Himself works in them;’ but He deplores that death which He finds in His people, and which He desires to remove from them. For GOD PREACHED desires this: — that, our sin and death being taken away, we might be saved; “He sent His word and healed them.” (Psalm cvii. 20.) But GOD HIDDEN IN MAJESTY neither deplores, nor takes away death, but works life and death and all things: nor has He, in this Character, defined Himself in His Word, but has reserved unto Himself, a free power over all things. (from section LXIV The Bondage of the Will, Cole)

I’ve read similar articles in the past to the ones you refer me to so I’m familiar with the line of reasoning presented in them. I haven’t actually read through everything you’ve referred me to, but I think I’ve covered the points you’ve raised in your posts, but of course we’re never going to agree because you regard Luther’s arguments in TBOTW as just so much determinist philosophy whereas I’m convinced that what he argues is the teaching of Scriptutre.

 

[Arcangl86]

There’s nothing in Article XVIII which is inconsistent with double predestination: “Of Free Will they teach that man's will …. has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man 3] 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 4] through the Word” That statement doesn’t in any way deny predestination to hell.

So Article XVIII has no value at all when you think Luther didn't write it, but now that you know he did, it doesn't contradict what you are trying to say? Interesting. And honestly, I don't see how predestination to heaven is inconsistent with the absolute sovereignty of God. In fact I see too different ways it is compatible. The first is that maybe God elected all for salvation, but those that won't be saved turned away from Him. That goes quite well with the Lutheran idea that it is trust in God that saves. The second is a bit more abstract, but who says God sees time in a linear fashion like us fallen mortals? He exists at all times and in all places, so in that sense, he hasn't foreseen anything, but instead has seen people as they are saved or damned.

 

[Edward65]

So Article XVIII has no value at all when you think Luther didn't write it, but now that you know he did, it doesn't contradict what you are trying to say? Interesting. And honestly, I don't see how predestination to heaven is inconsistent with the absolute sovereignty of God. In fact I see too different ways it is compatible. The first is that maybe God elected all for salvation, but those that won't be saved turned away from Him. That goes quite well with the Lutheran idea that it is trust in God that saves. The second is a bit more abstract, but who says God sees time in a linear fashion like us fallen mortals? He exists at all times and in all places, so in that sense, he hasn't foreseen anything, but instead has seen people as they are saved or damned.

I didn't say it had no value and nor do I think that. I'm in agreement with Article XVIII. The point I was trying to make was that Luther would I think have been more circumspect in his treatment, and would have mentioned that everything is subject to God's predestination.

Also Luther had several years before in his book against Erasmus laid out his position of absolute predestination, so when Melanchthon composed the Augsburg Confession he was doing so with this knowledge as a backdrop, so obviously he (Melanchthon) would have been careful not to contradict Luther on predestination even though in his heart he wasn't in agreement with it.

I don't agree with you on God's sovereignty. Since God is all powerful and everything in the universe is subject to his will, and He knows what will happen in the future with certainty before it takes place, there's no room for any autonomous decisions made by humans. Therefore people are predestined to both heaven and hell.

 

[Arcangl86]

I don't agree with you on God's sovereignty. Since God is all powerful and everything in the universe is subject to his will, and He knows what will happen in the future with certainty before it takes place, there's no room for any autonomous decisions made by humans. Therefore people are predestined to both heaven and hell.

So if there is no room for autonomous decisions by humans, does that mean God causes everything. God causes people to rape women and children. God forces people to care more about having every cent they can instead of making sure there is enough food for everybody to eat. God forces people to blow themselves up and kill thousands of people. God forces people to oppress and enslave others. I'm sorry, without free will, God is evil. If God is the source of all evil and only picks certain people to be saved, where the hell is the Gospel in that?

 

[ContraMundum]

There’s nothing in Article XVIII which is inconsistent with double predestination: “Of Free Will they teach that man's will …. has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man 3] 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 4] through the Word” That statement doesn’t in any way deny predestination to hell.

Actually, that wasn't the point. It's that man does in fact have free will, just not in the way that you think.

The Formula of Concord and yourself reject the truth (which Luther set out in TBOTW) that since God is omnipotent and has perfect foreknowledge of the future that we are under necessity and everything is predestined to happen.

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. The Stoic (pagan) determinist position you espouse is merely one possible outcome of the logic process. I wrote about all this quite a few posts ago- which you obviously didn't think about. I'm almost 100% convinced that you are just not interested in discussion- just preaching your Hyper-Calvinism or perhaps addicted to argumentation.

You're reading as if you have never read anything apart from OTBOTW on this matter. There's several other logical possibilities, some which have been pointed out to you (and ignored for some reason). Have you?

The rest snipped because your whole premise collapses on the basis of this point.


Let me bring another point to the table: process. I'd like to compare methodologies to bring home the point that Double predestination is unscriptural- no matter who teaches it.

Here's some ways Protestants in general do theology;

1) The Fundamentalist/Biblicist.

"I believe X and therefore I shall prove it"

IOW: proof text + proof text = my doctrine.

2) The Rationalist

"I have assumption X that determines my beliefs"

IOW: text + text + my assumption/reason= my doctrine (the texts then erroneously become proof texts!)

3) The Traditionalist

"My traditions are vindicated by what I read in the Bible"

IOW: text + text + tradition and reason= my doctrine. (again the texts then erroneously become proof texts!)

4) The Exegete

"I have no assumptions or traditions that determine my beliefs, instead the texts themselves do"

IOW: text + text + text = my doctrine.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are clearly using method 2).

Let me demonstrate by inserting hard determinist predestination as the doctrine in question.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1) The Fundamentalist/Biblicist.

"I believe double predestination and therefore I shall prove it"

IOW: selected proof text + selected proof text = double predestination.

*** Ignore all Bible texts with words like "free will" or "choose" or John 3:16 etc. if they are brought up reason them in such a way as to mean what you want them to mean to fit into your system.

2) The Rationalist

"I have assumed that God is sovereign and exercises that sovereignty only in a certain way and that determines or influences my beliefs"

IOW: sovereignty text + sovereignty text + my reason= double predestination. (the texts then erroneously become proof texts!)

*** Again ignore all Bible texts with words like "free will" or "choose" or John 3:16 etc. if they are brought up reason them in such a way as to mean what you want them to mean to fit into your system.

3) The Traditionalist (this could also be a follower of a teacher- even Luther!)

"My traditions are vindicated by what I read in the Bible. My tradition says that God presdestines people to Heaven or Hell and there's nothing they can do about it"

IOW: text + text + tradition and reason= double predestination. (again the texts then erroneously become proof texts!).


4) The Exegete

"I have no assumptions or traditions that determine my beliefs, instead the texts themselves do"

IOW: text + text + text = my doctrine.


Clearly number 4) is the only honest way to do this. This is also the method of the authors of the Book of Concord.

THE PROBLEM WITH 1), 2) AND 3)

- there is no Bible text teaching that God predestines people to an eternity in Hell merely by His sovereign decree from eternity.

So, your 2) method really looks like this:

Sovereignty text + sovereignty text + no text + my reason= double predestination.

IOW a + b + ? + c= d


That's what I call really bad theology and even worse exegetical method.

So whether you think Luther taught as you currently believe or not....it's just not the right way to do doctrine. Only method 4) is honest, and that's what the signatories to the Book of Concord wanted- honest, Biblical exegesis without tradition or reason invovled in a magisterial role.

 

[Edward65]

So if there is no room for autonomous decisions by humans, does that mean God causes everything. God causes people to rape women and children. God forces people to care more about having every cent they can instead of making sure there is enough food for everybody to eat. God forces people to blow themselves up and kill thousands of people. God forces people to oppress and enslave others. I'm sorry, without free will, God is evil. If God is the source of all evil and only picks certain people to be saved, where the hell is the Gospel in that?

Here's a passage from the Historical Introductions to the Lutheran Confessions which may prove helpful:

After a discussion at Wittenberg with a fanatic from Antwerp, in 1525, Luther wrote a letter of warning to the Christians of Antwerp, in which he speaks of God's will with respect to sin in an illuminating manner as follows: "Most of all he [the fanatic] fiercely contended that God's command was good, and that God did not desire sin, which is true without a doubt; and the fact that we also confessed this did not do us any good. But he would not admit that, although God does not desire sin, He nevertheless permits (verhaengxt) it to happen, and such permission certainly does not come to pass without His will. For who compels Him to permit it? Aye, how could He permit it if it was not His will to permit it? Here he exalted his reason, and sought to comprehend how God could not desire sin, and still, by permitting sin, will it, imagining that he could exhaust the abyss of divine majesty: how these two wills may exist side by side ... Nor do I doubt that he will quote me to you as saying that God desires sin. To this I would herewith reply that he wrongs me, and as he is otherwise full of lies, so also he does not speak the truth in this matter. I say that God has forbidden sin, and does not desire it. This will has been revealed to us, and it is necessary for us to know it. But in what manner God permits or wills sin, this we are not to know; for He has not revealed it. St. Paul himself would not and could not know it, saying, Rom. 9, 20: 'O man, who art thou that repliest against God?' Therefore I beseech you in case this spirit should trouble you much with the lofty question regarding the secret will of God,to depart from him and to speak thus: 'Is it too little that God instructs us in His public [proclaimed] will, which He has revealed to us? Why, then, do you gull us seeking to lead us into that which we are forbidden to know, are unable to know, and which you do not know yourself? Let the manner in which that comes to pass be commended to God; it suffices us to know that He desires no sin. In what way, however, He permits or wills sin, this we shall leave unanswered (sollen wir gehen lassen). The servant is not to know his master's secrets but what his master enjoins upon him, much less is a poor creature to explore and desire to know the secrets of the majesty of its God,'- Behold,my dear friends, here you may perceive that the devil always makes a practise of presenting unnecessary, vain, and impossible things in order thereby to tempt the frivolous to forsake the right path. Therefore take heed that you abide by that which is needful, and which God has commanded us to know, as the wise man says: 'Do not inquire for that which is too high for you, but always remain with that which God has commanded you,'We all have work enough to learn all our lifetime God's command and His Son Christ." (E. 53, 345; St. L. 10, 1531;Weimar 18, 549f.)

 

[ContraMundum]

So if there is no room for autonomous decisions by humans, does that mean God causes everything. God causes people to rape women and children. God forces people to care more about having every cent they can instead of making sure there is enough food for everybody to eat. God forces people to blow themselves up and kill thousands of people. God forces people to oppress and enslave others. I'm sorry, without free will, God is evil. If God is the source of all evil and only picks certain people to be saved, where the hell is the Gospel in that?

There are other big problems with Ed65's hard determinist position as well.

For example, the Bible tells us that God is just. If He determines a sinner to sin, then punishing that sinner for that sin is unjust. Man isn't ultimately to blame for his own actions. Sinful man is instead punished by God for the actions that God Himself did in and through that man! (This gives man [made in God's image reflecting His attributes] recourse against Him in the Heavenly court. Why should man give account for actions he had no choice in making?)

Secondly, God's justice and character is offended because according to the Bible God gives mankind decisions and choices to make. If those choices are in fact not real, then God is unjust, deceitful and even worse. God's commandments, admonishments, promises, offers of salvation and everything become merely pantomime on a stage in which humanity is merely the actors robotically following the script. That's a God who is love? That's an upright and just God?

I liked the old joke about hyper-Calvinists that was going around in seminary when I was there- how does a hyper-Calvinist witness? "Hi! Did you know that God hates you and has a terrible plan for your life?"

Nope, 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.