Lutheran rejection of double predestination.

Edward65 said:

Also if the Scriptures aren’t logical then it follows they’re contradictory which simply can’t be.

Click to expand...

Golly, Contra...he's got us there, hasn't he? No one's EVER tried that line with a Lutheran before.

***something about seeing through a glass darkly****

Is there a smiley for 'rolls eyes'?

KEPLER said:

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

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.

Click to expand...

No I didn't take the fanatic's position, I took Luther's position. The person I was replying to was asserting that if absolute predestination was true then God is evil, and I replied to him with that passage I quoted (about the fanatic) to the effect that God wills evil and sin to occur, but in such a way that He doesn't desire it to occur, as Luther explained.

Logically contradictory statements can't be true in reality because they are nonsense statements which don't convey any meaning. They are tantamount to saying two and two equals three which is obviously false and can never under any circumstances be true. Paradoxes aren't nonsense statements and aren't real contradictions, but only apparent contradictions which aren't that in reality.

Some theologians are capable of arguing almost anything. That a theologian defends a position is no guarantee of it's veracity.

Luther's polemic against Erasmus was a statement of the teaching of Scripture with respect to predestination and free will and is to be understood as that. Luther showed that everything is predestined to happen and that God predestines people to hell as well as heaven.

Skybringr said:

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

Click to expand...

Vanity is thinking that humans have free will and autonomy, and that everything revolves round their decisions and not God’s. Why be a believer in free will and a theist when you can go the whole distance and be a full blown atheist? That’s where the notion of free will ultimately leads. You are your own master if you have free will, and can decide your own future, so it’s only a short step from this to outright rejection of God, and embracing atheism.

Skybringr said:

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

Click to expand...

God doesn't directly inspire the words and actions of sinful men. He doesn't put sinful thoughts into people's minds, but rather he allows the Devil to do this.

Luther likened God's role in energising sinful humans to someone in control of lame horses. The horses travel badly, although this isn't the fault of the horseman but rather of the horses. In the same manner when God moves men to do that which is sinful, the sinfulness of the act is only attributable to fallen men and the Devil, and not to God who energises them.

Edward65 said:

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

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

Click to expand...

I read it, and I think this is clear . . . how good works are the result of faith, and it is the faith which makes us right so we do what is good.

"faith working through love" (in Galatians 5:6)

But by acting in love, this has us exercising in God's love so we get stronger in love, I consider. We need to have loving things to do, so we stay healthy and grow right in real love.

It's like how if you do things in a clean atmosphere, this helps you to stay healthy.

There are things we are commanded to do, so we are real in God's love (1 John 4:17) and become conformed to the image of Jesus (Romans 8:29). These ministering things are works which we need to do in order to be conformed to Jesus.

One example is James 5:16 > having mutual confession with mutual prayer to get us "healed" > healed of whatever in our character is making us able to sin and suffer, and healed more-so together with God, instead. So, these works are essential, I would say. The effect of love in us is what we need, though, during these works . . . God's love effecting how we are and become. This is what grace does. So, it is faith and grace working with each other > faith working by means of how love effects us during our good works.

com7fy8 said:

I read it, and I think this is clear . . . how good works are the result of faith, and it is the faith which makes us right so we do what is good.

"faith working through love" (in Galatians 5:6)

Click to expand...

See also Philippians 2:13:

... for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Edward65 said:

Vanity is thinking that humans have free will and autonomy, and that everything revolves round their decisions and not God’s. Why be a believer in free will and a theist when you can go the whole distance and be a full blown atheist? That’s where the notion of free will ultimately leads. You are your own master if you have free will, and can decide your own future, so it’s only a short step from this to outright rejection of God, and embracing atheism.

Click to expand...

No, that's nonsense.

Atheism is better then double predestination because, while there is no rational, fair justice in either, at least one has the stones to admit Heaven and Hell, therefore, should not exist.

You missed the point- God is vain in double predestination. Calvinists, in their practice, are vain in their worship.
It's barren theology, and would make no difference if it were Christ or a magic bean out in the 5th dimension.

Tangible said:

See also Philippians 2:13:

... for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Click to expand...

Yes. This fits with "faith working through love", I can see. Because our faith has us with God who works in His love in us.

I personally understand that if God works in us "to will", then this means that God takes the initiative to get us to will to do what He wants. He "starts" our will for doing whatever is in His love. He converts our will to become willing in His love.

So, we are this dependent > "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God," (2 Corinthians 3:5)

We have our own wills, yes, but we are not sufficient to get our wills to choose what He wants. But this is good, that we share with God in doing what He desires; we are not on our own We are in His own love while we do what He has us willing and doing (Romans 5:5, 1 Corinthians 16:14).

And good news is that though we were willing but failing, in our own freedom of will, now with God we have Him succeeding in getting us to will but also then doing what He has us willing; because He succeeds in us and we are not bleeding in our failure.

And since this thread is about Martin Luther, did he get into this? And is this what you understand Philippians 2:13 to mean?

Do we somehow desire to cooperate with how God works in our wills, or is His work against resistance of our will's human and sinful nature? I consider that work is against resistance, but God's working transforms us (Romans 12:1-2) into being submissive (Colossians 1:28-29).

Skybringr said:

Atheism is better then double predestination .

Click to expand...

And sometimes these debates just spin out into La La land.

Lutheran Theology (LCMS) does not hold to a double predestination...This however creates a question that is difficult to answer and seems like a contradiction. The Doctrine of election simply put is linked to the total depravity and sinful condition of the human soul at conception. To keep it short, everyone is justly condemned and stands guilty before God and deserving of his wrath and punishment. Before the foundation of the world God chose those he would bring to saving faith in Christ. This was not based on his foreknowledge, i.e. looking down the tunnel of time to see who would accept this faith, nor was it a military type muster where every 10th person was selected. The reason for Gods election is a mystery, with the exception that it was totally unconditional on the part of the elect. So, where does this leave us? Some people receive gods unmerited mercy, others do not, everyone receives justice, no one receives injustice. No one will be dragged kicking and screaming into heaven, because hell is our just reward.