Martin Luther's Teaching on Predestination.

[Rick Otto]

Many who do know the Lord are slaves to sin also; even the devil knows the Lord.

Not like she meant "know".
Without regard for context, we could also say the devil has a personal relationship with Jesus but it would be misleading.

 

[Rick Otto]

I understand it perfectly. And I also understand, that, as the one who claimed that the prodigal son was destined to return, you must prove this.

If destiny is what happens in contrast to what might, it happening is proof.

 

[Rick Otto]

Might I add that those who do know the Lord, who trust in Him for their salvation, and who do not sin wilfully, still sin inadvertently. I've known enough "Born Again" OSAS Christians, that I can assuredly say that in light of the 10 commandments, they sin, and they sin almost as often and as grievously as I do; and I was "born again" in Christ, through His grace which I received at my infant baptism.

OSAS is a crock, and is often used as a licence to sin.

Free will is the crock & is always an excuse to take personal credit for salvation.

 

[Nanopants]

Free will is the crock & is always an excuse to take personal credit for salvation.

Really? I use the idea to affirm that God is just, but if that's really about me, well ok then.

 

[Edward65]

You assume someone with a free will will always choose to serve God and his commandments. Certainly didn't work out that way for Eve.

I wasn't making that assumption. I was only making the point that if unregenerate man had free will he'd be able to change his will from willing to do evil to willing to do good - which he can't do.



I'm saying, just according to logic without regards to theology, if one can will to sin...then it necessarily follows that they have a will, so, if one doesn't have a will they can't will sin. How much you want to say that that "will" is free or not free is the point at issue. Of course, no philosopher or theologian has ever given an adequate definition of free will. If the will is free to do evil, it follows a fortiori, that the will can abstain from evil. If I can do something I must also have the possibility of not doing something unless such action must be done out of necessity whether or not I choose for it to happen or not. The consequence of that though would be that God is the author of evil, because he is not, it must be that we both posses the ability to choose evil and make the decision to do it, therefore, humans can freely will an evil action.

So you disagree with Luther then in "The Bondage of the Will"? Luther argued that God's foreknowledge imposed necessity on everything happening as He has foreseen it, and therefore we don't have free will. For instance with respect to Judas Luther said this:

“…if God foreknew that Judas would be a traitor, Judas became a traitor of necessity, and it was not in the power of Judas or of any creature to act differently, or to change his will, from that which God had foreseen. It’s true that Judas acted willingly, and not under compulsion, but his willing was the work of God, brought into being by His omnipotence, like everything else”

It doesn't make God the author of evil if He predestines everything that happens. God predestined the crucifixion of Christ so that those who carried it out had no free will to do otherwise than what God had predestined should happen.

[27] for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, [28] to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.
(Acts 4:27-28 ESV)

But that doesn't make God the author of evil just because those who carried it out had no free will to do otherwise than what God had planned. It was an evil act that those who crucified Christ were engaged in but God wasn't responsible for why these people were evil. They were evil because of original sin. God directed their evil wills to perform an evil act but used their evil act to bring about something good namely our salvation. So if we extrapolate from this and conclude that God overrules all evil acts he predestines to happen and makes them ultimately serve good, then God can't legitimately be accused of being evil.

 

[bach90]

So you disagree with Luther then in "The Bondage of the Will"? Luther argued that God's foreknowledge imposed necessity on everything happening as He has foreseen it, and therefore we don't have free will. For instance with respect to Judas Luther said this:

“…if God foreknew that Judas would be a traitor, Judas became a traitor of necessity, and it was not in the power of Judas or of any creature to act differently, or to change his will, from that which God had foreseen. It’s true that Judas acted willingly, and not under compulsion, but his willing was the work of God, brought into being by His omnipotence, like everything else”

First, Bondage of the Will ≠ Scripture. Luther was a brilliant exegetical theologian, he was not an excellent systemic theologian. That's why its the systemic writings of Melanchton and of Chemnitz which underlie much of the theology in the Book of Concord, which is the authoritative statement of belief for any Lutheran.

Luther's argument:
God foreknew evil of Judas (A) → Judas was a traitor of necessity (B).

So far Luther has only stated the necessary condition of God's foreknowledge of evil without any premises to support it. He's also fallaciously equated God's foreknowledge and God's predestination.

Moving on...

B → Judas could not change his will (C).

If B is true, C may or may not follow. C does not necessarily follow from B because Luther has still not provided any evidence to link his premises.

Luther then immediately asserts that Judas acted willingly (D).

However if C∧D → C⊥D. It is absurd to assert that a human can act willingly under compulsion. Therefore C⊥D → ~C∨~D, one (or both) of these statements must be false.

Luther's final assertion is that Judas acted willingly (D). Therefore, if we're going to use logic and accept Luther's statements as true, ~C, (Judas could not change his will) must be false.

So I disagree with this particular statement in BOTW, yes. It does not mean I dismiss everything in BOTW. Unlike the Bible, and if one is a Lutheran the Confessions, one can freely agree or disagree with the writings of men.

It doesn't make God the author of evil if He predestines everything that happens. God predestined the crucifixion of Christ so that those who carried it out had no free will to do otherwise than what God had predestined should happen.

[27] for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, [28] to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.
(Acts 4:27-28 ESV)

Christ asserts himself that He laid down his life willingly (Jn 10:18), not of necessity. What this verse is getting at, in context, is that God has preordained that the salvation of man would come to pass.

But that doesn't make God the author of evil just because those who carried it out had no free will to do otherwise than what God had planned. It was an evil act that those who crucified Christ were engaged in but God wasn't responsible for why these people were evil. They were evil because of original sin. God directed their evil wills to perform an evil act but used their evil act to bring about something good namely our salvation. So if we extrapolate from this and conclude that God overrules all evil acts he predestines to happen and makes them ultimately serve good, then God can't legitimately accused of being evil.

If they could not do otherwise, then yes, God is the author of their evil. If a man's evil will is used for good, then no, God is not the author of evil. You can't hold that God causes all things to happen by necessity, and that man can freely will evil, and that God makes man do evil things. At least one but possibly all 3 of those statements have to be false.

.

 

[Rick Otto]

Really? I use the idea to affirm that God is just, but if that's really about me, well ok then.

It's about you because you being free isn't about justice, it's about being equal to God. Free will makes God's actions dependant upon OUR will, and presupposes He doesn't already know what that will be & doesn't have the power & right (jurisdiction, - judicial authority) to decree the content of His creation.
That He is by definition good, dispenses with His need to be fair. He is instead, more than fair, He is merciful. Being "fair" presupposes we deserve something from Him. People going to hell is Him being just. People going to heaven is Him being merciful.
(Romans 9:22-23)
What does He owe us?

 

[Nanopants]

It's about you because you being free isn't about justice, it's about being equal to God. Free will makes God's actions dependant upon OUR will, and presupposes He doesn't already know what that will be & doesn't have the power & right (jurisdiction, - judicial authority) to decree the content of His creation.
That He is by definition good, dispenses with His need to be fair. He is instead, more than fair, He is merciful. Being "fair" presupposes we deserve something from Him. People going to hell is Him being just. People going to heaven is Him being merciful.
(Romans 9:22-23)
What does He owe us?

If unfairness (injustice by most reasonable interpretations) is good because God is good though He is unfair, then are we also to be unfair or unjust toward our neighbors? Something doesn't sound right to me about this considering that unfairness is an abomination to God and we're to seek after justice (Pro 20:10, Isa 1:17).

Injustice is commonly understood to be something that is inherently wrong. If you give a gift to a friend, though he did not deserve it, is that necessarily a wrong thing to do? IOW is gift giving always wrongdoing? If not then to give a gift cannot necessarily be unjust.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Nanopants;If unfairness (injustice by most reasonable interpretations) is good because God is good though He is unfair, then are we also to be unfair or unjust toward our neighbors?

God is mor than fair/just. He is merciful. Be like Him.

Something doesn't sound right to me about this considering that unfairness is an abomination to God and we're to seek after justice (Pro 20:10, Isa 1:17).

I'll go with that.

Injustice is commonly understood to be something that is inherently wrong. If you give a gift to a friend, though he did not deserve it, is that necessarily a wrong thing to do?

I would say it depends on your motive. If you know it will only cause him grief, it is wrong.

IOW is gift giving always wrongdoing? If not then to give a gift cannot necessarily be unjust.

Not always, it could be mercy. Mercy trumps justice.

 

[Edward65]

REPLY TO bach90

Luther’s argument in The Bondage of the Will is that what God foreknows will happen is also willed by Him from eternity to happen, and due to the fact that He’s omnipotent what He wills and foreknows will happen, must happen because He can’t be thwarted. Therefore everything is predestined to happen as it does and we don’t have any free will to do other than what God has foreknown will take place. So Luther’s argument about Judas that I quoted has to be understood in relation to Luther’s whole argument about God’s eternal will and omnipotence which is also the teaching of Scripture, e.g.

[7] I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things. (Isaiah 45:7 ESV)

[9] …for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, [10] declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ (Isaiah 46:9-10 ESV)

[6] Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid? Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it? (Amos 3:6 ESV)

So although it appears to us that we have free will to decide to do something different from that we have embarked on, in actual fact we don’t have any free will to do differently than what God has predestined to happen. And God works this willingness in us to do what He has beforehand decided will happen.

I don’t follow your line of reasoning in your last post. There seems to be some misunderstanding in what your saying concerning willingness. You seem to be equating willingness with free will whereas that isn’t the case. Luther distinguished between two sorts of necessity. The necessity of compulsion and the necessity of immutability, by which he meant that there are two ways in which one can view the bound will or the bondage of the will (i.e. our lack of free will). One can either understand it in terms of compulsion in that we are compelled to do something against our will, or we can understand it in terms of we must will to do something that God wants us to will at the time that God has willed that we should will it. And Luther made it plain that he was only talking about the latter not the former. So the fact that we willingly do something doesn’t mean that we have free will. If we had free will it would follow that we could will to do differently than how God had willed and foreknown that we should will, which would mean God wasn’t omnipotent because we could thwart his eternal will and decide to do something which He didn’t will that we should will.

I don’t think there’s any validity to your conclusion concerning those who crucified Christ that “If they could not do otherwise, then yes, God is the author of their evil” For God to be the author of their evil it would have to be that God was responsible for the fact that they were fallen and sinful creatures who desired to do wrong, yet the Bible teaches differently and lays the blame on Satan and our first parents for people being evil. So if God merely uses these evil people as a means to accomplish something that is ultimately good then I don’t see how that makes God evil or the author of their evil. In fact it doesn't.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Free will is the crock & is always an excuse to take personal credit for salvation.

Hi Rick,

I disagree. As I stated in my other posts, we have no free-will to accept God, we do, however have free-will to reject God. God created man in Eden to live forever, that was the norm, mankind living in a state of grace in paradise. Mankind used free-will to defy God's will, and earned expulsion from paradise, and ultimately death.

God ultimately sent His Son to die for all mankind, through His death, He has paid the cost of that first act of defiance.

Despite that defiance we are still God's children, and God does love us; we can not chose to be His, we can not chose to have Him love us, we could not chose to have Christ die for us; we have no freewill in these matters, we can not take credit for any of this. This is given to us despite our wilful rebellion.

Since this thread is about Luther's view of predestination, I offer Luther's explanation of the Apostle's Creed from the Small Catechism. Note that there is no mention that we can do anything to save ourselves, nor even come to faith for that matter, it is all about what God does, and not about what we do. On can argue that this shows that we have no free-will, but without free-will, none of us would reject God, and there would be no need for the Gospel, nor would there be any work for the Holy Spirit, and the biggest issue of all; without free-will, there would have been no reason for Christ's all availing sacrifice on the cross.

II. The Creed

As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.

The First Article.
​

Of Creation.

​

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
​

What does this mean?


--Answer.


I believe that God has made me and all creatures; that He has given me my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my limbs, my reason, and all my senses, and still preserves them; in addition thereto, clothing and shoes, meat and drink, house and homestead, wife and children, fields, cattle, and all my goods; that He provides me richly and daily with all that I need to support this body and life, protects me from all danger, and guards me and preserves me from all evil; and all this out of pure, fatherly, divine goodness and mercy, without any merit or worthiness in me; for all which I owe it to Him to thank, praise, serve, and obey Him. This is most certainly true.

The Second Article.
​

Of Redemption.

​

And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

​

What does this mean?



--Answer.


I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary, is my Lord, who has redeemed me, a lost and condemned creature, purchased and won [delivered] me from all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil, not with gold or silver, but with His holy, precious blood and with His innocent suffering and death, in order that I may be [wholly] His own, and live under Him in His kingdom, and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, even as He is risen from the dead, lives and reigns to all eternity. This is most certainly true.

The Third Article.
​

Of Sanctification.

​

I believe in the Holy Ghost; one holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

​

What does this mean?

--Answer.


I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.

 

[Albion]

It's more of a rationalization on Luther's part than solid theology. He knew that works-righteousness was wrong, but he couldn't bring himself to junk it, as with so much else in his thinking about the wrongs of Medieval Catholicism. So he went half-way. You can't make a strong case from Scripture for "yes, predestination except if......"

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=MarkRohfrietsch;Hi Rick,

Howdy, Mark.

I disagree. As I stated in my other posts, we have no free-will to accept God, we do, however have free-will to reject God.

That's not freedom, it's limitation. If we are not free to accept, rejection is what we are limited to, so you reduce freedom to availale choices but but don't admit your freedom has been limited when available choices have been limited. Isn't that obvious?

God created man in Eden to live forever, that was the norm, mankind living in a state of grace in paradise. Mankind used free-will to defy God's will, and earned expulsion from paradise, and ultimately death.

I think you mischarachterize Adam's transgression. I don't think his motivation was defiance. He was allowed to be victimized by a tempting lie. No one had ever lied before. It was a new & disorienting experience for him.

God ultimately sent His Son to die for all mankind, through His death, He has paid the cost of that first act of defiance.

And it wasn't like He was fixing a problem He didn't anticipate or He wouldn't be omniscient.

Despite that defiance we are still God's children, and God does love us; we can not chose to be His, we can not chose to have Him love us, we could not chose to have Christ die for us; we have no freewill in these matters, we can not take credit for any of this. This is given to us despite our wilful rebellion.

What do you mean "we"? Not all of humanity is God's children. Adam caused that. Only the elect He predestined for mercy are His - by adoption!

Since this thread is about Luther's view of predestination, I offer Luther's explanation of the Apostle's Creed from the Small Catechism. Note that there is no mention that we can do anything to save ourselves, nor even come to faith for that matter, it is all about what God does, and not about what we do.

Right, because Adam bound our will to sin, not to freedom.

On can argue that this shows that we have no free-will, but without free-will, none of us would reject God, and there would be no need for the Gospel, nor would there be any work for the Holy Spirit, and the biggest issue of all; without free-will, there would have been no reason for Christ's all availing sacrifice on the cross.

I agree with all that except the last part. Free will is not the cause or reason for us needing salvation, sin & our slavery to it is.
The will is dependant upon information for informed consent. If that information isn't available, the will is not free to make an informed (therefore "free") choice.
Human will is incredibly vulnerable to all kinds of assaults on its activity.
It is most dependant & therefore not free at all.

It is a desperate attempt at self dignification.

 

[Rick Otto]

It's more of a rationalization on Luther's part than solid theology. He knew that works-righteousness was wrong, but he couldn't bring himself to junk it, as with so much else in his thinking about the wrongs of Medieval Catholicism. So he went half-way. You can't make a strong case from Scripture for "yes, predestination except if......"

I think that is an accurate observation. Predestination is not something an omniscient, omnipotent being could compromise without compromising omniscience & omnipotence. It would remove the "omni" part.

 

[Albion]

I think that is an accurate observation. Predestination is not something an omniscient, omnipotent being could compromise without compromising omniscience & omnipotence. It would remove the "omni" part.

That deals with compromises to God's nature. Then there are the denials of the meaning of the word itself: PRE and DESTINATION.

Neither of those would be meaningful if we could alter God's decision, as was suggested.

 

[Edward65]

As I stated in my other posts, we have no free-will to accept God, we do, however have free-will to reject God.

Are you aware that you're in disagreement with Luther over this and that Luther stated that what he'd written in The Bondage of the Will was the unchangeable truth of God? (i.e. "Erasmus 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". DCLXXVI. Table Talk, Hazlitt)

Luther didn't just deny that we had free will to accept God but he also denied that we had any free will to reject God:

"However, with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, he has no 'free will', but is a captive, prisoner and bondslave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan." Packer and Johnston p.107

"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. 73.22-3). 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." ibid p.103,104

So when Luther says we have no freedom to choose Satan as our rider he means we have no free will to reject God.

Luther based his denial of free will on Scripture as is evident when one studies The Bondage of the Will, and on the basis of Scripture he taught that everything is predestined by God to happen including who is saved and who is damned.

 

[Edward65]

The only predestination taught by scripture is one where God plans us a plan to serve his Kingdom before we are born, and when we are born, gives us the option to follow his plan or go against it. Predestination to hell is against scripture.

"For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live." -Ezekiel 18:32

"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." -Jeremiah 29:11

"For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”"-Romans 10:13

No, you're mistaken when you say that the only predestination is where God has a plan of salvation which allows us freedom as to whether we follow it or not. That's a contradiction in terms. If something is predestined by God to happen to us in person then that automatically rules out any freedom we could have in deciding whether to follow it or not, because the definition of predestination is something which has to happen whether we like it or not. If it's predestined it's destined from eternity to happen and we can't change it from happening. If what is predestined applies to us personally we don't have any freedom to either accept it or oppose it. It simply happens because it's predestined to happen.

If you're predestined to be saved you will be irresistibly converted by God such that you will become a believer regardless of the fact that prior to your conversion you hated the very idea of becoming a Christian. If someone could have informed St Paul before his conversion on the road to Damascus that before too long he was going to be a Christian he'd have been extremely angry at the suggestion, but nevertheless it happened without any cooperation from him. So if it's predestined to happen it happens regardless of whether a person approves or disapproves of it.

Also if God has predestined who are going to be saved and only those are saved, then it has to follow that those who aren't saved are destined not to be saved (i.e. destined to be damned). It can't be any other way. It has to follow that those who aren't predestined to be saved are destined to be damned, and since everything in God's universe is controlled by God and willed and foreknown by Him from eternity, then it follows as night follows day that those who are damned are predestined to be damned.

Now where the endless confusion arises over this simple scenario above is that people who oppose the idea of predestination to hell then start quoting portions of the Bible which are inappropriately applied to the subject of predestination. For instance just as you have quoted Ezekiel above, Erasmus in arguing against Luther and in support of free will used the same verse against Luther's position of absolute predestination. This is what Erasmus said with respect to Ezekiel 18:32 as quoted by Luther in The Bondage of the Will:

"Does the righteous Lord deplore the death of his people which He Himself works in them? If He does not will our death, it must be laid to the charge of our own will if we perish..." Packer and Johnston p.167

and this is a small part of Luther's reply:

"...we must discuss God, or the will of God, preached, revealed, offered to us, and worshipped by us in one way, and God not preached, not revealed, nor offered to us, nor worshipped by us, in another way".

"I say that the righteous God does not deplore the death of his people which He Himself works in them, but He deplores the death which He finds in His people and desires to remove from them. God preached works to the end that sin and death may be taken away, and we may be saved...But God hidden in Majesty neither deplores nor takes away death, but works life, and death, and all in all; nor has He set bounds to Himself by His Word, but has kept Himself free over all things.

"The diatribe (Erasmus's book -Edward65) is deceived by its own ignorance in that it makes no distinction between God preached and God hidden, that is between the Word of God and God Himself. God does many things which He does not show us in His Word, and He wills many things which He does not in His Word show us that He wills. Thus, He does not will the death of a sinner - that is in His Word; but He wills it by His inscrutable will" ibid p.169,170.

Luther makes a distinction between God's revealed will and God's hidden inscrutable will, such that according to God's hidden Majestic Will (where He rules omnipotently) everything is predestined to happen including who's saved and who's damned, whilst according to His revealed will He desires to save everyone. Your immediate reaction may be that this doesn't make sense - since He desires to save everyone then how can He predestine anyone to be damned, and how can God blame people for rejecting the Gospel if He's predestined them to do so? Erasmus asked Luther the same things with respect to Christ's lament over Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37-39) This is what Erasmus said as quoted by Luther:

"If all comes to pass by necessity, could not Jerusalem have justly answered the Lord, 'Why dost thou weary thyself with useless tears? If thou didst not wish us to hearken to the prophets, why didst thou send them? Why dost thou lay to our charge that which came to pass at Thy will, and so by necessity in us?" ibid p.175

Luther's answer to this was that:

"We may not debate the secret will of Divine Majesty, and the recklessness of man, who shows unabated perversity in leaving necessary matters for an attempted assault on that will, should be withheld and restrained from employing itself in searching out those secrets of Divine Majesty; for man cannot attain unto them, seeing that as Paul tells us (cf. 1 Tim 6:16), they dwell in inaccessible light". ibid p.175,176

 

[Albion]

Also if God has predestined who are going to be saved and only those are saved, then it has to follow that those who aren't saved are destined not to be saved (i.e. destined to be damned). It can't be any other way.

Sure. Many predestinarians are "single predestinarians."

It has to follow that those who aren't predestined to be saved are destined to be damned, and since everything in God's universe is controlled by God and willed and foreknown by Him from eternity, then it follows as night follows day that those who are damned are predestined to be damned.

That's understood.

Luther makes a distinction between God's revealed will and God's hidden inscrutable will, such that according to God's hidden Majestic Will (where He rules omnipotently) everything is predestined to happen including who's saved and who's damned, whilst according to His revealed will He desires to save everyone. Your immediate reaction may be that this doesn't make sense

On the contrary, it seems quite sensible. It may not be how God operates, for all we know, but I can't say that it doesn't make sense.

since He desires to save everyone then how can He predestine anyone to be damned,

You just explained how he can predestine his elect and leave the rest to be judged on their own merits (and, therefore, damned). But his preference would always have been for all of mankind to be free of sin.

and how can God blame people for rejecting the Gospel if He's predestined them to do so?

Isn't it rather that he's either predestining people to have faith in Christ or not?

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

Another good example of what I've said before:

Lutherans simply take the Bible at its word, trusting what it says, and NOT extrapolating based on what our reason might lead us to conclude. The paradox stands: Those who are saved, are predestined to be saved; those who are lost are not.
Paradox. It's the word of God.

This part of Calvinist soteriology makes the atheists right: God is evil. Thank God (sic!) that this isn't the case.

 

[Rick Otto]

God doesn't wiii to save everyone in the sense of each & every one.
"Everyone" &/or "all men" is being used in contrast to Israel alone.
The context, the common frame of reference at the time was that salvation was for Israel.
Additionaly, Paul pointed out that not all who are of Israel are Israel.