Martin Luther's Teaching on Predestination.

[squint]

It's not an extension, and Luther did hold it, whether he was willing to acknowledge it or not.

That cracks me up. heh heh.

If Luther didn't present it it's hard to pin it on him isn't it?

Hey, look, I am pretty solidly into the determinist side of the ledger so don't take me as your enemy.

But Luther held nothing more than 'reasonable assurance' of salvation, period.

And he assuredly did NOT hold to any person being predestined to hell.

That is a no way. You'd be hard pressed to find many Lutherans here that will step on that landmine. There is nobody more theologically satisfying than a good old fashioned Lutheran who gives other people the 'benefit of the doubt' hand. That's true Lutheranism.

It's not simply a matter of an open interpretation of Luther's view. Luther was clear that God predestined those He intended to save.

Unfortunately as it is with every sect, the subsequent offshoots of same will 'conjecture' that Luther was in their behalves, but that is largely conjecture. Certainly no fact.

Do I see Calvinism as a logical and reasonable extension of Luther's original basis? Of course I do. But did Luther himself actually hold those extensions? Uh, no. He didn't.

And most Reformed units are 'better versions' than Calvin's original outlines. Some of the modern reformed theologians such as Barth that I mentioned prior were or are simply theological geniuses beyond measures. But even in Orthodoxy there were/are some really really fine theologians that give these subject matters a great deal of very fine and deserved attentions.

That's part of the problems doing the dissection drills online. We just don't have the right settings and backgrounds to make it interesting and we end up in petty mudslinging one liners.

The topic matter really is worthy of ample detailed considerations of many sorts. But some people buy their surface positions, use them as attack vehicles and never get over that methodology.

And quite frankly double predestination believers are some the worst of this sort that I've met. I know double predestination believers that I wouldn't give two cents for as 'civil people.'

Old hard nobodies. God will save 'em anyway.

Luther also acknowledged that apart from this divine work, none would be saved. It is akin to the silly distinction people make between a "lie" and "an omission for the purposes of deceit."

I agree with that premise too. Orthodoxy plays the 'God is off the hook' via omission continually. I don't buy that angle.

You know, you hear people say nonsense like, "I didn't lie. I just didn't tell you the whole truth." Yeah. Semantics. Even in court they say something like, "I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Huh? If it's not the whole truth then it isn't the truth. If you say something other than the truth, it isn't the truth. Same same. Rather redundant.

I tend to only heed theologians who acknowledge they only know in part. If they don't know that much they know NOTHING. That's also part of why I left orthodoxy. They don't even have the honesty to own up to simple factual scriptures that they can only possibly know IN PART. Yet they claim 'sole total right, knowledge and even ownership of 'all truth.' Pack of liars and not much more imho. I still believe God will save them ANYWAY.

Anyway, if Luther acknowledged the sovereign, and necessary grace of God in salvation and, likewise, acknowledged that there are those who, by the plan and purpose of God do not receive it, then, whether he articulates it or not, he is, in fact, stating that God, in choosing to withhold from some His grace of salvation, is ensuring, i.e., predestining, their condemnation.

I would find that a conjecture derived from silence on Luther's part. And you acknowledge that as well.

Believe it or not there are other avenues of understanding even from Luther on that matter that does not automatically slot into double predestination and that is a continuing case.

In other words double predestination is not the common feature of Reformed other than in some 'sects.'

That's why I referenced Barth because he is considered one of the modern day fathers of the reformed and he did NOT hold to double predestination whatsoever other than as a possibility among a myriad of possibilities.

I appreciate his views far more than some of the drivel that comes out of some of the double predestination camps.

A good cross section of theology studies will have several knobs and filters that will move up and down for testing and composition just as good music producers use pre-mixers, mixers, filters and sifters for making their fine tunes.

Garage bands sound nice once in awhile too but that is not the only form of theological music available. Pipe organs are cool too but so is one guy on a high tech computer operated music system.

I prefer my theology to be tempered rather than employing the uses of the blunt instruments and primitive tools of the people of faith that have gone on prior.

We supposedly have the advantage of historic hindsight to aid and assist us on our side.

s

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Well, we're back to Reformed Protestants telling us what we believe; with such a high level of expertise, we should maybe get a bunch of you guys to teach in our seminaries.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

Well, we're back to Reformed Protestants telling us what we believe; with such a high level of expertise, we should maybe get a bunch of you guys to teach in our seminaries.

Cherish vipers in our bosoms?

 

[squint]

Well, we're back to Reformed Protestants telling us what we believe; with such a high level of expertise, we should maybe get a bunch of you guys to teach in our seminaries.

Well, what is the 'official view Mark?'

Luther, double predestination or no?

 

[Albion]

Well, we're back to Reformed Protestants telling us what we believe; with such a high level of expertise, we should maybe get a bunch of you guys to teach in our seminaries.

You do have an important point there. The thread is about Luther's view but--and I saw it coming but still contributed to it--the discussion has slid off into being a debate about anything except what Luther said on the subject.

 

[squint]

You do have an important point there. The thread is about Luther's view but--and I saw it coming but still contributed to it--the discussion has slid off into being a debate about anything except what Luther said on the subject.

Realty will say that there are a diversity of Lutheran views about Luther, to which Luther himself stated would happen:

"after my death many will publish my books and will prove from them errors of every kind and their own delusions."

 

[squint]

My Pastor and I were just discussing this last night. It's Crypto-Calvinist theology. Not only does Scripture not support it, but it is addressed and condemned in Articles VII and VIII of the Formula of Concord.

As such, it is incomparable with orthodox Confessional Lutheranism. Churches which teach or accept this, regardless of name, are not Lutheran, but Reformed.

Nevermind. Found it!

It appears you don't even accept single predestination from Luther?

And that would be a 'fair minded' view of Luther.

"-I hear that here and there among the nobles and persons of importance vicious statements are being spread abroad concerning predestination or God’s foreknowledge. For this is what they say: “If I am predestined, I shall be saved, whether I do good or evil. If I am not predestined, I shall be condemned regardless of my works.” I would be glad to debate in detail against these wicked statements if the uncertain state of my health made it possible for me to do so."

[supposedly from -the American Edition of Luther’s Works 5:43-50; Luther’s Genesis Commentary, commenting on Genesis 29:9, unverified by me]

 

[Edward65]

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.

It wasn't Luther's position that Christ died only for the elect. He held that Christ died for the sins of everyone on the planet which is also the teaching of Scripture.

"The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
(John 1:29 ESV).

"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world".
(1 John 2:2 ESV)

Also the commission of Christ to the Apostles to preach the Gospel to the whole world presupposes that Christ's atonement applies to everyone. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations..." (Matthew 28:19 ESV). This was certainly Luther's position even though he also held that God predestined people to be damned. Here's a quote from The Bondage of the Will with reference to Christ's lament over Jerusalem (Matt. 23:37) which shows this:

"The God Incarnate, then, here speaks thus—"I would and thou wouldst not!" The God Incarnate,—I say, was sent for this purpose—that He might desire, speak, do, suffer, and offer unto all, all things that are necessary unto salvation, although He should offend many, who, being either left or hardened by that secret will of Majesty, should not receive Him thus desiring, speaking, doing, and offering: as John i. 5, saith, "The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." And again, "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." It belongs also to this same God Incarnate, to weep, to lament, and to sigh over the perdition of the wicked, even while that will of Majesty, from purpose, leaves and reprobates some, that they might perish. Nor does it become us to inquire why He does so, but to revere that God who can do, and wills to do, such things". (from section 66, translated by Henry Cole)

 

[Edward65]

Further, Luther made his view clear, even if he avoided articulating it. He rightly acknowledged that God predestines His elect and only His elect unto salvation and that such an act of God is necessary for one's salvation (read: the 3 and the 4 from the equation above). Just because he didn't acknowledge that his own view demanded that he acknowledge that those that are not predestined unto salvation are, by default, left to stand judgement for their sins doesn't mean that he wasn't clear that such was his view.

Luther actually didn't avoid articulating his view that the damned are elected and predestined to be damned. I guess you probably haven't read The Bondage of the Will, because if you had have done you'd have discovered that Luther was very articulate on this. To give you a flavour I'll just quote a few passages from this book:

"BUT it is this, that seems to give the greatest offence to common sense or natural reason,—that the God, who is set forth as being so full of mercy and goodness, should, of His mere will, leave men, harden them, and damn them, as though He delighted in the sins, and in the great and eternal torments of the miserable. To think thus of God, seems iniquitous, cruel, intolerable; and it is this that has given offence to so many and great men of so many ages. And who would not be offended? I myself have been offended more than once, even unto the deepest abyss of desperation; nay, so far, as even to wish that I had never been born a man; that is, before I was brought to know how healthful that desperation was, and how near it was unto grace. Here it is, that there has been so much toiling and labouring, to excuse the goodness of God, and to accuse the will of man." ( from Section 94, The Bondage of the Will, Cole)

"And if God be thus robbed of His power and wisdom to elect, what will there be remaining but that idol Fortune, under the name of which, all things take place at random! Nay, we shall at length come to this: that men may be saved and damned without God's knowing anything at all about it; as not having determined by certain election who should be saved and who should be damned; but having set before all men in general His hardening goodness and long-suffering, and His mercy shewing correction and punishment, and left them to choose for themselves whether they would be saved or damned; while He, in the mean time, should be gone, as Homer says, to an Ethiopian feast!" (ibid, from section 81)

"This is the highest degree of faith—to believe that He is merciful, who saves so few and damns so many; to believe Him just, who according to His own will, makes us necessarily damnable, that He may seem, as Erasmus says, 'to delight in the torments of the miserable, and to be an object of hatred rather than of love.' If, therefore, I could by any means comprehend how that same God can be merciful and just, who carries the appearance of so much wrath and iniquity, there would be no need of faith. But now, since that cannot be comprehended, there is room for exercising faith, while such things are preached and openly proclaimed: in the same manner as, while God kills, the faith of life is exercised in death." (ibid, from section 24)

"Since, therefore, Reason praises God when He saves the undeserving, but accuses Him when He damns the undeserving; it stands convicted of not praising God as God, but as a certain one who serves its own profit; that is, it seeks, in God, itself and the things of itself, but seeks not God and the things of God. But if it be pleased with a God who crowns the undeserving, it ought not to be displeased with a God who damns the undeserving. For if He be just in the one instance, how shall He not be just in the other? seeing that, in the one instance, He pours forth grace and mercy upon the undeserving, and in the other, pours forth wrath and severity upon the undeserving?—He is, however, in both instances, monstrous and iniquitous in the sight of men; yet just and true in Himself". (ibid from section 107)

"AND if you are concerned about this,—that it is difficult to defend the mercy and justice of God, seeing that, He damns the undeserving, that is, those who are for that reason ungodly, because, being born in iniquity, they cannot by any means prevent themselves from being ungodly, and from remaining so, and being damned, but are compelled from the necessity of nature to sin and perish, as Paul saith, "We all were the children of wrath, even as others," (Eph. ii. 3.), when at the same time, they were created such by God Himself from a corrupt seed, by means of the sin of Adam,— Here God is to be honoured and revered, as being most merciful towards those, whom He justifies and saves under all their unworthiness: and it is to be in no small degree ascribed unto His wisdom, that He causes us to believe Him to be just, even where He appears to be unjust. For if His righteousness were such, that it was considered to be righteousness according to human judgment, it would be no longer divine, nor would it in any thing differ from human righteousness. But as He is the one and true God, and moreover incomprehensible and inaccessible by human reason, it is right, nay, it is necessary, that His righteousness should be incomprehensible: even as Paul exclaims, saying, "Oh the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God, how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" (Rom. xi. 33)". (ibid, from section 165)

*All the above quotes should be understood with reference to Luther's basic premise which he articulated near the beginning of his book, namely:

"THIS, therefore, is also essentially necessary and wholesome for Christians to know: That God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will. By this thunderbolt, "Free-will" is thrown prostrate, and utterly dashed to pieces. Those, therefore, who would assert "Free-will," must either deny this thunderbolt, or pretend not to see it, or push it from them. But, however, before I establish this point by any arguments of my own, and by the authority of Scripture, I will first set it forth in your words". (ibid, from section 9)

 

[Edward65]

Calvinism is one big disgusting and unnecessary theodicé.

I said in part:
"The teaching of Scripture doesn't contain any logical contradictions as you Lutherans (a misnomer because you don't agree with Luther on predestination) imagine".

You replied in part:
"Lutheran" doesn't mean "Agree with Luther on absolutely EVERYTHING he ever said or wrote".

I said:
"As regards your allegation that this makes God evil if He predestines people to be damned that's not true. Since God wills from eternity to leave some people to suffer the consequences of their being fallen and sinful creatures that doesn't make God evil. It would only make God evil if He had created men evil in the first place, which He didn't do".

You replied in part:
"Yes, it does. He creates people. Not just Adam and Eve; Christians believe and confess that every single human being in existence, has come into existence because God created them. IF the heresy of double-predestination was true, then God created people who were evil (from creation), with the explicit purpose of damning them for all eternity".

My question to you:
Do you acknowledge that Luther taught double predestination in The Bondage of the Will?


QUESTION to anyone reading this post who holds the position of infralapsarianism (which was Luther's position): Are you able to adequately refute the claim that double predestination makes God evil? If so please post your reply. Thanks.

 

[squint]

QUESTION to anyone reading this post who holds the position of infralapsarianism (which was Luther's position): Are you able to adequately refute the claim that double predestination makes God evil? If so please post your reply. Thanks.

Double predestination can be true without any scriptural issues.

The difficulty is the question itself.

Nearly every 'sect' for example believes that Satan and his messengers are destined to hell. Most probably also believe that they were predestined or scheduled for eventual elimination, which is in fact indicated early in the texts. Unfortunately in the various postulations about predestination these parties are rarely if ever mentioned, even though the text represents that these parties operate/function within mankind. So there is part of the problem with the setup question. It's VOID of fact.

Predestination also limits Gods role in large part as an observation of only mankind. Obviously Satan/devils are a part of His creation. Is He evil for making and employing these spiritual evil weapons of mass destruction? Why is that a problem? Shouldn't be. Is He evil for using evil if the effects of same are eventually used for good in some ways? Doesn't that make Him Greater? Does God use evil to foster hope? To show Divine Mercy? Of course! Again, this should not be an issue.

If God is Greater than the sum of All He makes and uses any particular things or events to the good or perfection of the ages or of eternal existence, there is not an issue. God certainly appears to deploy and test many things. It is not only mankind or Satan/devils that are predestined, but ALL THINGS in His creation.

Ultimately the setup questions themselves are severely faulty and indicate minds who have not opened up to larger views.

Pity small mindedness. Sharing in the Divine can expand our thoughts over time to form more interesting questions and to make better observations than what came from our predecessors who were still working their ways out of cultural tribalism and human/animal sacrifices in the jungles.

Often theology is merely a reflection of the capacity of the handlers to think their way through matters.

Ignorance can be a mighty enemy.

s

 

[Reformationist]

Hmmm. But Election is a matter only of salvation, not everything that happens.

I agree completely. However, what you seem to be trying to do is use the term "predestination" synonymously with "election" which would be shortsighted and inappropriate.

...which sounds like a rejection of Predestination, by which I mean Election.

First off, from what I can tell, you and I are saying nearly identical things, i.e., that man need not have personal assurance of their own salvation for Christ's redemptive work to be efficacious in saving them. Secondly, in what way does anything I espouse give you the idea that I reject predestination? How does "Of course I acknowledge the biblical veracity of predestination" and "Yes, God predestines/elects some unto salvation. However, that is not all He predestines. He's God. He's eternal. Everything is predestined" make you think anything other than that I wholeheartedly support the biblical notion of predestination?

That's just unnecessarily convoluted IMO.

Well, to each their own.

Perhaps we could say that because of Christ's unique work, we are able to be saved, and the vehicle is God choice of those whom he does choose to have the Faith in Christ that appropriates the merits of Christ's work.

We could say that, if we wanted to unnecessarily convolute the truth. The ability [for the elect] to be saved isn't the byproduct of Christ's "unique work." It's the invariable result. We are far more than just "able to be saved."

That isn't what works-righteousness means, though.

Um...okay. Great. Never said it was. Did I say something to make you believe that I subscribe to a works-righteousness viewpoint of Scripture? If I did, it was unintentional because I certainly don't support such nonsense.

God bless

 

[Albion]

I agree completely. However, what you seem to be trying to do is use the term "predestination" synonymously with "election" which would be shortsighted and inappropriate.

That's right, but it's about the only way to easily address the mistaken notion that we're talking about God scripting everything that happens in life.

First off, from what I can tell, you and I are saying nearly identical things, i.e., that man need not have personal assurance of their own salvation for Christ's redemptive work to be efficacious in saving them.

Agreed.

Secondly, in what way does anything I espouse give you the idea that I reject predestination? How does "Of course I acknowledge the biblical veracity of predestination" and "Yes, God predestines/elects some unto salvation. However, that is not all He predestines. He's God. He's eternal. Everything is predestined" make you think anything other than that I wholeheartedly support the biblical notion of predestination?

Well, for example, I said:

Predestination does not confer reasonable assurance any more than it guarantees salvation.
​

and you replied:

I would disagree.

A lot of this involves interpretation and, in your case, trying to read between the lines. But if I misunderstood you, l am happy to accept your clarification.

 

[Reformationist]

That cracks me up. heh heh.

If Luther didn't present it it's hard to pin it on him isn't it?

Hey, look, I am pretty solidly into the determinist side of the ledger so don't take me as your enemy.

But Luther held nothing more than 'reasonable assurance' of salvation, period.

And he assuredly did NOT hold to any person being predestined to hell.

That is a no way. You'd be hard pressed to find many Lutherans here that will step on that landmine. There is nobody more theologically satisfying than a good old fashioned Lutheran who gives other people the 'benefit of the doubt' hand. That's true Lutheranism.

Unfortunately as it is with every sect, the subsequent offshoots of same will 'conjecture' that Luther was in their behalves, but that is largely conjecture. Certainly no fact.

Do I see Calvinism as a logical and reasonable extension of Luther's original basis? Of course I do. But did Luther himself actually hold those extensions? Uh, no. He didn't.

And most Reformed units are 'better versions' than Calvin's original outlines. Some of the modern reformed theologians such as Barth that I mentioned prior were or are simply theological geniuses beyond measures. But even in Orthodoxy there were/are some really really fine theologians that give these subject matters a great deal of very fine and deserved attentions.

That's part of the problems doing the dissection drills online. We just don't have the right settings and backgrounds to make it interesting and we end up in petty mudslinging one liners.

The topic matter really is worthy of ample detailed considerations of many sorts. But some people buy their surface positions, use them as attack vehicles and never get over that methodology.

And quite frankly double predestination believers are some the worst of this sort that I've met. I know double predestination believers that I wouldn't give two cents for as 'civil people.'

Old hard nobodies. God will save 'em anyway.

I agree with that premise too. Orthodoxy plays the 'God is off the hook' via omission continually. I don't buy that angle.

I tend to only heed theologians who acknowledge they only know in part. If they don't know that much they know NOTHING. That's also part of why I left orthodoxy. They don't even have the honesty to own up to simple factual scriptures that they can only possibly know IN PART. Yet they claim 'sole total right, knowledge and even ownership of 'all truth.' Pack of liars and not much more imho. I still believe God will save them ANYWAY.
I would find that a conjecture derived from silence on Luther's part. And you acknowledge that as well.

Believe it or not there are other avenues of understanding even from Luther on that matter that does not automatically slot into double predestination and that is a continuing case.

In other words double predestination is not the common feature of Reformed other than in some 'sects.'

That's why I referenced Barth because he is considered one of the modern day fathers of the reformed and he did NOT hold to double predestination whatsoever other than as a possibility among a myriad of possibilities.

I appreciate his views far more than some of the drivel that comes out of some of the double predestination camps.

A good cross section of theology studies will have several knobs and filters that will move up and down for testing and composition just as good music producers use pre-mixers, mixers, filters and sifters for making their fine tunes.

Garage bands sound nice once in awhile too but that is not the only form of theological music available. Pipe organs are cool too but so is one guy on a high tech computer operated music system.

I prefer my theology to be tempered rather than employing the uses of the blunt instruments and primitive tools of the people of faith that have gone on prior.

We supposedly have the advantage of historic hindsight to aid and assist us on our side.

s

Squint, if you have time, I would enjoy reading some of the other views of predestination that serve as the flip side to double predestination.

Let me clarify. I believe in double predestination because it is both illogical and irreverent, in my opinion, to hold that God, by who's sovereign power all things move and live and have their being, made an decision regarding the ultimate dispensation of the elect, i.e., glorifying them, but overlooked/forgot/was ambivelant about/etc (use whatever term properly fits your view) those for whom He made no provision.

Further, to reiterate, my view of double predestination is not that of equal ultimacy. That is, I believe God actively works in the hearts of the elect to bring about reconciliation and redemption. He does not, likewise, work evil and sinfulness into the hearts of the reprobate. That is something that is already part of their nature and they act accordingly. God needn't prevent them from coming to the Cross as the very thought of doing so would be outrageous and abhorrent to them that are dying in their sins.

With that said, God, in choosing, according to His own will and good pleasure, who to redeem by the blood of Christ, is, by exclusion, also choosing who to leave in their sins to face His wrath.

So, this is my view of double predestination. If you feel there are legitimate, logical views out there that acknowledge God's active work in the lives of the elect while rejecting the concept of condemnation by exclusion from the merits of His propitiatory work, please, for my edification, find a way to share them that we may all learn.

Thank you,
God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Cherish vipers in our bosoms?

Wow. Nice job man. Love it when the progeny of one of the original reformers refers to other reformed Christians as vipers.

 

[Reformationist]

It wasn't Luther's position that Christ died only for the elect. He held that Christ died for the sins of everyone on the planet which is also the teaching of Scripture.

"The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
(John 1:29 ESV).

"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world".
(1 John 2:2 ESV)

The word "world" is rarely, and certainly not in the verses you cite, used to refer to "all people without exception" so your prooftexts are useless. Does Jesus actually take away the sins of all people without exception? Clearly not. Does Christ actually turn away the wrath of God from all people without exception? Obviously not. As such, we can either submit that Christ failed, John was a liar, John was confused, or that "world" isn't being used to mean "all without exception" but, rather, "all without distinction."

Also the commission of Christ to the Apostles to preach the Gospel to the whole world presupposes that Christ's atonement applies to everyone.

Only if you read that into it. It is not only biblically inaccurate to claim that "Christ's atonement applies to everyone." Unless you're a universalist, even you won't contend such nonsense. The only way out of the theolgocal debacle you're got yourself into is to submit that the "application" of Christ's atonement to "everyone" doesn't save anyone in and of itself. And that is nothing more than heresy.

"The God Incarnate, then, here speaks thus—"I would and thou wouldst not!" The God Incarnate,—I say, was sent for this purpose—that He might desire, speak, do, suffer, and offer unto all, all things that are necessary unto salvation, although He should offend many, who, being either left or hardened by that secret will of Majesty, should not receive Him thus desiring, speaking, doing, and offering: as John i. 5, saith, "The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." And again, "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." It belongs also to this same God Incarnate, to weep, to lament, and to sigh over the perdition of the wicked, even while that will of Majesty, from purpose, leaves and reprobates some, that they might perish. Nor does it become us to inquire why He does so, but to revere that God who can do, and wills to do, such things". (from section 66, translated by Henry Cole)

Great quote, and clear to anyone who is willing to be open to what Luther believed, even if it offends them.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Luther actually didn't avoid articulating his view that the damned are elected and predestined to be damned. I guess you probably haven't read The Bondage of the Will, because if you had have done you'd have discovered that Luther was very articulate on this. To give you a flavour I'll just quote a few passages from this book:

"BUT it is this, that seems to give the greatest offence to common sense or natural reason,—that the God, who is set forth as being so full of mercy and goodness, should, of His mere will, leave men, harden them, and damn them, as though He delighted in the sins, and in the great and eternal torments of the miserable. To think thus of God, seems iniquitous, cruel, intolerable; and it is this that has given offence to so many and great men of so many ages. And who would not be offended? I myself have been offended more than once, even unto the deepest abyss of desperation; nay, so far, as even to wish that I had never been born a man; that is, before I was brought to know how healthful that desperation was, and how near it was unto grace. Here it is, that there has been so much toiling and labouring, to excuse the goodness of God, and to accuse the will of man." ( from Section 94, The Bondage of the Will, Cole)

"And if God be thus robbed of His power and wisdom to elect, what will there be remaining but that idol Fortune, under the name of which, all things take place at random! Nay, we shall at length come to this: that men may be saved and damned without God's knowing anything at all about it; as not having determined by certain election who should be saved and who should be damned; but having set before all men in general His hardening goodness and long-suffering, and His mercy shewing correction and punishment, and left them to choose for themselves whether they would be saved or damned; while He, in the mean time, should be gone, as Homer says, to an Ethiopian feast!" (ibid, from section 81)

"This is the highest degree of faith—to believe that He is merciful, who saves so few and damns so many; to believe Him just, who according to His own will, makes us necessarily damnable, that He may seem, as Erasmus says, 'to delight in the torments of the miserable, and to be an object of hatred rather than of love.' If, therefore, I could by any means comprehend how that same God can be merciful and just, who carries the appearance of so much wrath and iniquity, there would be no need of faith. But now, since that cannot be comprehended, there is room for exercising faith, while such things are preached and openly proclaimed: in the same manner as, while God kills, the faith of life is exercised in death." (ibid, from section 24)

"Since, therefore, Reason praises God when He saves the undeserving, but accuses Him when He damns the undeserving; it stands convicted of not praising God as God, but as a certain one who serves its own profit; that is, it seeks, in God, itself and the things of itself, but seeks not God and the things of God. But if it be pleased with a God who crowns the undeserving, it ought not to be displeased with a God who damns the undeserving. For if He be just in the one instance, how shall He not be just in the other? seeing that, in the one instance, He pours forth grace and mercy upon the undeserving, and in the other, pours forth wrath and severity upon the undeserving?—He is, however, in both instances, monstrous and iniquitous in the sight of men; yet just and true in Himself". (ibid from section 107)

"AND if you are concerned about this,—that it is difficult to defend the mercy and justice of God, seeing that, He damns the undeserving, that is, those who are for that reason ungodly, because, being born in iniquity, they cannot by any means prevent themselves from being ungodly, and from remaining so, and being damned, but are compelled from the necessity of nature to sin and perish, as Paul saith, "We all were the children of wrath, even as others," (Eph. ii. 3.), when at the same time, they were created such by God Himself from a corrupt seed, by means of the sin of Adam,— Here God is to be honoured and revered, as being most merciful towards those, whom He justifies and saves under all their unworthiness: and it is to be in no small degree ascribed unto His wisdom, that He causes us to believe Him to be just, even where He appears to be unjust. For if His righteousness were such, that it was considered to be righteousness according to human judgment, it would be no longer divine, nor would it in any thing differ from human righteousness. But as He is the one and true God, and moreover incomprehensible and inaccessible by human reason, it is right, nay, it is necessary, that His righteousness should be incomprehensible: even as Paul exclaims, saying, "Oh the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God, how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" (Rom. xi. 33)". (ibid, from section 165)

*All the above quotes should be understood with reference to Luther's basic premise which he articulated near the beginning of his book, namely:

"THIS, therefore, is also essentially necessary and wholesome for Christians to know: That God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will. By this thunderbolt, "Free-will" is thrown prostrate, and utterly dashed to pieces. Those, therefore, who would assert "Free-will," must either deny this thunderbolt, or pretend not to see it, or push it from them. But, however, before I establish this point by any arguments of my own, and by the authority of Scripture, I will first set it forth in your words". (ibid, from section 9)

Actually, I own it and have read it, though it has been a number of years. Clearly I need to go back and reread it. Thanks for posting from it. Always loved that book.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Double predestination can be true without any scriptural issues.

The difficulty is the question itself.

Nearly every 'sect' for example believes that Satan and his messengers are destined to hell. Most probably also believe that they were predestined or scheduled for eventual elimination, which is in fact indicated early in the texts. Unfortunately in the various postulations about predestination these parties are rarely if ever mentioned, even though the text represents that these parties operate/function within mankind. So there is part of the problem with the setup question. It's VOID of fact.

Predestination also limits Gods role in large part as an observation of only mankind. Obviously Satan/devils are a part of His creation. Is He evil for making and employing these spiritual evil weapons of mass destruction? Why is that a problem? Shouldn't be. Is He evil for using evil if the effects of same are eventually used for good in some ways? Doesn't that make Him Greater? Does God use evil to foster hope? To show Divine Mercy? Of course! Again, this should not be an issue.

If God is Greater than the sum of All He makes and uses any particular things or events to the good or perfection of the ages or of eternal existence, there is not an issue. God certainly appears to deploy and test many things. It is not only mankind or Satan/devils that are predestined, but ALL THINGS in His creation.

Ultimately the setup questions themselves are severely faulty and indicate minds who have not opened up to larger views.

Pity small mindedness. Sharing in the Divine can expand our thoughts over time to form more interesting questions and to make better observations than what came from our predecessors who were still working their ways out of cultural tribalism and human/animal sacrifices in the jungles.

Often theology is merely a reflection of the capacity of the handlers to think their way through matters.

Ignorance can be a mighty enemy.

s

Good post squint. I enjoyed it.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

That's right, but it's about the only way to easily address the mistaken notion that we're talking about God scripting everything that happens in life.

Well, before I could reject the theory I'd need to know what you mean by "God scripting everything that happens in life."

Well, for example, I said:

Predestination does not confer reasonable assurance any more than it guarantees salvation.
​

and you replied:

I would disagree.

Well, I agree that predestination doesn't necessarily confer reasonable personal assurance. What I disagree with is that you seem to be making a distinction between those that God predestines and those God saves. God's divine act of predestining someone to eternal life definitely DOES guarantee salvation, as He will, likewise, surely call them, justify them, and glorify them, so saith the Word.

A lot of this involves interpretation and, in your case, trying to read between the lines. But if I misunderstood you, l am happy to accept your clarification.

Not sure why my case need be different than anyone else's but, hopefully, I clarified my view.

God bless

 

[Albion]

Well, I agree that predestination doesn't necessarily confer reasonable personal assurance. What I disagree with is that you seem to be making a distinction between those that God predestines and those God saves. God's divine act of predestining someone to eternal life definitely DOES guarantee salvation, as He will, likewise, surely call them, justify them, and glorify them, so saith the Word.

Hmmm. Well, that is a mistake. I made no such distinction, so at least we can put that to rest.