Supernatural Grace in a Free Will World

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I wanted to posit an alternate view- the Lutheran view- since the forum is usually dominated by the Arminian-Calvinist debate.

Often Calvinism is presented as the only system that allows for superntural, efficacious grace that violates human free will in order to save the sinful soul. But Lutherans believe this as well. Lutherans, too, believe that the action of the Holy Spirit alone saves individuals through the operation of grace which violates their free will.

Where Calvinists and Lutherans differ is that while Calvinists see divine sovereignty as entirely determining every action throughout space-time, Lutherans allow for free will in a wide range of non-salvific areas.

For instance, what I have for breakfast tomorrow, bacon or eggs, may be partially up to my own free will. God knows how the future is set, but I'm the one who set/sets the course. In some ways, the will is still free to choose certain things.

The Calvinist questions the Erasmian (Catholic) and Arminian scheme partially because any libertarian free will seems to threaten the divine soveriegnty of God.

While I agree that this critique important, it's not my primary focus. The Lutheran question is this:

Even if we have free will (which I believe we do), how does a soul in bondage to sin ever choose Christ? No, in any and every conceivable situation, the sinful individual will freely choose against Christ, the gospel, and the cross. The sinner is under the domain and control of Satan.

In order to save us, God must violate our free will, which always chooses against Him, and graciously and efficaciously work regeneration in our lives. We, in bondage to the kingdom of darkness, must be released from our willful imprisonment and led past the prison walls into the kingdom of God.

 

[nobdysfool]

I wanted to posit an alternate view- the Lutheran view- since the forum is usually dominated by the Arminian-Calvinist debate.

No problem, a fresh view is always welcome, if presented in a reasoned and non-confrontational way.

Often Calvinism is presented as the only system that allows for superntural, efficacious grace that violates human free will in order to save the sinful soul. But Lutherans believe this as well. Lutherans, too, believe that the action of the Holy Spirit alone saves individuals through the operation of grace which violates their free will.

I don't know of any Calvinists who discount the Lutheran view on this point. I think we're in agreement.

Where Calvinists and Lutherans differ is that while Calvinists see divine sovereignty as entirely determining every action throughout space-time, Lutherans allow for free will in a wide range of non-salvific areas.

The point that needs to be made here is that Calvinism is not an homogenous system. There are varying opinions on this subject within the Calvinist community. In the Calvinist-Arminian debate paradigm, the Arminians always want to portray Calvinists as an homogenous, all marching in lock-step, no dissent allowed group, so that by vanquishing (in their minds) one Calvinist, they can claim to have vanquished all Calvinists. There are several on this forum whose idea of debate is just that.

For instance, what I have for breakfast tomorrow, bacon or eggs, may be partially up to my own free will. God knows how the future is set, but I'm the one who set/sets the course. In some ways, the will is still free to choose certain things.

Here's my take on that: God, via His Omniscience, knows with ceratinty what I will choose for breakfast tomorrow, and has factored that choice into His Plan for my life. His knowledge of my future choice does not in any way influence my free choice of what I will have for breakfast tomorrow. In other words, I am free to choose as I will, from my perspective, but what I will choose is already known by God, and factored in to my life as he has ordained it.

True, my choice of breakfast probably does not have any life-changing, life-altering importance, but I am not constrained by His prior knowledge, because there is no coercion involved, as the libertarian/autonomous fre-willers often charge. I have dubbed their view the "quantum" view, because they take a concept from quantum physics (the uncertainty principle) and try to apply it to the Sovereignty/free choice paradigm.

To move this up a notch, I believe the same principle applies to major decisions as well. My choice of a wife was foreknown by God, but that did not constrain me from making the choice I wanted to. Now, God can order the circumstances of my life in such a way that the choice I make is between alternatives that He has brought to me, or me to them, and that falls within the Sovereignty of God to Plan my life to accomplsih His Will for me. But that still does not give cause for the anti-Sovereignty crowd to object, because there are still alternatives, which they insist must be present. The funny thing is, they give lipservice to the idea of God controlling the circumstances of their lives at some level (Romans 8:28), but when it comes to salvation, suddenly they resist the idea that they could not make the right choice on their own, but were sovereignly regenerated by God prior to them making the "choice" to believe on Christ. At that point, they cry "coercion!", " God violating the free will of men" and recoil in horror that God would exercise His Sovereignty over them to save them. For some reason they cling to the fantasy that they made the choice to believe on Christ with nothing other than outside persuasion, all by themselves, and that God was waiting for them, but did nothing to influence their "decision" to believe. All of which proves that they did not, and do not understand the depth and seriousness of sin, and how utterly bound and enslaved they were by the sin they were born into. .

The Calvinist questions the Erasmian (Catholic) and Arminian scheme partially because any libertarian free will seems to threaten the divine soveriegnty of God.

Not because it threatens God's Sovereignty (how can you threaten God in any way?), but because it is an inadequate and fallacious paradigm in that it gives man a false sense of importance, and is a disguised form of pride, which is poisonous to the Chrisitan walk. God allows us to make choices, but those choices are foreknown and accounted for by God before any of them were made.

While I agree that this critique important, it's not my primary focus. The Lutheran question is this:

Even if we have free will (which I believe we do), how does a soul in bondage to sin ever choose Christ? No, in any and every conceivable situation, the sinful individual will freely choose against Christ, the gospel, and the cross. The sinner is under the domain and control of Satan.

In order to save us, God must violate our free will, which always chooses against Him, and graciously and efficaciously work regeneration in our lives. We, in bondage to the kingdom of darkness, must be released from our willful imprisonment and led past the prison walls into the kingdom of God.

My friend, you have hit upon the core issue, which the opponents of Calvinism AND Lutheranism try to avoid facing at all costs. Pride prevents them from seeing themselves as scripture and God sees them: Incapable of choosing Christ by their own free will, because that will is in bondage to sin (Luther's Bondage of the Will is the classic work on this point), and a sinner cannot, by nature, choose to do a truly righteous act, which believing on Christ would be. They argue for an impossibility, that of a slave to sin having a will that is not also in bondage to sin, and incapable of choosing that which is not sin. Scripture says that unregenerate men are dead in sins, but the anti-Sovereignty crowd seems to prefer the "Monty Python" view: God: "He's dead"; Sinner: "No I'm not! It's only a flesh wound! I'm feeling better...I'll be right as rain in the morning...."

 

[Van]

Folks, the long nightmare continues, God does not set before us a choice between life and death, no, scripture does not mean what it says. What scripture means, according to these rewriters is God sets before some death, and death only and others life and life only. God makes the choice and creates an illustion whereby from our point of view we make the choice. It is both an illogical and unbiblical view, no matter how much lipstick you smear on it.

 

[nobdysfool]

Folks, the long nightmare continues, God does not set before us a choice between life and death, no, scripture does not mean what it says. What scripture means, according to these rewriters is God sets before some death, and death only and others life and life only. God makes the choice and creates an illustion whereby from our point of view we make the choice. It is both an illogical and unbiblical view, no matter how much lipstick you smear on it.

Van, if you cannot restrict your remarks to the subject at hand, which the OP of this thread clearly laid out, then you should not be posting this drivel here. This has nothing to do with the OP, it is an off-topic post, and actually a cross-thread post to carry an argument into another thread.

If you have nothing useful to add, please be silent.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

What scripture means, according to these rewriters is God sets before some death, and death only and others life and life only.

Don't bother me with mischaracterizations of my point.

Lutherans don't believe in double predestination, and we don't believe in irresistable grace or limited atonement, either.

So perhaps you'll actually address the differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism instead assuming that all people who believe in the inactivity of the will in salvation believe similarly in periphrial doctrines? No, you're too busy trolling.

 

[a_ntv]

Don't bother me with mischaracterizations of my point.

Lutherans don't believe in double predestination, and we don't believe in irresistable grace or limited atonement, either.

So perhaps you'll actually address the differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism instead assuming that all people who believe in the inactivity of the will in salvation believe similarly in periphrial doctrines? No, you're too busy trolling.

It is always a mystery for me how is possible in the same time to negate the free will and in the same time the predestination (or similar doctrines).

We can fix some points:
- we all do not believe in universalism, so there can be someone who go to heaven and others who go to hell.

So for sure there is a choice (2Cor 5:10) For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.

Ok, what this choice depends from?
Let's see some possibilities:
- this choice depends only from God decision, and what the man has done on the earth is NOT influential at all: here we have predestination/irrisestible grace or similar doctrines.
- this choice depends only from the case
- this choice depends from what the man have done on the earth

In this last case (the choice depends from what the man have done on the earth) there are two chances:
- only the behaviour is important, not the will that causes the behaviour (the will does not exist/the will is slave): in this case, the will of the man is not influential, so we are back to a kind of predestination: the final choice cannot be influenced by the man.
- the behavior is a sign of the will that is its cause: here we have a will that is influential: we call it 'free will' Where free means 'enough free' to do the difference. IMO this is the solution that best fits 2Cor 5:10

PS the "act of faith", the "acceptance of the Lord" is anyway an act of will, as any act of charity: possibile only because there is the grace of God, but anyway a deliberate deed (=something that could be negate).

 

[a_ntv]

Even if we have free will (which I believe we do), how does a soul in bondage to sin ever choose Christ? No, in any and every conceivable situation, the sinful individual will freely choose against Christ, the gospel, and the cross. The sinner is under the domain and control of Satan..

I've placed in red the weak part of your post.

What is the use of the baptism if the man remain in full under the domain and control of Satan?

The baptism is only a promise but nothing actually is changed ?

The correct statment is to say that the sinner has the signs of Satan, but he has also enough strenth to look at God, even if simply to ask for the grace, not to be justified by himself (and if the sinner fall after the baptism, there is the confession)

MORE:

The situation: "The sinner is under the domain and control of Satan" is not true also before the baptism.
Before the fall the man was created in the image and likeness of God (and so with free will)
With the fall the human nature, without being totally corrupted, is wounded in its natural owers. It is subject to ignorance, to suffering, and to the dominion of death and is inclined toward sin.
Let's see how saint was Moses or Eliah, who was so saint to be taken directly in heaven: for sure they were after the original sin and before the baptism.

The Original sin is NOT a complete corruption of our nature, but simply a wound. Even after the Fall man continues to be capable of recognizing his Creator and retains a desire for the One who has called him into existence.

Ok: I've a muslim friend: he is not baptized, but he believes deeply in God, and his life is a very moral life: how it could be possible if he is totally under the domain and control of Satan? The answer is : he is not totally under the domain and control of Satan.

 

[nobdysfool]

I've placed in red the weak part of your post.

What is the use of the baptism if the man remain in full under the domain and control of Satan?

The baptism is only a promise but nothing actually is changed ?

Since the subject of baptism isn't even in view, I fail to see the point you're trying to make. Please be so kind as to stay with the original Post of this thread. All I see here is an attempt to inject Catholic doctrine into a thread involved in the Lutheran view, and it's similarities and differences with the Calvinist view. With all due respect, Catholic doctrine is not the subject, nor should it be.

You offer no scripture or other substantiation for these statements but you obviously believe them to be true. Hopwever, well-intentioned beliefs do not make Truth. Nor does denying the depth of the effects of original Sin, and its on-going effect on mankind, and effect which is not diminishing, and which is far more prevaseive than men want to admit.

MORE:

The situation: "The sinner is under the domain and control of Satan" is not true also before the baptism.
Before the fall the man was created in the image and likeness of God (and so with free will)
With the fall the human nature, without being totally corrupted, is wounded in its natural owers. It is subject to ignorance, to suffering, and to the dominion of death and is inclined toward sin.
Let's see how saint was Moses or Eliah, who was so saint to be taken directly in heaven: for sure they were after the original sin and before the baptism.

The Original sin is NOT a complete corruption of our nature, but simply a wound. Even after the Fall man continues to be capable of recognizing his Creator and retains a desire for the One who has called him into existence.

Again, no scripture or other proof offered, just wishful-thinking statements which tickle the ears of those who deny the true spiritual condition of fallen man.

Ok: I've a muslim friend: he is not baptized, but he believes deeply in God, and his life is a very moral life: how it could be possible if he is totally under the domain and control of Satan? The answer is : he is not totally under the domain and control of Satan.

Do not think to introduce any idea of a "many roads to God" theology, here. Muslims can be moral, devout, and convinced of their faith, but it is a false piety, a false morality, and is intense deception by Satan to prevent them from hearing and believing the Gospel of Christ. They will not escape the penalty of sin, for Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father, BUT BY ME." No Muslim will come to the True Father apart form Christ, and if he comes through Christ, he is no Muslim. So your Muslim friend, no matter how well-intentioned, is lost unless he receives Christ and renounces Islam.

That is the Word of God, not just my own opinion.

 

[a_ntv]

Since the subject of baptism isn't even in view, I fail to see the point you're trying to make. Please be so kind as to stay with the original Post of this thread.

The OP post built a doctrine on the base of this explicit sentence: The sinner is under the domain and control of Satan..
What I debate is not the conseguencecs of this sentence (Lutheran of Calvinistic views), but this very sentence, that is un-supported.

This sentence can be applied before or after the baptism.

Let's focus on this sentence applied to christians that have been already baptized (or, if you prefer, that have accepted the Lord as the Saviour).
If this sentence if valid also AFTER the baptism (or the acceptance of the Lord), which is the use of the baptism (or of the acceptance) ???

It is obvius that with the baptism a new life is born is us ( Like newborn babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation).
Which is the use of this new life if we remain anyway and always under the domain and control of Satan ?

That is the focal point.

How can we say that Christ have defeated the death and the devil if we remain complelty under the domain and control of Satan?

Double predestination, slave will, irresistable grace, limited atonement, the lutheran view stated in the OP, are only results of this sentence.
For a usefull debate, in order to support the lutheran view as in the will of the OP, is by first necessary to support this sentence.

 

[heymikey80]

I think it's an interesting point.

There seems to be some Scriptural warrant that some of our actions and thoughts don't remain under the corruption and bondage of this present world; but on the other hand we see this corruption and bondage continuing to wage war -- even though we're freed from that bondage:

So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Rom 7:21-8:4
​

It's an interesting statement to me.

Btw, this "yes & no" answer of progressive mortification of our own corruption and sinfulness is the category of "growth in Grace" or "Sanctification".

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

It is always a mystery for me how is possible in the same time to negate the free will and in the same time the predestination (or similar doctrines).

I'm a little confused here. What?

- this choice depends only from God decision, and what the man has done on the earth is NOT influential at all: here we have predestination/irrisestible grace or similar doctrines

Once again, a mischaracterization of my OP. The whole point is that belief in the unilateral election of the sinful soul is not innately tied to beliefs in determinism, as well as irresistable grace or limited atonement.

What is the use of the baptism if the man remain in full under the domain and control of Satan?

The baptism is only a promise but nothing actually is changed

Perhaps you need to reread your Luther. Lutherans wholeheartedly confess baptismal regeneration.

When I say that God violates a person's free will in order to save them, and that this is the operation of grace and the action of the Holy Spirit, I am specifically talking about baptism. Baptism (as well as Holy Communion, confession, and other practices) are known as 'means of grace' in Lutheranism.

Water baptism is the means by which God brings his child into his Kingdom. Of course in the case of adult converts, his Spirit has already led them to the baptismal font. But baptism is the guarentee that God has placed his seal upon his child, legally declared them righteousness, and is regenerated as a new soul in Christ who will, with the aide of the Spirit, live up to that legal declaration.

The correct statment is to say that the sinner has the signs of Satan, but he has also enough strenth to look at God, even if simply to ask for the grace

Prove it. Paul certainly seems to think otherwise. We are set free in Christ. Free from what? Free from freedom? No, free from bondage to sin and Satan.

The situation: "The sinner is under the domain and control of Satan" is not true also before the baptism.
Before the fall the man was created in the image and likeness of God (and so with free will)
With the fall the human nature, without being totally corrupted, is wounded in its natural owers. It is subject to ignorance, to suffering, and to the dominion of death and is inclined toward sin.
Let's see how saint was Moses or Eliah, who was so saint to be taken directly in heaven: for sure they were after the original sin and before the baptism.

The Original sin is NOT a complete corruption of our nature, but simply a wound. Even after the Fall man continues to be capable of recognizing his Creator and retains a desire for the One who has called him into existence.

Ok: I've a muslim friend: he is not baptized, but he believes deeply in God, and his life is a very moral life: how it could be possible if he is totally under the domain and control of Satan? The answer is : he is not totally under the domain and control of Satan.

And once again, you're mischaracterizing my position.

First of all, 'total depravity' is a horizontal doctrine, not a vertical one. It declares that the sinner apart from Christ is infected with sin in every area of their being, but not necessarily to maximum depth.

Second of all, I don't deny the existence of free will. I think free will is very important in order to maintain an adequit perspective on moral responsibility and the justice of damnation. The Lutheran understanding of grace stands in contrast to its understanding on other life activities (unlike in Calvinism and Arminianism, where their doctrine on salvation generally accords with their respective determinism and libertarianism characterizing the entirety of human existence).

But when it comes to the doctrine of grace, we ask how it is that a sinful individual under the domain of Satan would ever freely choose Christ, the cross, and the gospel prior to God's working of regeneration through the Holy Spirit and the means of grace (Scripture, baptism, the lives of believers, etc.).

And your account concerning your Muslim friend is really no proof at all. God is transcendent of all categories of human thought and being, so any concept of God, including a monotheist conceptions, is idolatrous apart from God's own self-revelation in the categories of human thought and being- the person of Jesus Christ.

Since the subject of baptism isn't even in view, I fail to see the point you're trying to make. Please be so kind as to stay with the original Post of this thread. All I see here is an attempt to inject Catholic doctrine into a thread involved in the Lutheran view, and it's similarities and differences with the Calvinist view. With all due respect, Catholic doctrine is not the subject, nor should it be.

I think it's fine.

Perhaps a Catholic perspective that emphasizes the freedom of the will will help elucidate the differences concerning determinisms and compatibalisms, as well as show the commonality of Lutheranism and Calvinism on the core doctrine of grace.

This sentence can be applied before or after the baptism.

No it's not.

I mean only to apply it to sinners apart from Christ.

The sinner in Christ is iustus et peccator- simultaneously justified and sinner, and through baptism experiences the regeneration of the Holy Spirit that guides them on the road to matching interior holiness.

Let's focus on this sentence applied to christians that have been already baptized (or, if you prefer, that have accepted the Lord as the Saviour).

If this sentence if valid also AFTER the baptism (or the acceptance of the Lord), which is the use of the baptism (or of the acceptance) ???

It is obvius that with the baptism a new life is born is us ( Like newborn babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation).
Which is the use of this new life if we remain anyway and always under the domain and control of Satan ?

Again, not what I'm saying.

Baptism changes us. Baptism makes us children of God.

Double predestination, slave will, irresistable grace, limited atonement, lutheran view stated in the OP, are only results of this sentence.

Irresistable grace and limited atonement are not Lutheran doctrines. Neither is double predestination.

The whole point of the OP was to elucidate these differences. If you can't think in anything but strict either/or categories and understand the differences and nuances between historic Protestant, Evangelical, Reformational theologies, please to not engage the subject.

So to restate- Lutherans believe that sinners apart from Christ are in bondage to Satan, and will never, ever, under any and every conceivable circumstance, freely choose Christ, the gospel, and the cross. Only the supernatural act of grace performed by the Holy Spirit through the means of grace (Scripture proclaimed by the church, baptism performed by the church, the love of Christ lived by the church), which violates the free will of the sinner that chooses against Christ, can bring the sinner into the Kingdom of God.

 

[nobdysfool]

The OP post built a doctrine on the base of this explicit sentence: The sinner is under the domain and control of Satan..
What I debate is not the conseguencecs of this sentence (Lutheran of Calvinistic views), but this very sentence, that is un-supported.

Then you deny the Truth of Jesus' words: "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies" (Joh 8:44)

and John: We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. (1Jo 5:19)

Add to that Paul in Romans: as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.", "There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Rom 3:10-18)

To argue that unregenerate men are not under the control and domain of satan is ludicrous, and unscriptural. So, I reject your premise out of hand.

This sentence can be applied before or after the baptism

If before or after baptism makes no difference, then baptism avails nothing with regard to the state of man. You are arguing the exact opposite of what you are trying to say.

Let's focus on this sentence applied to christians that have been already baptized (or, if you prefer, that have accepted the Lord as the Saviour).
If this sentence if valid also AFTER the baptism (or the acceptance of the Lord), which is the use of the baptism (or of the acceptance) ???

To begin with, you hold to a form of baptismal regeneration which i do not accept as it is not scriptural. As to whether or not satan exerts control over those who have been converted, the answer is No, they are no longer in the domain and control of satan. However, that does not mean that they are not tempted, or attacked by that domain.

It is obvius that with the baptism a new life is born is us ( Like newborn babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation).
Which is the use of this new life if we remain anyway and always under the domain and control of Satan ?

And that is the point you miss. setting aside the issue of baptismal regeneration, when one is born again, they have been delivered from the Kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of God's dear son ( He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (Col 1:13-14))

So, the truth is, your question is easily answered, and therefore has no bearing on the subject of the OP of this thread. As long as men are unregenerate, and not joinerd to Christ, they are under the domain and control of satan, who is their spiritual father.

That is the focal point. How can we say that Christ have defeated the death and the devil if we remain complelty under the domain and control of Satan?

The truth is, those who are Christ's are delivered, removed, from the domain and control of satan.

Double predestination, slave will, irresistable grace, limited atonement, the lutheran view stated in the OP, are only results of this sentence.
For a usefull debate, in order to support the lutheran view as in the will of the OP, is by first necessary to support this sentence.

I disagree, because you have raised a non-issue, that was not part of the original post starting this thread. This was a diversion, an attempt to turn this into a Catholic-Protestant debate. Since Catholic doctrine is not being addressed in the subject of this post, you really don't have a dog in this race.

Have a nice day ...

 

[a_ntv]

To elucidate the differences beween: double predestination, slave will, irresistable grace, limited atonement, lutheran view stated in the OP is necessary to focus on the situation of the man after the baptism (the regeneration).

Also after the baptim the man remain a sinner (it is matter of fact, and proved by the scripture).
So it is not clear the statement: The sinner is under the domain and control of Satan

Is this statment valid also after the baptism?

If this stament is not valid, the related Lutheran doctrine explained in the OP is not valid (after the baptism), and so (after the baptism) there is a full free will for the christian (or OSAS, that is an other logic possibility).

If this statment is valid also after the baptism, the OP view is probably not enough: some stronger doctrine are requested, like irresistable grace or limited atonement.

I think to have understood that for the Lutherans the above statment (The sinner is under the domain and control of Satan) is valid only before the baptism.
I ask if also the Lutheran doctrine stated in the OP is valid only before the baptism (regenaration).

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

To elucidate the differences beween: double predestination, slave will, irresistable grace, limited atonement, lutheran view stated in the OP is necessary to focus on the situation of the man after the baptism (the regeneration).

Also after the baptim the man remain a sinner (it is matter of fact, and proved by the scripture).
So it is not clear the statement: The sinner is under the domain and control of Satan

Is this statment valid also after the baptism?

If this stament is not valid, the related Lutheran doctrine explained in the OP is not valid (after the baptism), and so (after the baptism) there is a full free will for the christian (or OSAS, that is an other logic possibility).

If this statment is valid also after the baptism, the OP view is probably not enough: some stronger doctrine are requested, like irresistable grace or limited atonement.

I think to have understood that for the Lutherans the above statment (The sinner is under the domain and control of Satan) is valid only before the baptism.
I ask if also the Lutheran doctrine stated in the OP is valid only before the baptism (regenaration).

By sinners, I have meant sinners apart from Christ. Again, i am not talking about people in Christ. I am talking about unbelieving sinners- people whose free will is bound to the kingdom of darkness.

And Lutherans do not believe in double predestination, irresistable grace, limited atonement, or once-saved-always-saved.

And Lutherans believe that baptism changes and individual and the means of grace by which God seizes upon the sinner under the domain of Satan and makes them a child of God, subject of the Kingdom, and regenerates their heart.

But a person, apart from Christ, with whatever free will they have, will never freely choose Christ, the gospel, or the cross, because sinners, apart from Christ, are under the domain of Satan. They are in Satan's prison, and they cannot choose to leave. God must, through his act of grace, violate their free will and bring them out of darkness and into the light.

 

[heymikey80]

Again, if we try to translate into our own theological contexts I think a_ntv makes an interesting point. The state of the person after accepting Christ in faith seems quite different in most theologies of Christianity. The New Birth in the Spirit has occurred, we have the mind of Christ, we are alive spiritually and we have knowledge from God.

And yet physically we're still in the world. Our bodies still die physically -- though they are given life by the Spirit of God to die more and more to the flesh. In the future we shall be raised bodily. (most of these from Romans 8) This seems to me a process in Scripture, and not a punctual event where all sin were removed. Is it? I would have thought 1 John 1:8ff would be problematic if it were not.

 

[a_ntv]

By sinners, I have meant sinners apart from Christ. Again, i am not talking about people in Christ. I am talking about unbelieving sinners- people whose free will is bound to the kingdom of darkness.

Thanks for the answer. The OP was not clear about that

And Lutherans do not believe in double predestination, irresistable grace, limited atonement, or once-saved-always-saved.

I know, and I never said the opposite

But a person, apart from Christ, with whatever free will they have, will never freely choose Christ, the gospel, or the cross, because sinners, apart from Christ, are under the domain of Satan. They are in Satan's prison, and they cannot choose to leave. God must, through his act of grace, violate their free will and bring them out of darkness and into the light.

This stament is not at all proved, but we can debate it elsewhere. For now in this thread let's consider it valid to focus on other points

And Lutherans believe that baptism changes and individual and the means of grace by which God seizes upon the sinner under the domain of Satan and makes them a child of God, subject of the Kingdom, and regenerates their heart.

So after the baptism the view stated in the OP is not at all more valid? (logicaly, if the base statment is not more valid...)
As result of that, the Lutherans believe in a full free-will after the baptism (or, we can say, when we are "in grace of God")? (the other logic change, OSAS, being excluded)

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

This stament is not at all proved, but we can debate it elsewhere. For now in this thread let's consider it valid to focus on other points

Oh I'm totally willing to discuss the point. Our enslavement to the kingdom of darkness and its prince is key to my understanding that no sinner (apart from Christ), ever, under any and every conceivable circumstance or situation, would ever choose Christ, the cross, and the gospel.

As result of that, the Lutherans believe in a full free-will after the baptism (or, we can say, when we are "in grace of God")?

I'm not entirely sure I would say full free will, but yes- baptism, the means of God's grace, begins the process by which our will becomes freed from sin (and as a result, we can also actively reject the faith of our own accord, thus abandoning OSAS).

 

[a_ntv]

Oh I'm totally willing to discuss the point. Our enslavement to the kingdom of darkness and its prince is key to my understanding that no sinner (apart from Christ), ever, under any and every conceivable circumstance or situation, would ever choose Christ, the cross, and the gospel.

The field of validity of the sentence the sinner is under the domain and control of Satan when the man is not "in state of grace" is a key difference between catholic/orthodox vs protestant. From this slight difference depends the meaning of the church, and from here the sola scriptura, the communion of saints and so on.
But to debate it is not an help to find differences between various protestant doctrines (predestination, lutheran view....) because all protestants agree in the validity of such sentence before the baptism.

To focus on the differences between the variuos protestant doctrine is necessary to focus on this sentence after the 'regeneration', and also to find which is the point that makes such a sentence no more valid (=to define what sinner means in such a sentence)

In fact after the baptism there are two limit chances:
- the man remain naturaly under the domain and control of Satan, but the grace of God is so overhelming that covers (like a mantle) the nature of the man: this idea leads to the irresistible grace, or to a strict predestination
- the baptism goes so in deep into the human nature that the man can live the divine nature into him, and so allowing him to start the process to became one in Christ.

I'm not entirely sure I would say full free will, but yes- baptism, the means of God's grace, begins the process by which our will becomes freed from sin (and as a result, we can also actively reject the faith of our own accord, thus abandoning OSAS).

Here of course I can agree with you: the process of sanctification is a process.

The difference is in what this process is:
- for us, this process leads from a free-will (a will that can choice also the evil) to a perfect-will (a will that choices only the good): this process is complete when we will be one in Christ.
- for you the process looks like to lead from a will slave of the sin (a will that choices only the evil)to a will freed from the sin (able to choice also the good).

The difference point is the situation after the baptism:
- for us the will is compelty free (but not perfect of course), in a situation described by Jesus as the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
- for you very after the baptism the will is still slave of Satan but has started the process to became freed (this from your prevuios post, if I've well undertood it)
In other words: the point is if the sin touchs the inner part of the man, his will, or if it is something in which the man is, but external from the the man ( you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world).

This post to show you that the differences in soteriologic doctrines form catholic to lutherns and to calvinists are direct conseguences of the field of validity of the sentence the sinner is under the domain and control of Satan after the baptism

The validity of the OP view is strictly related to the agreement of that.

 

[a_ntv]

Even if we have free will (which I believe we do), how does a soul in bondage to sin ever choose Christ? No, in any and every conceivable situation, the sinful individual will freely choose against Christ, the gospel, and the cross. The sinner is under the domain and control of Satan.

Let's see this statment from a point of view different from my previous posts.

Let's consider some situations:

a) when the morning I go into the kitchen, I shall decide wheter to cook eggs or bacon: 2 seconds and I take the decision (eggs)

b) on Sunday morning I'm watching the TV: at 9.50 I shall take the decision to stop watching the TV and to go to Church: a 5 second decision (I go)

c) I was on a good resturant in my town with a muslim friend, and I offered him wine (a heavy religious sin for him): he need a 2 seconds time to decide ( he says: no thanks)

d) my adult friend M. is going to be baptized: he have to call the priest to say: ok for Sunday at 10 am. But before to call the priest he rememeber sthat with the baptism there is also the promise to stop to have prematrimonial sex with his girlfriend: a 5 seconds decision (he makes the call)

e) After a party a girl asks Bob (a christian) to came to sleep with her: a 3 second decision (Bob goes)

The OP statment implies that is necessary to divide these cases in three cathegories:
- when the free will exists: surely case a)
- when the will is directly moved by Satan: case c) !! and case e)
- when the will is directly moved by God: case d)
Case b) is more doubt, and the OP statment is not very clear

What is weak in the OP statment is the need to divide any decision into defined cathegories, something that is competely artificial !!

The solutions that does not foreseen these artificial divisions, like the catholic or calvinist doctrines, are surely more congruent, even if they propose opposite solutions.

PS: You can say that God (or Satan in the other case) dont work in the very instant of the decision, but gives the conditions (faith, feelings, hope) to force you to arrive to the decision: I agree, but the point dont change if you move far the cause: a cause is always a cause in whichever way it works.