The Augsburg Apology Article XVIII: Of Free Will.

[Moses Medina]

Hello all, I thought I had a fairly well grasp of this but re-reading it just now brought up some questions I hope you can help me with.

I understand that we have free will with earthly matters, however on the spiritual we do not, for we hear the gospel and are comforted, faith grows thanks to the Holy Spirit and such.

However, we can reject the Holy Spirit, rejecting it would be us willingly turning our back to what the Holy Spirit is working in us.

To the believer by not reading the bible and not going to church, we are in danger of losing our faith, that too is something we do. Can anyone clarify this things? Thank you and God bless!

 

[Moses Medina]

The work to draw us to Him is what we have no control over. But to harden our heart is. I believe it is as simple as this.

 

[Shane R]

Look up the term 'prevenient grace', it may give you a fresh insight on the article. It was Arminius' way of framing one of his major objections to Calvin's views of election and predestination, so you might appreciate revisiting the history of the Remonstrants as well. Lutheran theology is often characterized as striking a middle course between Calvinism and Arminianism.

 

[Moses Medina]

Thanks shane!! Ill look it up. I will say ny pastor and I discussed it dairly well and ibonce again feel I understand. When I have money again ill be getting the bondage of the will.

 

[JackSparrow]

Look up the term 'prevenient grace', it may give you a fresh insight on the article. It was Arminius' way of framing one of his major objections to Calvin's views of election and predestination, so you might appreciate revisiting the history of the Remonstrants as well. Lutheran theology is often characterized as striking a middle course between Calvinism and Arminianism.

May I invite you guys to the free will debate currently going on in Soteriology.

We have some Orthodox people contributing some fantastic posts.

Lutheran theology would be a fresh perspective that is so far missing in the Soteriology board.

Thanks

 

[Tangible]

Thanks shane!! Ill look it up. I will say ny pastor and I discussed it dairly well and ibonce again feel I understand. When I have money again ill be getting the bondage of the will.

Bondage of the Will: Table of Contents

Luther's Bondage of the Will

Full text of "Martin Luther on the bondage of the will : to the venerable mister Erasmus of Rotterdam, 1525"

 

[Moses Medina]

Bondage of the Will: Table of Contents

Luther's Bondage of the Will

Full text of "Martin Luther on the bondage of the will : to the venerable mister Erasmus of Rotterdam, 1525"

Ah! Thank you sir Tangible for this very fine link!!! :-D (still want to own a physical copy but this will most definitely do until then!)

 

[shturt678]

Hi folks ... great sharings! I'm with the bondage of the will ... i like to call "enslaved will" as we do not have "some liberty at Art.18 ... do not have the power to reject the Holy Spirit ... WE DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO APPLY OURSELVES TO THE THINGS THAT MAKE FOR SALVATION OR REJECTION ... elected in eternity ... ALL HAPPENS BY GOD'S NECESSITY . Not yelling .. lol ... just highlighting my opinion ... Christ, however had Free-will; however no Free-will even in the Garden ... Temporal Free-will, yes! ... God uses these choices for his deliverance ... refutable and thank u again for caring for God's Word.

 

[DaRev]

Hi folks ... great sharings! I'm with the bondage of the will ... i like to call "enslaved will" as we do not have "some liberty at Art.18 ... do not have the power to reject the Holy Spirit ... WE DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO APPLY OURSELVES TO THE THINGS THAT MAKE FOR SALVATION OR REJECTION ... elected in eternity ... ALL HAPPENS BY GOD'S NECESSITY . Not yelling .. lol ... just highlighting my opinion ... Christ, however had Free-will; however no Free-will even in the Garden ... Temporal Free-will, yes! ... God uses these choices for his deliverance ... refutable and thank u again for caring for God's Word.

I suggest you read some more Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. You've got some things wrong here.

 

[shturt678]

Thank for ur replay sir ... as a Lutheran with u, i have been contending with my Lutheran brothers for decades that Scriptures must, let me say trump, the Symbolical Books sir ... this is only the tip of the iceberg dealing with these issues, i.e., modern Lutheranism, post- 1930, verses pre-1930, Lutheranism that i'm a strict adherent of sir ... thank u again and if u could be more specific with "a" passage would much enjoy sharing opinions sir ... thank u again.

 

[DaRev]

Thank for ur replay sir ... as a Lutheran with u, i have been contending with my Lutheran brothers for decades that Scriptures must, let me say trump, the Symbolical Books sir ... this is only the tip of the iceberg dealing with these issues, i.e., modern Lutheranism, post- 1930, verses pre-1930, Lutheranism that i'm a strict adherent of sir ... thank u again and if u could be more specific with "a" passage would much enjoy sharing opinions sir ... thank u again.

The Symbolical books are thoroughly Scriptural. Confessional Lutherans understand this fact. There is nothing either Biblically or Confessionally that supports the Reformed position that you posted earlier. What you stated concerning the rejection of the work of the Spirit is not now nor has it ever been a Lutheran teaching.

 

[shturt678]

Thank u for ur Christian agape coupled with humility and meekness. I agree with Art.18's spiritual bondage of the will (enslaved will) where we cannot contribute to our salvation in any way as i stated earlier; however i have to agree to disagree with "This is accomplished by the Holy Spirit, who is given through the Word of God" .. ERROR! (Sacrament sir) ... makes a difference ... THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GIVEN THROUGH A "WATER BAPTISMAL REBIRTH" sir. Refutable at any point sir. thank u again for working with me.

 

[Edward65]

I've studied the Bondage of the Will and Shturt678 is correct when he says WE DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO APPLY OURSELVES TO THE THINGS THAT MAKE FOR SALVATION OR REJECTION ... elected in eternity ... ALL HAPPENS BY GOD'S NECESSITY . THis is Luther's position and Luther based his teaching on the Bible. Luther would not have agreed with the Formula of Concord's rejection of predestination to Hell.

 

[shturt678]

I mis-judged ur character (Jn.7:24) and am sorry to u and the Lord sir ... thank u for ur fellowshipping!!!!!!! & forgiveness!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[DaRev]

I, too, have studied Luther's On the Bondage of the Will, which is required reading in Seminary. You need to study a bit further. Neither the Scriptures nor Luther supports double predestination in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Edward65]

Those who argue that Luther in "The Bondage of the Will" didn't endorse predestination to hell haven't understood Luther correctly. Luther most definitely does argue for absolute predestination and that people's destiny is wholly dependent on God whether they are saved or damned. And Luther bases his teaching on the Bible, in particular St Paul who teaches predestination to hell in Romans 9. If you just take Paul as he reads without introducing an alien interpretation of the text then Romans 9:18-21 undoubtedly teaches predestination to heaven and hell:

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
(Romans 9:18-21 ESV)

 

[bach90]

Even if "The Bondage of the Will" supports double predestination (which I don't think it does), so what? Lutherans are not bound to the works of Luther except those in the Book of Concord (SC, LC, SA). And the Formula of Concord in the Book of Concord condemns double predestination as an error.

 

[Edward65]

"Even if "The Bondage of the Will" supports double predestination (which I don't think it does), so what? Lutherans are not bound to the works of Luther except those in the Book of Concord (SC, LC, SA). And the Formula of Concord in the Book of Concord condemns double predestination as an error". says Bach90

But the point is since Luther based his teaching of predestination on the Scriptures, what Luther argues for in "The Bondage of the Will" should be accepted as true. Therefore the Formula of Concord in condemning double predestination condemned the teaching of the Bible and therefore the Formula shouldn't be followed because it is teaching false doctrine.

 

[DaRev]

But the point is since Luther based his teaching of predestination on the Scriptures, what Luther argues for in "The Bondage of the Will" should be accepted as true. Therefore the Formula of Concord in condemning double predestination condemned the teaching of the Bible and therefore the Formula shouldn't be followed because it is teaching false doctrine.

Any and all Scripture MUST be taken in the context of Scripture as a whole. When one reads Romans 9 in the context of Scripture as a whole, there is no way to Scripturally support double predestination. To say such a things is to make sin a product of the will of God. Scripture clearly teaches that sin is not the will of God, but is the natural will of man. That's what On the Bondage of the Will is about.

Read this: Refuting Calvinist Claims that Luther Taught Double-Predestination | CyberBrethren - A Lutheran Blog

 

[Edward65]

In Luther's conclusion to The Bondage of the Will he writes:​

"I SHALL here draw this book to a conclusion: prepared if it

were necessary to pursue this Discussion still farther. Though I consider

that I have now abundantly satisfied the godly man, who wishes to

believe the truth without making resistance. For if we believe it to be
true, that God fore-knows and fore-ordains all things; that He can be
neither deceived nor hindered in His Prescience and Predestination; and
that nothing can take place but according to His Will, (which reason
herself is compelled to confess then, even according to the testimony
of reason herself, there can be no "Free-will"—in man,—in angel,—or​

​

in any creature!"​

One can see from this that Luther doesn't exclude anything from being fore-ordained and predestined so evil as well as good things are predestined to happen. However this doesn't mean that God is implicated in sin and evil. Luther is careful to explain that God only impells people to action according to how he finds them. If they are evil God can't help but bring about an evil result but He isn't implicated in the evil. ​

Also Luther in saying that God fore-ordains and wills all things and can't be deceived or hindered in his predestination obviously teaches predestination to heaven and hell.​

Also to argue that Romans 9 doesn't teach predestination to hell because in the context of the rest of Scripture it's disproved is mistaken. Other Scripture verses which teach that God wants to save everyone refer to God's intentions through Christ whereas Paul in Romans 9 is referring to God's will of majesty where everything happens only according to how He has willed from eternity.​