The Augsburg Apology Article XVIII: Of Free Will.

[cerette]

Luther was also deeply affected by the thought that God predestined people to be damned and said:

"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)

Where in the quote does it say that God predestined some to hell?

 

[DaRev]

Luther was also deeply affected by the thought that God predestined people to be damned and said:

"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)

It's not there. When this is taken in the context of Scripture as a whole and the body of Luther's other writings, it does not teach or support double predestination. It just doesn't. You've been shown that here numerous times.

Scripture does not teach it. Luther did not teach it. The Confessions do not teach it. Lutherans do not teach it.

 

[Edward65]

Where in the quote does it say that God predestined some to hell?

Where Luther says "of His mere will, leave men, harden them, and damn them" he means from eternity, as everything God does is foreknown and willed from eternity and therefore is predestined to happen. I quoted Luther to this effect in my recent post i.e."everything takes place by necessity in us, according as he either loves or does not love us from all eternity". (Post#193). I also quoted Luther in another post saying God "foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal and infallible will". (Post #47)

Again I quoted Luther saying "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" (Post #20). So God's will has to be understood as willing from eternity because He fore-ordains all things. So since God wills and fore-ordains from eternity according to whether He loves or hates us from eternity, people are predestined to be damned.


"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)

 

[cerette]

Where Luther says "of His mere will, leave men, harden them, and damn them" he means from eternity, as everything God does is foreknown and willed from eternity and therefore is predestined to happen. I quoted Luther to this effect in my recent post i.e."everything takes place by necessity in us, according as he either loves or does not love us from all eternity". (Post#193). I also quoted Luther in another post saying God "foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal and infallible will". (Post #47)

Again I quoted Luther saying "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" (Post #20). So God's will has to be understood as willing from eternity because He fore-ordains all things. So since God wills and fore-ordains from eternity according to whether He loves or hates us from eternity, people are predestined to be damned.


"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)

First, a preliminary clarification: in #193 you quoted Luther as saying: “everything takes place by necessity in us, according as he either loves or does not love us from all eternity" Luther's Works, Vol. 33, page 199.” This is different from your present claim in #203 (which you purport to deduce from Luther’s words) that “since God wills and fore-ordains from eternity according to whether He loves or hates us from eternity, people are predestined to be damned.” You have altered Luther’s “loves or does not love” to “loves or hates”.

Second: When Luther uses the term ”predestination” in The Bondage of the Will, he does not in general mean ”eternal election” (as has subsequently become common usage). On this point many Luther-scholars seem to be agreed. From this it follows that when Luther says that all things take place according to God’s predestination (including the damnation of some people to hell), this is not equivalent to saying that all things (including the damnation of some people to hell) is effected by God’s eternal election. You seem to be blurring this distinction. In one sense orthodox Lutherans (i.e. followers of the Book of Concord) could agree to the statement “the damnation of some to hell takes place according to God’s predestination” (namely, in the sense where “predestination” refers to the fact that everything takes place by God’s eternal and immutable and unfathomable will); but in another sense they would disagree with this statement (namely where “predestination” is used as “eternal election”, as you also are using it). To prove your point that Luther taught double predestination, you would have to produce a passage from The Bondage of the Will where Luther claims that the damnation of some people to hell is effected by God’s eternal election.

Third: You should exercise much more care than you have been doing so far when saying that Luther says this or that about “free will” and “predestination” in The Bondage of the Will. Luther is careful to define what he means by “free will”, and I see that you have nowhere cited his definition. You also fail to note that Luther himself agrees that according to some definitions of free will, man does have free will. Nor do you mention that Luther is careful to explain what he means by “necessity” (namely “necessity of immutability&#8221 and what he says he does not mean (e.g. “necessity of coercion&#8221. These points are crucial to any serious attempt to understand Luther’s position.

Fourth: There is one central message in The Bondage of the Will that doesn’t make sense on your reading of this book. I am referring to the fact that Luther takes great pains to point out that when God hardens certain people (Pharo, Judas, etc), this hardening takes place against the background of their own sin for which they themselves (not God) is responsible: “He works according to what they are, and what He finds them to be: which means, since they are evil and perverted themselves, that when they are impelled to action by this movement of Divine omnipotence they do only that which is perverted and evil. It is like a man riding a horse with only three, or two, good feet; his riding corresponds with what the horse is, which means that the horse goes badly. But what can the rider do? … The fault which accounts for evil being done when God moves to action lies in these instruments” (WA 709-710).

 

[Edward65]

First, a preliminary clarification: in #193 you quoted Luther as saying: “everything takes place by necessity in us, according as he either loves or does not love us from all eternity" Luther's Works, Vol. 33, page 199.” This is different from your present claim in #203 (which you purport to deduce from Luther’s words) that “since God wills and fore-ordains from eternity according to whether He loves or hates us from eternity, people are predestined to be damned.” You have altered Luther’s “loves or does not love” to “loves or hates”.

Second: When Luther uses the term ”predestination” in The Bondage of the Will, he does not in general mean ”eternal election” (as has subsequently become common usage). On this point many Luther-scholars seem to be agreed. From this it follows that when Luther says that all things take place according to God’s predestination (including the damnation of some people to hell), this is not equivalent to saying that all things (including the damnation of some people to hell) is effected by God’s eternal election. You seem to be blurring this distinction. In one sense orthodox Lutherans (i.e. followers of the Book of Concord) could agree to the statement “the damnation of some to hell takes place according to God’s predestination” (namely, in the sense where “predestination” refers to the fact that everything takes place by God’s eternal and immutable and unfathomable will); but in another sense they would disagree with this statement (namely where “predestination” is used as “eternal election”, as you also are using it). To prove your point that Luther taught double predestination, you would have to produce a passage from The Bondage of the Will where Luther claims that the damnation of some people to hell is effected by God’s eternal election.

Third: You should exercise much more care than you have been doing so far when saying that Luther says this or that about “free will” and “predestination” in The Bondage of the Will. Luther is careful to define what he means by “free will”, and I see that you have nowhere cited his definition. You also fail to note that Luther himself agrees that according to some definitions of free will, man does have free will. Nor do you mention that Luther is careful to explain what he means by “necessity” (namely “necessity of immutability&#8221 and what he says he does not mean (e.g. “necessity of coercion&#8221. These points are crucial to any serious attempt to understand Luther’s position.

Fourth: There is one central message in The Bondage of the Will that doesn’t make sense on your reading of this book. I am referring to the fact that Luther takes great pains to point out that when God hardens certain people (Pharo, Judas, etc), this hardening takes place against the background of their own sin for which they themselves (not God) is responsible: “He works according to what they are, and what He finds them to be: which means, since they are evil and perverted themselves, that when they are impelled to action by this movement of Divine omnipotence they do only that which is perverted and evil. It is like a man riding a horse with only three, or two, good feet; his riding corresponds with what the horse is, which means that the horse goes badly. But what can the rider do? … The fault which accounts for evil being done when God moves to action lies in these instruments” (WA 709-710).

(1) If you read the full quote in #193 you can see that by saying "does not love" he means "hate", because Luther talks of the love and hate of God.

(2) There is one such passage:

"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 showing 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!" (This quote is from Cole's translation and the passage occurs on page 171 of Luther's Works, Vol. 33)

Luther's meaning that if Erasmus's arguments were true then God wouldn't have elected who should be saved or who should be damned, obviously meaning that Erasmus is wrong and that God does elect people to be saved and damned.

(3) This just hasn't come up in the discussion. Yes there's a distinction to be made between not having any freedom to choose salvation and damnation, and having the apparent ability to choose between different courses of action in everyday affairs, but since as Luther says this is overruled by God, only what He has determined will happen according to His will and foreknowledge can occur. So we have no freedom to determine events and can only choose what God allows us to choose.

With regards to necessity again this just hasn't come up. All I've been referring to is the necessity of events occurring and no one has asked does that mean therefore that we are coerced and don't act willingly. If they had done I'd have explained that we act willingly in the choices we make and not under any coercion or compulsion.

(4) The point is however although God moves people to act according to how He finds them in that if they're evil it results in them doing evil things for which God isn't responsible, God doesn't harden and damn people in response to anything they have done. He hardens people purely because He wills to from eternity. As Luther says: "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." ( Cole. page 37 in Luther's Works, Vol. 33)

 

[Edward65]

In one sense orthodox Lutherans (i.e. followers of the Book of Concord) could agree to the statement “the damnation of some to hell takes place according to God’s predestination” (namely, in the sense where “predestination” refers to the fact that everything takes place by God’s eternal and immutable and unfathomable will); but in another sense they would disagree with this statement (namely where “predestination” is used as “eternal election”, as you also are using it). To prove your point that Luther taught double predestination, you would have to produce a passage from The Bondage of the Will where Luther claims that the damnation of some people to hell is effected by God’s eternal election.

I'm trying to understand why you make a distinction between predestination and election in the way that you do. To elect is simply to choose, and if you accept that God predestines according to His eternal will, that automatically means that He also elects as well. Otherwise we'd have to conclude that when He predestines according to His will He doesn't also choose to do that which He has predestined and willed to occur, which doesn't make any sense, because to will to do something is the same as choosing to do something. So I don't see there's a distinction in the way you've described. If God has predestined something to occur according to His will, then He has chosen this to occur, which is the same as saying He elects for this to occur.

However since you asked me for a passage which showed Luther saying that God elects people to be damned I was happy to oblige although I don't see the necessity for it myself.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

MOD HAT ON

Thread closed for review.

MOD HAT OFF​