"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.
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.
I have no problem accepting that Christ died for all and that God seeks to save everyone through Christ but this doesn't militate against accepting predestination to hell. Luther held that God predestines people to Hell and that Christ wanted to save everyone in The Bondage of the Will and I agree with him. Also Luther highly extolled this book to the end of his life so he wouldn't have agreed with the Formula of Concord's rejection of predestination to hell just as I don't. So Luther also would have been outside of official Lutheran teaching after the Formula was subscibed to. The point is official historic Lutheran teaching on predestination after the 1580's wasn't the same as it had been when Luther was alive and this was because the writers of the Formula misunderstood Luther and misinterpreted the teaching of the Bible. Historic Lutheranism post the 1580's has simply gone wrong on predestination and Luther were he alive today would completely agree.
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.
You're making some assumptions here concerning what Luther may or may not have believed. You can't use the word "obviously" here. Luther's other writings and the Confessional statements of the Lutheran Church, along with Scripture, teach otherwise.
Again, if you read Romans 9 in the context of Scripture as a whole, it does not teach predestination to hell. God does not condemn anyone to hell. Man's sinful nature has assured that already. That's what On the Bondage of the Will is about.
You are most certainly a Calvinist. It would be beneficial for you to remove the Lutheran icon from your header lest it gives someone the false impression that you are Lutheran and are making statements to what true Lutherans actually teach and believe.
We're not going to agree on this obviously. I think it automatically follows that since Luther held that God wills and fore-ordains everything that happens that he believes in predestination to heaven and hell because being saved and damned is a result of whether one has faith or not. So if a person doesn't have faith that is because God has fore-ordained that he shouldn't have.
Again I can't agree that the Scriptures don't teach predestination to Hell. Romans 9 to me clearly teaches this.
Also I'm not a Calvinist. I agree with Luther and not with the Formula on predestination and if Luther's teaching on predestination is the same as Calvin's that's just incidental. I don't wish to be labelled a Calvinist. I don't agree with Calvin's teaching on the Lord's Supper and other matters.
Also there is no danger that I'm going to mislead people into thinking that what I believe on predestination is accepted by mainstream Lutheranism. I make a point of stating that I don't agree with confessional Lutheranism on this and believe that confessional Lutheranism has erred in rejecting predestination to Hell. That's my reason for bringing the subject of predestination up to separate myself from the faulty stance of the Formula of Concord on this and make it plain that I don't accept that Luther would have endorsed the Formula on predestination. So I'm a Lutheran who agrees with Luther not the Formula.
Let's not forget the points of Controversy between Erasmus and Luther, 1524-1527 and who prevailed at the end, Mr. Luther of course, bondage of the will, only just my two-bits adding to the lucid and important sharing.
Dr. Luther prevailed against Erasmus not because Luther was a Calvinist, but because Erasmus was a Pelagian.
I could very well be injecting a foreign interpretation into the text, just show me the text regarding book, chapter, and verse.
I was hoping Edward65 you would be a little more specific regarding where I'm perverting "free-will"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?