The Augsburg Apology Article XVIII: Of Free Will.

[Tangible]

You can't be a Lutheran and disagree with the Formula. It's like being a Roman Catholic and saying: "Well, I disagree with the teaching of papal infallibility." Or, being a Baptist, but saying: "We should baptize infants." I'm not trying to insult you, you're completely free to be whatever you want, but if you are so bold as to say that the Formula contains errors, well then, you're not a Lutheran in any meaningful sense.

This is correct.

 

[bach90]

Luther didn't hold to the view that God damned people arbitrarily as a Calvinist would argue.

He DID hold that humanity, because of original sin, was born naturally unable to love God, to know God, or to keep his commands. He did hold that this original sin destines us for hell unless we are redeemed by a savior. In this light, it is acceptable to say that humanity is destined for hell. However, to say that God sends people to hell is unscriptural heresy supported neither by the Bible or the Lutheran Confessions which expressly anathematizes such an issue.

You cannot look at The Bondage of the Will and conclude that that was Luther's entire thought on the matter. His theological views developed later in life and if one is going to conclude that Luther held a certain position, it has to be evaluated within the context of Luther's entire corpus.

That said, Luther saying something is neither necessary nor sufficient to make it an article of the Lutheran Church (otherwise we would all have to pray to Mary, allow polygamous marriage, and do some not-so-nice things to the Jewish people). Only those documents in the Book of Concord make up the authoritative statements of the Evangelical Church. Simply put, if you hold that it is God, and not man's original sin, which sends people to hell, then you are not a Lutheran in any meaningful sense of the term.

 

[Edward65]

Originally Posted by bach90

"You can't be a Lutheran and disagree with the Formula. It's like being a Roman Catholic and saying: "Well, I disagree with the teaching of papal infallibility." Or, being a Baptist, but saying: "We should baptize infants." I'm not trying to insult you, you're completely free to be whatever you want, but if you are so bold as to say that the Formula contains errors, well then, you're not a Lutheran in any meaningful sense".
​

Tangible said:

"This is correct".


My response:

Well neither was Luther a Lutheran in that case.

 

[Edward65]

Luther didn't hold to the view that God damned people arbitrarily as a Calvinist would argue.

He DID whole that humanity, because of original sin, was born naturally unable to love God, to know God, or to keep his commands. He did hold that this original sin destines us for hell unless we are redeemed by a savior. In this light, it is acceptable to say that humanity is destined for hell. However, to say that God sends people to hell is unscriptural heresy supported neither by the Bible or the Lutheran Confessions which expressly anathematizes such an issue.

You cannot look at The Bondage of the Will and conclude that that was Luther's entire thought on the matter. His theological views developed later in life and if one is going to conclude that Luther held a certain position, it has to be evaluated within the context of Luther's entire corpus.

That said, Luther saying something is neither necessary nor sufficient to make it an article of the Lutheran Church (otherwise we would all have to pray to Mary, allow polygamous marriage, and do some not-so-nice things to the Jewish people). Only those documents in the Book of Concord make up the authoritative statements of the Evangelical Church. Simply put, if you hold that it is God, and not man's original sin, which sends people to hell, then you are not a Lutheran in any meaningful sense of the term.

This is what Luther wrote to Wolfgang Capito in 1537:

"Regarding [the plan] to collect my writings in volumes, I am quite cool and not at all eager about it because, roused by a Saturnian hunger, I would rather see them all devoured. For I acknowledge none of them to be really a book of mine, except perhaps the one On the Bound Will and the Catechism".

So this is Luther writing 20 years approximately after he'd posted the 95 theses, so this evaluation of The Bondage Of The Will obviously reflected his mature thought. He thought so highly of it that he was willing to dispense with his other writings save this one and the Catechism. So we should take what Luther says in The Bondage Of The Will very seriously as it details on the basis of Scripture his teaching on the subject of free will and predestination. Here's a quote from it which shows Luther believed in predestination to hell:

"Thus God conceals His eternal mercy and loving kindness beneath eternal wrath,​

His righteousness beneath unrighteousness. Now, the highest degree of faith is to

believe that He is merciful, though he saves so few and damns so many; to believe
that He is just, though of His own will He makes us perforce proper subjects for
damnation, and seems (in Erasmus' words) 'to delight in the torments of poor
wretches and to be a fitter object for hate than for love.' If I could by any means
understand how this same God, who makes such a show of wrath and
unrighteousness, can yet be merciful and just, there would be no need for faith.
But as it is, the impossibility of understanding makes room for the exercise of
faith when these things are preached and published; just as, when God kills, faith​

in life is exercised in death"

The above statement wouldn't make any sense if Luther didn't believe in predestination to hell because if he thought that everyone was capable of being saved and could come to faith with only themselves to blame if they failed to be saved he couldn't have made the above statement. If God doesn't predestine anyone to hell how could He appear "to delight in the torments of poor wretches and to be a fitter object of hate rather than love"?

With regards to original sin it is of course this which damns people but it damns people because God according to his hidden will (i.e. not His revealed will in Scripture) wills not to save them but rather damn them. This is what Luther says concerning this:

"You may be worried that it is hard to defend the mercy and equity of God in
damning the undeserving, that is, ungodly persons, who, being born in
ungodliness, can by no means avoid being ungodly, and staying so, and being​

damned, but are compelled by natural necessity to sin and perish; as Paul says:

'We were all the children of wrath, even as others' (Eph.2.3), created such by God
Himself from a seed that had been corrupted by the sin of the one man, Adam. But
here God must be reverenced and held in awe, as being most merciful to those
whom He justifies and saves in their own utter unworthiness; and we must show
some measure of deference to His Divine wisdom by believing Him just when to​

us He seems unjust".

The reason why God appears unjust (and this is implicit in Luther's argument) is because God according to His hidden will doesn't will to save them but rather to leave them in their original sin which damns them. In other words God predestines them to be damned and therefore He appears unjust. If Luther didn't believe in predestination to hell how could God appear unjust? He couldn't appear unjust if there was only predestination to heaven.

Luther wouldn't have agreed with the Formula of Concord's rejection of predestination to hell. The Formula's position is neither Biblical nor truly Lutheran. If it was truly Lutheran it by definition would have to agree with Luther's position but it doesn't. Just because the church which bears Luther's name has decreed that there is no predestination to hell doesn't make that teaching truly Lutheran. To be a true Lutheran one needs to agree with what Luther taught in The Bondage Of The Will because it's based on Scripture.

 

[shturt678]

It has been almost three decades since scrutinized Article 11 and Scriptures associated, right off the top, I cannot find fault with bach90's proposition, not that I'm any kind of authority. Have my work cut out for me this afternoon. Thank you.

 

[bach90]

This is what Luther wrote to Wolfgang Capito in 1537:

"Regarding [the plan] to collect my writings in volumes, I am quite cool and not at all eager about it because, roused by a Saturnian hunger, I would rather see them all devoured. For I acknowledge none of them to be really a book of mine, except perhaps the one On the Bound Will and the Catechism".

So this is Luther writing 20 years approximately after he'd posted the 95 theses, so this evaluation of The Bondage Of The Will obviously reflected his mature thought. He thought so highly of it that he was willing to dispense with his other writings save this one and the Catechism. So we should take what Luther says in The Bondage Of The Will very seriously as it details on the basis of Scripture his teaching on the subject of free will and predestination. Here's a quote from it which shows Luther believed in predestination to hell:

Unfortunately, for any author, they do not simply get to discard what they have written when evaluating their train of thought. Even Presidents, Kings, and Popes have written things they'd rather forget. The fact that Luther would discard all his other works is irrelevant. One can conclude that Luther held BOW in high esteem and that it is an accurate statement of his beliefs. However, it is not the only thing Luther wrote about free will and his other works deserve consideration.

"Thus God conceals His eternal mercy and loving kindness beneath eternal wrath,​

His righteousness beneath unrighteousness. Now, the highest degree of faith is to

believe that He is merciful, though he saves so few and damns so many; to believe
that He is just, though of His own will He makes us perforce proper subjects for
damnation, and seems (in Erasmus' words) 'to delight in the torments of poor
wretches and to be a fitter object for hate than for love.' If I could by any means
understand how this same God, who makes such a show of wrath and
unrighteousness, can yet be merciful and just, there would be no need for faith.
But as it is, the impossibility of understanding makes room for the exercise of
faith when these things are preached and published; just as, when God kills, faith​

in life is exercised in death"

Indeed, "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men."

The first italiacs are correct if understood in the whole of Luther's thought and Lutheran thought. It's nothing more than a reference to the Law of God. Indeed, through the giving of the law, God has indicted the entire human race of being guilty before him. This is not because God has actively willed them to eternal death, but because he has revealed his law and that man, because of original sin, is unable to keep it. This is indeed how "God kills" as Luther says at the end. The Law kills us and sentences us to hell. The Gospel revives and gives us the forgiveness of sins, which is nothing else than life and salvation.

The above statement wouldn't make any sense if Luther didn't believe in predestination to hell because if he thought that everyone was capable of being saved and could come to faith with only themselves to blame if they failed to be saved he couldn't have made the above statement. If God doesn't predestine anyone to hell how could He appear "to delight in the torments of poor wretches and to be a fitter object of hate rather than love"?

With regards to original sin it is of course this which damns people but it damns people because God according to his hidden will (i.e. not His revealed will in Scripture) wills not to save them but rather damn them. This is what Luther says concerning this:

How do you know the hidden will of God?

"You may be worried that it is hard to defend the mercy and equity of God in
damning the undeserving, that is, ungodly persons, who, being born in
ungodliness, can by no means avoid being ungodly, and staying so, and being​

damned, but are compelled by natural necessity to sin and perish; as Paul says:

'We were all the children of wrath, even as others' (Eph.2.3), created such by God
Himself from a seed that had been corrupted by the sin of the one man, Adam. But
here God must be reverenced and held in awe, as being most merciful to those
whom He justifies and saves in their own utter unworthiness; and we must show
some measure of deference to His Divine wisdom by believing Him just when to​

us He seems unjust".

My above statement stands. The Law comes from God, and the law kills. You cannot make the logical conclusion that God is actively willing some people to perish. Eph 2:3 is a great text to show original sin. This passage only makes sense if you hold that God willed Adam to sin and only if original sin was a part of God's plan, which is madness.

The reason why God appears unjust (and this is implicit in Luther's argument) is because God according to His hidden will doesn't will to save them but rather to leave them in their original sin which damns them. In other words God predestines them to be damned and therefore He appears unjust. If Luther didn't believe in predestination to hell how could God appear unjust? He couldn't appear unjust if there was only predestination to heaven.

Luther wouldn't have agreed with the Formula of Concord's rejection of predestination to hell. The Formula's position is neither Biblical nor truly Lutheran. If it was truly Lutheran it by definition would have to agree with Luther's position but it doesn't. Just because the church which bears Luther's name has decreed that there is no predestination to hell doesn't make that teaching truly Lutheran. To be a true Lutheran one needs to agree with what Luther taught in The Bondage Of The Will because it's based on Scripture.

You have no idea if Luther would have signed the Formula and neither do I.

To be a true Lutheran is to confess the Doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as expressed in the Book of Concord 1580 which is drawn from the Scriptures. 6,000 Lutherans signed the formula, and people signed the Book of Concord with their treasure and in their blood. It is beyond arrogant that you seek to chabge the definition of Lutheranism on your own authority. I'm not mad because of what you believe, but I am mad that you are trying to label something as being Lutheran which is not Lutheran in any historical, concrete, or meaningful sense of the term. You cannot make up a definition of Lutheran and then apply it universally.

Ultimately though, the error of double predestination comes from a bad understanding of Law and Gospel, like all theological errors.

 

[Edward65]

Reply to bach90's latest post:

I'm glad you said "one can conclude that Luther held BOW in high esteem and that it is an accurate statement of his beliefs". So let me set down what Luther was basically arguing in "The Bondage Of The Will" so we know where he was coming from and what exactly he was arguing. Fortunately I don't need to do this myself because Luther provided a brief synopsis of his book in the following four sentences.

Sect. 9.—"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". ( from section 9 The Bondage Of The Will translated by H Atherton).

So that's the context in which Luther is writing against Erasmus i.e. that God forsees, purposes, and does all things according His immutable, eternal and infallible will which Luther defines as God's hidden Will of Majesty to distinguish it from his revealed will which desires through Christ to save everyone. Luther isn't talking of this will found in Christ but the eternal will of God which determines all events and which nothing can thwart. What God in Majesty foreknows will happen must happen and therefore it imposes necessity on everything. However we can't guide ourselves according to this will because we don't know what God has foreknown and willed to happen, so in that sense it's hidden from us.

You ask "how do you know the hidden will of God" I don't know the hidden will of God. I don't know who God has predestined to be saved or damned or what else He has decreed will happen but what we do know is that as Luther says above "God forsees, purposes, and does all things according His immutable, eternal and infallible will". In other words everything is predestined to happen the way it does happen which Luther continually affirms throughout his book.

Now I quoted Luther in my last post saying:

"Thus God conceals His eternal mercy and loving kindness beneath eternal wrath,
His righteousness beneath unrighteousness. Now, the highest degree of faith is to
believe that He is merciful, though he saves so few and damns so many; to believe
that He is just, though of His own will He makes us perforce proper subjects for
damnation, and seems (in Erasmus' words) 'to delight in the torments of poor
wretches and to be a fitter object for hate than for love.' If I could by any means
understand how this same God, who makes such a show of wrath and
unrighteousness, can yet be merciful and just, there would be no need for faith.
But as it is, the impossibility of understanding makes room for the exercise of
faith when these things are preached and published; just as, when God kills, faith
in life is exercised in death"

And you said in reply that Luther was talking about the Law of God and how the whole human race was indicted before Him as guilty etc but you've just made this interpretation up because nowhere does Luther even mention the Law. He's not talking about the Law and how we are all sinners before God. He's talking about God's eternal will of Majesty which determines all events and which makes Him appear unrighteous in that He saves so few and damns so many. How could the Law of God make God appear unjust and a tyrant who takes delight in the torments of poor wretches? Is not the Law the embodiment of all that's good and moral? Doesn't Christ sum it up in the words love God and your neighbour? How then can the Law make God appear unjust? You see how preposterous your interpretation is? You haven't understood the context in which Luther made his statement above but are simply forcing a wholly foreign interpretation into Luther's words.

(Additional comment : When Luther added at the end of the above quote "just as, when God kills, faith in life is exercised in death" this is merely a comment illustrating that God conceals things under a contrary appearance so that faith must believe what it can't see. So Luther is referring to the Law here I accept but this isn't the subject of the main body of the quote above as I've shown.)

You say to me "you have no idea if Luther would have signed the Formula and neither do I." The only reason why you don't know whether Luther would have signed the Formula or not is because you haven't understood Luther's Bondage Of The Will, but for anyone who has understood this book there's no doubt that he wouldn't have signed it.

 

[shturt678]

Wow, it has been decades and just wanted to put forth my two-bits confirmed in going over the lucid former posts, and hours of coming up to speed with you folks as follows:

The fact that Christ should become so deadly is, my conclusion with you folks, "God's voluntas consequens, and NOT his voluntas antecedens God wills the salvation of all men because of universal and equal agape, and this will is not divided as Calvinist assume (not an attack on Calvinist, just agreeing to disagree.

 

[bach90]

Reply to bach90's latest post:

I'm glad you said "one can conclude that Luther held BOW in high esteem and that it is an accurate statement of his beliefs". So let me set down what Luther was basically arguing in "The Bondage Of The Will" so we know where he was coming from and what exactly he was arguing. Fortunately I don't need to do this myself because Luther provided a brief synopsis of his book in the following four sentences.

Sect. 9.—"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". ( from section 9 The Bondage Of The Will translated by H Atherton).

There's an important first part to that sentence that establishes the context that Luther was arguing in. Some RC theologians of the time, Erasmus included, argued that God was the "ground of all contingency." Essentially, this view has God as being necessary and all other things being contingent on him, If a contingent thing exists then God knew it would exist. In this view, there are some things in the universe that didn't necessarily have to happen, there could have been a universe with 7 planets or there could have been a universe without any brown tables. Luther is arguing against this view, things don't contingently exist according to God, they necessarily exist according to God's will. Essentially, it's not possible that there can be a universe with 7 planets, or a universe without brown tables. You have (correctly) demonstrated that Luther did not believe in a free-will of the Aristotelian/Scholastic view. You're still required to make a, even if small, jump to conclude that he is actively and arbitrarily choosing to damn sinners.

So that's the context in which Luther is writing against Erasmus i.e. that God forsees, purposes, and does all things according His immutable, eternal and infallible will which Luther defines as God's hidden Will of Majesty to distinguish it from his revealed will which desires through Christ to save everyone. Luther isn't talking of this will found in Christ but the eternal will of God which determines all events and which nothing can thwart. What God in Majesty foreknows will happen must happen and therefore it imposes necessity on everything. However we can't guide ourselves according to this will because we don't know what God has foreknown and willed to happen, so in that sense it's hidden from us.

That's not the context of the argument, that's the argument itself. The context I've briefly described above.

You ask "how do you know the hidden will of God" I don't know the hidden will of God. I don't know who God has predestined to be saved or damned or what else He has decreed will happen but what we do know is that as Luther says above "God forsees, purposes, and does all things according His immutable, eternal and infallible will". In other words everything is predestined to happen the way it does happen which Luther continually affirms throughout his book.

Luther never used the word predestined in anything you quoted. He did argue against contingency which formed an important strain in the thoughts of RC theologians at the time.

Now I quoted Luther in my last post saying:

"Thus God conceals His eternal mercy and loving kindness beneath eternal wrath,
His righteousness beneath unrighteousness. Now, the highest degree of faith is to
believe that He is merciful, though he saves so few and damns so many; to believe
that He is just, though of His own will He makes us perforce proper subjects for
damnation, and seems (in Erasmus' words) 'to delight in the torments of poor
wretches and to be a fitter object for hate than for love.' If I could by any means
understand how this same God, who makes such a show of wrath and
unrighteousness, can yet be merciful and just, there would be no need for faith.
But as it is, the impossibility of understanding makes room for the exercise of
faith when these things are preached and published; just as, when God kills, faith
in life is exercised in death"

And you said in reply that Luther was talking about the Law of God and how the whole human race was indicted before Him as guilty etc but you've just made this interpretation up because nowhere does Luther even mention the Law. He's not talking about the Law and how we are all sinners before God. He's talking about God's eternal will of Majesty which determines all events and which makes Him appear unrighteous in that He saves so few and damns so many. How could the Law of God make God appear unjust and a tyrant who takes delight in the torments of poor wretches? Is not the Law the embodiment of all that's good and moral? Doesn't Christ sum it up in the words love God and your neighbour? How then can the Law make God appear unjust? You see how preposterous your interpretation is? You haven't understood the context in which Luther made his statement above but are simply forcing a wholly foreign interpretation into Luther's words.

The Law, at least St. Paul thought, could and does indeed appear unjust before the natural, unregenerate man. That's why he was at pains in Romans to show that the law isn't sin (Rom 7:7).

The Law indeed appears unjust without the eyes of faith. God commands perfect and willful obedience, yet, he knows that because of original sin we are unable to do that. It's asking a blind man to see or a mute man to speak. Yet, that total inability makes us see our need for a savior.

(Additional comment : When Luther added at the end of the above quote "just as, when God kills, faith in life is exercised in death" this is merely a comment illustrating that God conceals things under a contrary appearance so that faith must believe what it can't see. So Luther is referring to the Law here I accept but this isn't the subject of the main body of the quote above as I've shown.)

You say to me "you have no idea if Luther would have signed the Formula and neither do I." The only reason why you don't know whether Luther would have signed the Formula or not is because you haven't understood Luther's Bondage Of The Will, but for anyone who has understood this book there's no doubt that he wouldn't have signed it.

I'm saying no one can know because it is impossible to determine with certainty what a person will do in the future. You have to make a whole bunch of assumptions before you can get there. At best you would be able to try and conclude, "Luther would likely have done A" when you're saying, "Luther would certainly have done A." As far as you saying anybody who would have understood B.O.W would teach your position. I guess every Lutheran theologian over the past 500 years has failed to understood BOW, since from Chemnitz on, no Lutheran has taught the rank Calvinism that you are.

When are you going to answer what I said about Lutheran being defined by holding to the Book of Concord and not your own definition of the term? Your essentially doing what the ELCA does, your changing the definition of Lutheran to suit you. It's tough enough to explain the term Lutheran to people without people going around changing the definition on a whim to suit them. The definition of Lutheran is a member of the Evangelical Church, which subscribes to the Book of Concord. If you want to teach double predestination, fine. But don't call yourself a Lutheran when you do so, that is not the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

 

[bach90]

I think you must be misunderstanding what exactly I was arguing in my last but one post. Let me just explain what exactly I was saying in response to bach90.

bach90 made the assertion that "Dr. Luther prevailed against Erasmus not because Luther was a Calvinist, but because Erasmus was a Pelagian". So bach90 by saying this was meaning that the reason that Luther won the debate against Erasmus wasn't because Luther held to double predestination (i.e. predestination to both heaven and hell) but was simply because Erasmus believed in free will and Luther didn't. bach90 you see doesn't believe that Luther believed in double predestination only predestination to heaven.

So in response to this I was making the point that Luther believed in both predestination to heaven and predestination to hell and it was erroneous to believe he didn't.

The reason why Luther won the debate against Erasmus so conclusively was because he believed and argued for total predestination. He didn't make any distinction between predestination to heaven and predestination to hell, he argued for both and that everything that happens is necessitated by God's will and foreknowledge. So this is why Erasmus was defeated because Luther from Scripture ruled out all free will i.e. not just free will to apply oneself to salvation but also free will to choose damnation.

So in my response to your last but one post I gave you quotes from Luther's Bondage Of The Will which showed that Luther rejected free will in both salvation and damnation and I quoted him saying that God reprobates some (i.e. predestines them to hell) and in my last quote that God elects people to be damned as well as saved.

So that is all I was arguing for so I'm not sure what exactly you're meaning in your last post. You haven't perverted anything. It's just that you haven't mentioned that there is no free will with respect to damnation as well as salvation.

I was being flippant. Erasmus made such a bad argument in On Free Will that a 5 year old with the Bible could have beaten him. Hyperaspistes, Erasmus's response to BOW, though, is much more complex and has to be engaged with.

 

[bach90]

Originally Posted by bach90

"You can't be a Lutheran and disagree with the Formula. It's like being a Roman Catholic and saying: "Well, I disagree with the teaching of papal infallibility." Or, being a Baptist, but saying: "We should baptize infants." I'm not trying to insult you, you're completely free to be whatever you want, but if you are so bold as to say that the Formula contains errors, well then, you're not a Lutheran in any meaningful sense".
​

Tangible said:

"This is correct".


My response:

Well neither was Luther a Lutheran in that case.

I don't think you're quite sure about what a Lutheran is.

 

[shturt678]

I'm not a modern-Lutheran due to holding the Scriptures much higher than all the Lutheran Symbolical Books, and have I been personally attacked for this reason, not on this site, but my own Lutheran brothers and sisters till today.

However, fortunate, the various Ministers of the Lutheran Church's love me to the max for some strange reason??? ... agreeing to disagree with me???

 

[Tangible]

And the hole gets deeper.

 

[Edward65]

Reply to bach90:

You say:
"Luther never used the word predestined in anything you quoted. He did argue against contingency which formed an important strain in the thoughts of RC theologians at the time".

Just because he didn't use the word "predestined" in the quotes I gave doesn't mean that it wasn't implicit in his argument. If you read The Bondage of The Will predestination forms the backdrop of everything he says. For instance Luther says the following:


Sect. 167.—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!

With reference to the quote I gave:

"Thus God conceals His eternal mercy and loving kindness beneath eternal wrath,
His righteousness beneath unrighteousness. Now, the highest degree of faith is to
believe that He is merciful, though he saves so few and damns so many; to believe
that He is just, though of His own will He makes us perforce proper subjects for
damnation, and seems (in Erasmus' words) 'to delight in the torments of poor
wretches and to be a fitter object for hate than for love.' If I could by any means
understand how this same God, who makes such a show of wrath and
unrighteousness, can yet be merciful and just, there would be no need for faith.
But as it is, the impossibility of understanding makes room for the exercise of
faith when these things are preached and published; just as, when God kills, faith
in life is exercised in death"

This was said in answer to Erasmus saying to Luther:

"What can be more useless than that this paradox should be
proclaimed openly to the world—that whatever is done by us, is not

done by Free-will, but from mere necessity. And that of Augustine​

also—that God works in us both good and evil: that He rewards His
good works in us, and punishes His evil works in us.
What a flood-gate of iniquity would these things, publicly
proclaimed, open unto men! What bad man would amend his life! Who
would believe that he was loved of God! Who would war against his
flesh! What utility therefore is there in, or necessity for
proclaiming such things openly, when so many evils seem likely to
proceed therefrom?" (from Sections 23 & 24)

so Luther's reply has absolutely nothing to do with the Law. Luther says
"of His own will He makes us perforce proper subjects for
damnation, and seems (in Erasmus' words) 'to delight in the torments of poor
wretches and to be a fitter object for hate than for love."
He's talking of God's will which makes people proper subjects for damnation (i.e. reprobation and predestination to hell).

As regards Luther's opinion of the Formula of Concord's rejection of predestination to hell it goes without saying that Luther would refuse to sign up to it as it directly contradicts what he argues in The Bondage Of The Will.

Also I'm not making up some weird definition of what a true Lutheran is. I'm just stating the obvious that a Lutheran should agree with the Scriptural teaching of Luther in The Bondage Of The Will. There have been plenty of people over the years who have pointed out that Luther wouldn't have endorsed the Formula of Concord's rejection of predestination to hell and not all of them were Reformed. But of course the Lutheran ones just get labeled as false Lutherans.

It's somewhat surprising to me I have to admit that those who follow the Formula on predestination have such a blinkered approach to understanding Luther's Bondage Of The Will. I've argued with others in the past over this subject and it's as if they can't bear the thought that Luther might have disagreed with the Formula so they have to interpret everything that Luther says which they think could be construed as teaching absolute predestination in really odd ways - like you arguing that Luther in the quote I gave was talking about the Law. That's the trouble with those who follow the Formula on predestination, they're misled into believing that Luther couldn't possibly be teaching predestination to hell so they'd better interpret what he says in some other way. You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink is very applicable. No matter how obvious it is that Luther is teaching predestination to hell, those who don't want to see this and have an ideological reason not to see it, won't see it. So probably there's no point in arguing with you any more because you've made your mind up that Luther doesn't teach predestination to hell and anything I add will just be wasted words.

 

[shturt678]

To Tangible Decades ago idiom like "And the hole gets deeper" did hurt me from my own Lutheran brothers and sisters, no more pity parties for me after about 1992 (I was such a wimp that I use to go to my car after church and cry like a little baby, I was such an idiot). After that, if I'm not doing my works of faith then I will not receive your treasured words of encouragement. However I have enjoyed your sharing and you, and will continue to, hence I bless you with the antithesis of the idiom you blessed me with, i.e., not an empty "blessing," but from my heart sir. At some point of time if you can forgive me enough to share where I have been perverting the Word of God, not the Symbolical Books, I sure would appreciate the passages as I do respect you sir. Thank you for your understanding and forgiveness.

 

[Tangible]

The Lutheran Confessions are a true and correct exposition of Holy Scripture. To be a Lutheran is to uphold and subscribe to the Confessions without reservation.

When you state that you place Holy Scripture above the Confessions, what you are really saying is that you place your own interpretation of scripture over the interpretation contained in the Confessions.

If you want to do that, no one can stop you, but you should be honest with yourself and others and stop calling yourself a Lutheran.

Your position on the Confessions is identical to that of liberal churches descended from the same tradition as are Confessional Lutherans. These churches have decided that their own interpretation of scripture trumps that of the Confessions, and have therefore ceased to be Lutheran in any meaningful sense other than perhaps cultural or in organic descent.

 

[Moses Medina]

The Lutheran Confessions are a true and correct exposition of Holy Scripture. To be a Lutheran is to uphold and subscribe to the Confessions without reservation.

When you state that you place Holy Scripture above the Confessions, what you are really saying is that you place your own interpretation of scripture over the interpretation contained in the Confessions.

If you want to do that, no one can stop you, but you should be honest with yourself and others and stop calling yourself a Lutheran.

Your position on the Confessions is identical to that of liberal churches descended from the same tradition as are Confessional Lutherans. These churches have decided that their own interpretation of scripture trumps that of the Confessions, and have therefore ceased to be Lutheran in any meaningful sense other than perhaps cultural or in organic descent.

An ELCA chaplain straight up told me that the only thing that makes him and his services Lutheran are the traditions itself. Good man, I learned a lot from him, however he always knew and respected my views on his theology.

He also admitted that he truely believed if the LCMS found something unbiblical in the confessions it would be takem out and that because it was still I'm there meant they were biblical.

 

[Edward65]

The argument that because the majority of those who identified themselves as Lutherans several decades after Luther's death approved of the Formula of Concord and it's teaching on predestination therefore this is by definition correct Lutheran teaching I don't accept. By the same logic one can argue with reference to Luther that because the great majority of people who identified themselves as Christians approved of the teaching of the Popes it follows therefore that salvation by works is the true Christian teaching. Numbers don't settle anything, if they did we'd have to identify Luther as a heretic and the Papists as true Christians because he at the beginning of the Reformation stood alone in arguing for justification by faith alone.

So I don't accept the definition of a true Lutheran as one who subscribes unconditionally to the Book of Concord. Just because the majority have decided that this the definition of a true Lutheran doesn't make that definition true. A true Lutheran is one who agrees with the Scriptural teaching of Luther in all respects and that includes the true Scriptural teaching on predestination found in The Bondage Of The Will. So I will continue to call myself a Lutheran even though the majority disapprove.

 

[shturt678]

The argument that because the majority of those who identified themselves as Lutherans several decades after Luther's death approved of the Formula of Concord and it's teaching on predestination therefore this is by definition correct Lutheran teaching I don't accept. By the same logic one can argue with reference to Luther that because the great majority of people who identified themselves as Christians approved of the teaching of the Popes it follows therefore that salvation by works is the true Christian teaching. Numbers don't settle anything, if they did we'd have to identify Luther as a heretic and the Papists as true Christians because he at the beginning of the Reformation stood alone in arguing for justification by faith alone.

So I don't accept the definition of a true Lutheran as one who subscribes unconditionally to the Book of Concord. Just because the majority have decided that this the definition of a true Lutheran doesn't make that definition true. A true Lutheran is one who agrees with the Scriptural teaching of Luther in all respects and that includes the true Scriptural teaching on predestination found in The Bondage Of The Will. So I will continue to call myself a Lutheran even though the majority disapprove.

I have been trying to put a paragraph together that describes me as a Lutheran, aside from my Lutheran "Statement of faith," and you dropped it right into my lap. Thank you Edward65 and even others that agree to disagree as they have also made me go back and question passages. no longer

I have a lot, doesn't mean anything really as had to undo so much, of Seminary academical schooling with my G.I. Bill long ago and this is where I bumped heads with Lutheran Professors beginning with Chemnitz, right after Luther, with his interpretation of Matt.20:1-16; 22:1-14 with his view of the "Church" visible ("outwardly" in the Church) and "inwardly" forensically, secretly from God in heaven, the Lord Jesus Christ of course. I was just in the beginning stages of learning the Lutheran Symbolical Books. A highly esteemed Professor said "if you continue this direction of not taking the Book of Concord, etc. on the same level of Scriptures, you cannot call yourself a Lutheran." (Not his exact words, but am close) I kept my mouth shut, but those words along with others that really disagree with me, including this thread, have been my best professors as I spent till 2300 in the Libraries trying to sort this out and finally did in 1992, along with your view I still take to the spiritual bank and it clears.

 

[DaRev]

The argument that because the majority of those who identified themselves as Lutherans several decades after Luther's death approved of the Formula of Concord and it's teaching on predestination therefore this is by definition correct Lutheran teaching I don't accept. By the same logic one can argue with reference to Luther that because the great majority of people who identified themselves as Christians approved of the teaching of the Popes it follows therefore that salvation by works is the true Christian teaching. Numbers don't settle anything, if they did we'd have to identify Luther as a heretic and the Papists as true Christians because he at the beginning of the Reformation stood alone in arguing for justification by faith alone.

So I don't accept the definition of a true Lutheran as one who subscribes unconditionally to the Book of Concord. Just because the majority have decided that this the definition of a true Lutheran doesn't make that definition true. A true Lutheran is one who agrees with the Scriptural teaching of Luther in all respects and that includes the true Scriptural teaching on predestination found in The Bondage Of The Will. So I will continue to call myself a Lutheran even though the majority disapprove.

It's not "the majority" that determines what a Lutheran is. It's not "On the Bondage of the Will" that determines what a Lutheran is. It's Scripture, sola Scriptura, that determines what a Lutheran is. If you insist on holding to a single writing of Luther, presented in a singular context, and also insist on ignoring the clear teaching of Scripture which presents the truth is it's own full context, then you, sir, are not a Lutheran. And you do a great disservice to those who are inquiring and learning by insisting on calling yourself Lutheran when you have publicly demonstrated that you do not hold to Lutheran teachings.