The Augsburg Apology Article XVIII: Of Free Will.

[shturt678]

To DaRev Thank you for your reply. I think that Edward65 was specifically speaking regarding the teaching of Predestination in reference to his "majority" as to their view being correct, i.e., speaking more with using Scriptures than the Formula of Concord.

Regarding his second paragraph, Edward65 views Scriptures as the core-base to build any Biblical framework upon comporting with your view regarding sola Scriptura. In other words he is using a single issue as an example which, and us as Lutherans should question further to understand more where the other is coming from before rendering a decision as to whether he is, or I am even a Lutheran? I'm probably not doing a good job and Edward65 and I may even agree to disagree with Predestination; however, him not being a Lutheran isn't even in the equation. I could be wrong with my view as was in error just a few days ago. I wish I had more time, have an infant water baptism to perform soon and hope understanding all as kind of in a rush. Please forgive me for taking anything out of context. Thank you for your patience.

 

[Edward65]

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.

You haven't understood me correctly. I said in my last post that "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 entirely agree that it's Scripture alone that determines whether one is a true Lutheran or not - and that's what my disagreement with the Formula of Concord's rejection of predestination to hell revolves round. Luther in the Bondage Of The Will shows on the basis of Romans 9 in particular that the Scriptures teach predestination to hell and I entirely agree with him. Therefore I don't accept that the Formula of Concord's position on predestination is Scriptural. Luther would have regarded the teaching of the Formula on predestination as false doctrine because it denies what Paul teaches in Romans 9.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

Great disscussion, I must say as a Calvinist who hold Luther in the highest esteem.

Thanks for the back and fourth...

I based upon the histoical reality of the DP view held by Augistine, find Luther as a whole, consistant with that view upon the basis "Sola Scriptura".

I do not and will not view Luther in the frame work of Concord as I think doing so has the ablity to do him a injustice. By reading back to Luther things that were written after his death. Based on his primary writtings I find him to be purely Augusitian in this question.

From Luther's work on Romans

All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned

Just my .02 cents

 

[DaRev]

You haven't understood me correctly. I said in my last post that "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 entirely agree that it's Scripture alone that determines whether one is a true Lutheran or not - and that's what my disagreement with the Formula of Concord's rejection of predestination to hell revolves round. Luther in the Bondage Of The Will shows on the basis of Romans 9 in particular that the Scriptures teach predestination to hell and I entirely agree with him. Therefore I don't accept that the Formula of Concord's position on predestination is Scriptural. Luther would have regarded the teaching of the Formula on predestination as false doctrine because it denies what Paul teaches in Romans 9.

And therein lies your error. Luther was writing within a singular context. His views do not at all disagree with Scripture, and neither does the FoC. Romans 9 MUST be interpreted in the context of Scripture as a whole (as does BotW). This is where the Reformed and you are making your grievous errors.

Neither Luther, the Confessions, nor Scripture teaches a predestination to hell. God does not predestine anyone to hell. Humanity, on it's own and by it's own will because of the Fall, is already bound for eternal damnation from the point of conception, except by the grace of God. This is the Scriptures' teaching. This is the Confessions' teaching. This is Luther's teaching. And, as such, this is the true Lutheran teaching.

 

[bach90]

You haven't understood me correctly. I said in my last post that "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 entirely agree that it's Scripture alone that determines whether one is a true Lutheran or not - and that's what my disagreement with the Formula of Concord's rejection of predestination to hell revolves round. Luther in the Bondage Of The Will shows on the basis of Romans 9 in particular that the Scriptures teach predestination to hell and I entirely agree with him. Therefore I don't accept that the Formula of Concord's position on predestination is Scriptural. Luther would have regarded the teaching of the Formula on predestination as false doctrine because it denies what Paul teaches in Romans 9.

Who are you to redefine what a Lutheran is? Whether or not Luther agreed with DP is not the issue at hand. You don't have the right to redefine words to suit your meaning. That isn't theology, it's common sense. Unless we're just going to let words mean whatever we want them to mean like a sophist would.

 

[bach90]

Good Day,

Great disscussion, I must say as a Calvinist who hold Luther in the highest esteem.

Thanks for the back and fourth...

I based upon the histoical reality of the DP view held by Augistine, find Luther as a whole, consistant with that view upon the basis "Sola Scriptura".

I do not and will not view Luther in the frame work of Concord as I think doing so has the ablity to do him a injustice. By reading back to Luther things that were written after his death. Based on his primary writtings I find him to be purely Augusitian in this question.

From Luther's work on Romans

All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned

Just my .02 cents

I don't know how a Calvinist can hold Luther in high esteem. His belief in the Real Presence of Christ, is to Calvinists, a perverse and impious superstition (Consensus Tigurinus #21).

Augustine did not teach a double predestination. He argued vigorously against the Manicheans who did and on the other extreme he argued against the Pelagians. He placed a very strong emphasis on grace, but wrote from a few different vantage points during his lifetime. Any argument that a human author makes has to be interpreted according to the rules of history and the rules of interpreting a document. In short, context counts.

CHURCH FATHERS: On the Predestination of the Saints, Book I (Augustine)

And if we're going to, again, take Augustine as being authoritative, we have to acknowledge that he believed in a primacy of the bishop of Rome and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[Edward65]

And therein lies your error. Luther was writing within a singular context. His views do not at all disagree with Scripture, and neither does the FoC. Romans 9 MUST be interpreted in the context of Scripture as a whole (as does BotW). This is where the Reformed and you are making your grievous errors.

Neither Luther, the Confessions, nor Scripture teaches a predestination to hell. God does not predestine anyone to hell. Humanity, on it's own and by it's own will because of the Fall, is already bound for eternal damnation from the point of conception, except by the grace of God. This is the Scriptures' teaching. This is the Confessions' teaching. This is Luther's teaching. And, as such, this is the true Lutheran teaching.

The Scriptures and Luther in The Bondage Of The Will teach predestination to Hell. The fact that you can deny what Luther clearly teaches in BotW shows you haven't understood it correctly. Here's part of Luther's conclusion which appears at the end of his book (which of course is based on Scripture as he shows throughout his book):

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!"

As you can see Luther states that God foreknows, fore-ordains and wills everything that happens. So if a person lives an unrepentant life, scorns Christ and refuses to believe the Gospel according to Luther this is because God wills and fore-ordains it so. Luther says God wills and fore-ordains everything that happens and to fore-ordain is to predestine. So if a person is damned that's because God has willed it and predestined it to happen.

 

[shturt678]

Scriptures first, Rom.9:33 and the Formula of Concord happens to comport: v.33 "as it has been written: Lo, I am placing in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock-mass of (deadly) entrapment; And he who believes on him shall not be put to shame."

Former appropriated from Isa.28:16, The fact that Christ should become so deadly is God's voluntas consequens, God's purpose consequent to UNBELIEF, and not his voluntas antecedens, his will considered as antecedent to any effect produced in man. Again, God wills the salvation of all men because of universal and equal agape, ant this will is not divided as others assume, forgot the new flaming rule. No predestined to hell, and here is the passage where you can reveal to me where positing a spurious interpretation???

 

[bach90]

At this point, you're not even engaging in arguments, you're repeating yourself and I've posted this question at least 3 times without you responding.


What gives you the authority to redefine the word "Lutheran" in order to fit your own views?

How is it not different from what the ELCA does when they redefine the term?

Ignoring for a moment the discussion about what OTBOW and the Scriptures say, how do you justify redefining the term "Lutheran" when historically and etymologically the word "Lutheran" means somebody who subscribes to the doctrine of the Evangelical Church as explained in the Book of Concord. The word "Lutheran" does not mean agreeing with everything that Luther ever said or thought, he, like any man, has the right and the liberty to be wrong. Given this, how do you justify your use, or abuse, of the term, "Lutheran?"

 

[bach90]

Scriptures first, Rom.9:33 and the Formula of Concord happens to comport: v.33 "as it has been written: Lo, I am placing in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock-mass of (deadly) entrapment; And he who believes on him shall not be put to shame."

Former appropriated from Isa.28:16, The fact that Christ should become so deadly is God's voluntas consequens, God's purpose consequent to UNBELIEF, and not his voluntas antecedens, his will considered as antecedent to any effect produced in man. Again, God wills the salvation of all men because of universal and equal agape, ant this will is not divided as others assume, forgot the new flaming rule. No predestined to hell, and here is the passage where you can reveal to me where positing a spurious interpretation???

Your saying Scriptures first, fine.

Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. - Joshua 24:15

We do have the choice to commit evil.

Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live? - Ezekiel 18:23

God does not want anybody to perish. He wills that all would be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Yet, man is quite capable and quite skillful at damning himself.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ - Matthew 23:37-39

Jesus, from Old Testament times, has been trying to gather his people to follow him. It was not any action of God, but of Israel, their choice, to reject God's Word as revealed in the OT and in the incarnate word before them. God did not reject Israel, he wanted Israel to be saved. Israel did it to themselves.


You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. - Acts 7:51

Who resisted the Holy Spirit? It's because men can and do resist the Holy Spirit. I can write you a check for $100, but if you rip it up it's not because the check is bad, it's because you chose not to cash it. The fact that they were resisting the Holy Spirit necessitates that the Holy Spirit was trying to call them.


But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. - 2 Peter 2:1

Are the people that will deny Jesus the unsaved reprobates? No. There will even be Christians that will fall away, because of their own choice, they will choose damnation over salvation. The ability or inability to choose damnation or salvation does not necessitate the ability or inability to choose the other.


Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away - Hebrews 2:1

Why warn about drifting away unless it were possible to drift away?


But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.- 1 Cor 9:27

Why would Paul fear falling away unless he were capable of doing so? Paul knows that God has chosen those who will be saved, but, by resisting the Holy Spirit (through the Word and Sacrament) even he could fall away.

For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. - 1 Tim 4:10


Romans 9 is NOT the only chapter in The Bible and Calvinism is NOT illogical. It's very logical, in fact it has nothing but logic. No facts, no Scriptural support, no historical testimony, just logic of the human mind, and to that I concede to it wholeheardly. As Chesterton might have said, Calvinism is the man that truly does believe in himself. However a logical argument does not necessitate a valid argument, that is the flaw of Calvinism.

 

[Edward65]

Scriptures first, Rom.9:33 and the Formula of Concord happens to comport: v.33 "as it has been written: Lo, I am placing in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock-mass of (deadly) entrapment; And he who believes on him shall not be put to shame."

Former appropriated from Isa.28:16, The fact that Christ should become so deadly is God's voluntas consequens, God's purpose consequent to UNBELIEF, and not his voluntas antecedens, his will considered as antecedent to any effect produced in man. Again, God wills the salvation of all men because of universal and equal agape, ant this will is not divided as others assume, forgot the new flaming rule. No predestined to hell, and here is the passage where you can reveal to me where positing a spurious interpretation???

See 1 Peter 2:6-8 where Peter says "... They stumble because they disobey the word,as they were destined to do.

[6] For it stands in Scripture:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
[7] So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”
[8] and
“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

(1 Peter 2:6-8 ESV)

 

[bach90]

See 1 Peter 2:6-8 where Peter says "... They stumble because they disobey the word,as they were destined to do.

[6] For it stands in Scripture:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
[7] So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”
[8] and
“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

(1 Peter 2:6-8 ESV)

Definitely, in fact not just the "they" but all of humanity is destined for hell because of original sin. Doesn't mean God willed them to go to hell.

 

[DaRev]

The Scriptures and Luther in The Bondage Of The Will teach predestination to Hell. The fact that you can deny what Luther clearly teaches in BotW shows you haven't understood it correctly.

The Scriptures do not teach predestination to hell. You have been shown this repeatedly. You're the one who does not understand it correctly.

Here's part of Luther's conclusion which appears at the end of his book (which of course is based on Scripture as he shows throughout his book):

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!"

As you can see Luther states that God foreknows, fore-ordains and wills everything that happens. So if a person lives an unrepentant life, scorns Christ and refuses to believe the Gospel according to Luther this is because God wills and fore-ordains it so. Luther says God wills and fore-ordains everything that happens and to fore-ordain is to predestine. So if a person is damned that's because God has willed it and predestined it to happen.

Read again what you posted. "God fore-knows and fore-ordains". He certainly fore-knows who will be condemned because they will not come to faith. But that does not mean that God fore-ordains anyone to Hell. He has fore-ordained some to salvation. Scripture clearly teaches that. Luther does not say it the way you think he does.

 

[DaRev]

Definitely, in fact not just the "they" but all of humanity is destined for hell because of original sin. Doesn't mean God willed them to go to hell.

Amen. And this is what Luther is saying as well. But he simply will not see it correctly.

 

[Edward65]

The Scriptures do not teach predestination to hell. You have been shown this repeatedly. You're the one who does not understand it correctly.

Read again what you posted. "God fore-knows and fore-ordains". He certainly fore-knows who will be condemned because they will not come to faith. But that does not mean that God fore-ordains anyone to Hell. He has fore-ordained some to salvation. Scripture clearly teaches that. Luther does not say it the way you think he does.

You haven't shown me in any way that the Scriptures don't teach predestination to hell. All I've heard from you is your opinion that the Scriptures don't teach predestination to Hell. You've simply stated that the Scriptures don't teach this. But since when is a simple statement of opinion that something is true equivalent to a demonstration that something is true? I don't accept your opinion.

With respect to your second point that Luther doesn't say that God fore-ordains anyone to hell. I completely disagree. He says:

"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..."

He says everything that happens happens because God has fore-known it, fore-ordained it, and willed it to happen. So if a person is damned that's because God has foreknown, fore-ordained and willed it to happen.

Then you comment that God fore-knows who will be condemned but doesn't fore-ordain it. But that's not what Luther holds as I've just shown. You're just trying to read your own erroneous theology on predestination into Luther's words seemingly unable to see that Luther has just contradicted you.

 

[Edward65]

Here's further proof that Luther held that God damns people purely because He wills to leave them unregenerated.​

"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)​

Note what Luther says in the last sentence above that people in an attempt to excuse the goodness of God try to accuse the will of man for them being damned, which is precisely what the Formula of Concord does in rejecting predestination to hell and insisting that the only cause of a person's damnation is their rejection of grace and that God did not fore-ordain them to reject it.

 

[Edward65]

Here's Luther's answer to those who argue that passages like: "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?" (Ezekiel 18:23 ESV) which show that God desires to save everyone also necessarily imply that therefore God doesnt predestine anyone to hell.

This is what Luther says in part in response to Erasmus on this:

“BUT, why it is, that some are touched by the law and some are not touched, why some receive the offered grace and some despise it, that is another question which is not here treated on by Ezekiel; because, he is speaking of THE PREACHED AND OFFERED MERCY OF GOD, not of that SECRET AND TO BE FEARED WILL OF GOD, who, according to His own counsel, ordains whom, and such as He will, to be receivers and partakers of the preached and offered mercy: which WILL, is not to be curiously inquired into, but to be adored with reverence as the most profound SECRET of the divine Majesty, which He reserves unto Himself hidden from us”

“Wherefore, we say, that the righteous God does not 'deplore that death of His people which He Himself works in them;' but He deplores that death which He finds in His people, and which He desires to remove from them. For GOD PREACHED desires this:—that, our sin and death being taken away, we might be saved; "He sent His word and healed them." (Psalm cvii. 20.) But GOD HIDDEN IN MAJESTY neither deplores, nor takes away death, but works life and death and all things: nor has He, in this Character, defined Himself in His Word, but has reserved unto Himself, a free power over all things.

But the Diatribe is deceived by its own ignorance, in not making a distinction between GOD PREACHED and GOD HIDDEN: that is, between the word of God and God Himself. God does many things which He does not make known unto us in His word: He also wills many things which He does not in His word make known unto us that He wills. Thus, He does not 'will the death of a sinner,' that is, in His word; but He wills it by that will inscrutable.” (from Section 64, The Bondage of the Will, Cole)

So according to Luther one must make a distinction between God as He is preached in the Word as desiring to save everyone, and God hidden in Majesty who doesn't deplore the death of sinners because He works that very death in them. He works life and death and all things or in other words He foreknows wills and predestines everything that happens including who is saved and who is damned.

 

[DaRev]

You haven't shown me in any way that the Scriptures don't teach predestination to hell. All I've heard from you is your opinion that the Scriptures don't teach predestination to Hell. You've simply stated that the Scriptures don't teach this. But since when is a simple statement of opinion that something is true equivalent to a demonstration that something is true? I don't accept your opinion.

It's not my "opinion" and you have indeed been shown it (unless you simply aren't paying any attention to what people are posting).

Look at the video again in post 31. Rev Fisk explains what the Scriptures teach on the matter quite succinctly. I don't need to add anything to it, unless you need it spelled out in simpler language.

Regardless of how badly you personally want them to, the Scriptures simply do not teach or support predestination to hell. You have misinterpreted Scripture and completely misunderstood Luther. In any case, you cannot be considered a Lutheran by the simple reason that you reject Lutheran teaching and support and promote unScriptural Reformed heterodoxy.

 

[DaRev]

Then there's this article which details Luther's teaching and belief on the subject from his own writings:

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

 

[DaRev]

Also, in 1539, almost 15 years after writing On the Bondage of the Will, Luther wrote regarding this matter, "This difference is to be ascribed to man, not to the will of God, for the promises of God are universal. He will have all men to be saved. Hence it is not the fault of our Lord God, who promises salvation, but it is our fault if we are unwilling to believe it" [Weimar Edition, Table Talk 4, Luther's Works 33, page 11, n. 17].