Posted on 07/28/2003 1:24:07 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
Proverbs 9:1 Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars:
Ooops, looks like they're a couple of pillars short.
Come to think of it, Islam is built upon five pillars.
The five books of the Torah and these two verses.
Numbers 10
35So it was, whenever the ark set out, that Moses said:
"Rise up, O LORD!
Let Your enemies be scattered,
And let those who hate You flee before You."
36And when it rested, he said:
"Return, O LORD,
To the many thousands of Israel."
The Resurrection and the Return
http://www.outreachisrael.net/torahscope/2002-2003/behaalotecha.html
Please cite some evidence of this, especially from the man himself. Like this one: "I care nothing about the disputation concerning predestination" (citation in link below).
I've already read one analysis by a Brian Mattson, and his analysis of Lewis Spitz (Spitz wrote, "[Luther] left the question of why some were lost open," to which Mattson calls "unfortunate") makes the case against himself. Judging one's words across milieus often leads to big misunderstandings. I think this is certainly the case with respect to Mattson, Allister McGrath, et al. Read all of Luther's works and you will not find that he held to double predestination at all; read a few items from his prolific writings and you come away with a rather small picture -- and quite likely an incomplete one -- of what he believed.
Here's a quick source from me.
Now, however, many Lutherans deny Reformational predestination all together.
Many people in one particular church body call themselves Lutheran while denying the Lutheran confessions, sola fide, sola gratia, inerrancy, the Trinity, and other doctrines of the Christian faith. My synod (denomination) remains true and faithful to her calling, though not without occasional turmoil. The large synod to which I referred consists of a number of those who voluntarily left mine in the 1970s when our synod affirmed traditional, historic Christianity.
This quote would support my contention that "official" Lutheran theology does not believe that men are predestined to condemnation -actively or passively.
This quote mentions Luther's position only with respect to the unregenerate. Furthermore, it doesn't state ~his~ position at all, only that ~he~ is willing to leave it an open issue. One can hold a specific position and at the same time one can hold that there is room for dissenting views on that opinion.
On the issue of the evidence of Luther's double predestination, see Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination by Brian Mattson
Regards,
Jean
I missed your mention of Mattson's article.
Could you explain your statement "I've already read one analysis by a Brian Mattson, and his analysis of Lewis Spitz (Spitz wrote, "[Luther] left the question of why some were lost open," to which Mattson calls "unfortunate") makes the case against himself" a little more clearly?
I will also note that Mattson quotes Spitz as saying:
St. Augustine was a high double predestinarian. . . .Luther found assurance in the belief that the faith of the elect was determined by God's eternal counsel and did not depend upon man's own weak will, but, except for some polemical passages in his treatise On the Bondage of the Will in which he overstated his own case, he left the question of why some were lost open. . . ."[
At the very least, Spitz acknowledges that Luther held to at least the "Single Predestination" view. The Single Predestination view, in reminder, believes that God foreordains/predestines the "elect" to salvation apart from their "wills". In other words, "Single Predestinarians" are not remotely "Arminian", they do not believe that "election" is based on "foreseen faith". They readily acknowledge God unconditionally elected certain men to salvation. This is precisely the "official" Lutheran version I mentioned in my #8.
Thanks,
Jean
Yes, and this is why I'm tolerant to my reformed brethren. :-)
Let me briefly expand my remarks about the Mattson piece. I'm not sure I agree that Luther adopted all of Augustine's views so reflexively (and other scholars, as Mattson notes, don't either); I don't want to get into an "Augustine says, Luther says" discussion. Spitz was correct in noting that Luther leaves open the question of the lost since Luther avoids the subject throughout his writing, urging the Christian to look to Christ and the cross for a sign of their eternal security. As Matzat notes in his article, the doctrine of predestination was not central to Luther and he wrote about the mystery between divine election and universal grace, "We are not allowed to investigate, and even though you were to investigate much, yet you would never find out."
I'll consider your posts fully over the next couple days. I also want time to run over to the seminary library and check over a few things before responding more fully. Thanks for replying.
"However, that is not the end of the verse. Mr. Lockman, like most Calvinists, stopped in the middle of the verse. The entire verse reads..."
"Again, Mr. Lockman, like most Calvinists, stops in the middle of the verse. The entire verse reads..."
"The Bible teaches that God would have all men to be saved. 2 Pet. 3:9 says that He is 'not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.'"
Unlike most Calvinists, Mr. Hossack STARTS in the middle of the verse. The entire verse reads:
"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."
Certainly if you choose to ignore the context of the verse the first part means little, but seeing as the author's foundational premise for that section is that there is no sovereign election I think the first part of the verse has considerable bearing.
The rest of the article appears to be of the same consistency...sludge.
I wanted fuller explanation of how you think Mattson "makes the case against himself".
To quote you one more time:
I've already read one analysis by a Brian Mattson, and his analysis of Lewis Spitz (Spitz wrote, "[Luther] left the question of why some were lost open," to which Mattson calls "unfortunate") makes the case against himself.
First, you have incorrectly identified what Matsson "calls 'unfortunate'". Mattson does not question Spitz statement "[Luther] left the question of why some were lost open".
What Mattson calls "unfortunate" is "That Spitz makes this claim apart from any analysis of Luther". That is a different thing all-together.
Furthermore, you didn't post the quote in its entirety:
St. Augustine was a high double predestinarian. . . .Luther found assurance in the belief that the faith of the elect was determined by God's eternal counsel and did not depend upon man's own weak will, but, except for some polemical passages in his treatise On the Bondage of the Will in which he overstated his own case, he left the question of why some were lost open. . . ."[30]
Mattson then goes on to comment on Spitz's comment that "[Luther] overstated his own case":
That Spitz makes this claim apart from any analysis of Luther is unfortunate, considering his good reputation as an historian. He here seems embarrassed for Luther by claiming he "overstated his own case." While this is quite an admission regarding the contents of Luther's work, Spitz's editorialism is simply untrue. Did the great author himself believe he had "overstated" his case? On the contrary, in 1537, writing to Wolfgang Capito concerning a plan to publish his complete works, he states, "I would rather see them [his books] devoured. For I acknowledge none of them to be really a book of mine, except for perhaps the one On the Bound Will, and the Catechism."[29] It is clear that twelve years following its publication, Luther claimed the book as his most important, hardly as an overstatement of his case for predestination. Furthermore, it would seem as though Luther held his "overstated" double predestinarian views not simply at the time of, or after, the publication of The Bondage of the Will, but years prior as well. In his Commentary on Romans, written around 1515, he wrote,Rather than Mattson "mak[ing] the case against himself", I see that it is Spitz who makes the case against himself with the admission that Luther "overstated his own case" on Predestination in Luther's On the Bondage of the Will.
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.[30]
All this is really mute, afterall, because either Luther held to the "Single Predestination" view with Concord or he held to the "Double Predestination" view with Calvin.
My original point in response to your Post #3 was to comment on the point that I thought you were making regarding your (Lutheran's) disagreement with Calvinists on "Unconditional Election".
In reality, whether of the "Single Predestination" position or of the "Double Predestination", the Lutherans agree with the Calvinists on "Unconditional Election". "Unconditional Election" is not a statement on Reprobation (that the unregerate were predestined to condemnation), but is a statement on how the Elect come to Salvation. (Remember, Mattson is discussing whether Luther was a Single Predestinarian or a Double Predestinarian, not whether or not Luther believed in "Unconditional Election" -that Luther believed in Unconditional Election seems to be a given by both Mattson and Spitz)
Your statements left that unclear and they could have been interpreted that Lutherans deny that by the fall of our first parents man was so corrupted that in divine things pertaining to our conversion and the salvation of our souls he is by nature blind, that, when the Word of God is preached, he neither does nor can understand it, but regards it as foolishness; also, that he does not of himself draw nigh to God, but is and remains an enemy of God, until he is converted, becomes a believer [is endowed with faith], is regenerated and renewed, by the power of the Holy Ghost through the Word when preached and heard, out of pure grace, without any cooperation of his own.
Jean
St. Augustine was a high double predestinarian. . . .Luther found assurance in the belief that the faith of the elect was determined by God's eternal counsel and did not depend upon man's own weak will, but, except for some polemical passages in his treatise On the Bondage of the Will in which he overstated his own case, he left the question of why some were lost open. . . ."[30]
Should be footnoted with [28] rather than [30] and should then read:
St. Augustine was a high double predestinarian. . . .Luther found assurance in the belief that the faith of the elect was determined by God's eternal counsel and did not depend upon man's own weak will, but, except for some polemical passages in his treatise On the Bondage of the Will in which he overstated his own case, he left the question of why some were lost open. . . ."[28]
Jean
Amazing!
Calvin himself thought the 'all' men meant all men as does Cunstance!
This is from the Calvinist Lightner,
The question is " is it scripturally and logically sound always to retrict every usage of the words 'all' 'whosoever' and 'world, when they occur in the salvation context? This is precisly what the limited redemptionist always does and must do. There may not be a single exception if the limited viewpoint is to stand. The basis for this restriction rests upon the fact that in some instances, which are unrelated to the work of Christ on the Cross, the words are thus restricted. But is this a valid reason for always restricting them in salvation passages? We say no, and we say it emphatically...(Robert P. Lightner, The Death that Christ Died, p.69)
Well, the root problem of Calvinism is Unconditional election to salvation, so even if you are one pointer 'U' that would be one to many! :>)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.