.
Posted on 11/02/2006 7:17:13 AM PST by xzins
Actually, they are not that far apart, and the only real point of departure (at least in the context of the present conversation) is on the issue of reprobation, not election. They disagree on one aspect of predestination, not the doctrine of predestination as a whole. Lutherans simply stop short on the philosophical and logical examination of the premises to form certain conclusions. They simply choose to embrace a mystery rather than attempt to better understand it. Though I disagree with the conclusion I cannot fault them for the notion.
The attempt here to paint Luther as so minimizing the doctrine of predestination as to make it obscure and peripheral is not reflected in Luther's works:
In this, moreover, I give you great praise, and proclaim it—you alone in pre-eminent distinction from all others, have entered upon the thing itself; that is, the grand turning point of the cause; and, have not wearied me with those irrelevant points about popery, purgatory, indulgences, and other like baubles, rather than causes, with which all have hitherto tried to hunt me down,—though in vain! You, and you alone saw, what was the grand hinge upon which the whole turned, and therefore you attacked the vital part at once; for which, from my heart, I thank you." - The Bondage of the Will (conclusion)As far as Luther's statements that we should not search the hidden things of God, this is nothing new. He said it throughout his life, and Calvin was in full agreement with him. It is certainly not indicative of any change of mind with respect to predestination.
Thanks for the ping!
.
Apparently a WCF style insistence on the manner of predestination is not a requirement under the Augsberg confession. There is a brief condemnation of pure Pelagianism (i.e., that men are capable of good works without the intervention of the Holy Spirit) but there is clearly nothing which demands adherence to a position on predestination that would rule out that predestination is in any way based upon or in accordance with God's foreknowledge.
The 17th Century Confessions began making that a specific requirement, but apparently it was not a requirement of the Augsberg confession nor of the Belgic Confession. IOW it did not appear to be at the top of the list of priorities for the early Reformation Churches.
Of course, it's easy to say the Belgic Confession was unconcerned with it when you redefine its wording to accomodate a divergent view.
This isn't a caucus thread, and I'm not about to go redacting every historical reference with Religion Forum Soap every time I make a citation.
Noooo...Luther would never use the word "sovereignty" in his works... </sarcasm>
And again, Calvin also only used the word "trinity" a scant seven times in his entire Institutes. Shall we infer therefore that Calvin cared little about the doctrine of the Trinity?
He used the word in the Title. He did not use it once in the body of the essay.
Any other references?
Exactly. He devoted significant portion of this work (sections 9 - 27) to the subject of the sovereignty of God, but because he only used the actual word in the title of that portion and not in all the text he puts under that heading, you are trying to use that as proof that he gave little emphasis to God's sovereignty? That's just plain absurd!
Please tell me your understanding and comprehension of the theology and viewpoints of the men whose namesake you're so desparate to claim for yourself extends beyond searches for frequency of terms.
I can see why you say that, but I disagree with your conclusion. He isn't really saying that. (He's not infallible, by the way.) He says that we can know and should take comfort in knowing we are predestined.
If you listen to Him, are baptized in His name, and love His Word, then you are surely predestined and are certain of your salvation. But if you revile or despise the Word, then you are damned; for he who does not believe is condemned (Mark 16:16). You must kill the other thoughts and the ways of reason or of the flesh, for God detests them. The only thing you have to do is to receive the Son, so that Christ is welcome in your heart in His birth, miracles, and cross. For here is the book of life in which you have been written. And this is the only and the most efficacious remedy for that horrible disease because of which human beings in their investigation of God want to proceed in a speculative manner and eventually rush into despair or contempt. If you want to escape despair, hatred, and blasphemy of God, give up your speculation about the hidden God, and cease to strive in vain to see the face of God.
He is saying that God has revealed things about predestination that we can know and should take comfort in. He has not revealed to us, however, his motives or methods. We cannot know that. To presume that His motives are contrary to His revealed nature -- His holiness -- is the thing Luther seems outraged with. That goes back to his premise for this entire piece -- some were saying that predestination (in this context perhaps it should read security of the believer rather than predestination as he seems to be referring to how you can know you are predestined) had nothing to do with whether you do good or evil. I might categorize this more as an issue of Lordship salvation than predestination vs. free will.
We know that God predestines us not according to our deeds. But to somehow make that a complete picture of it, to completely remove any issue of sin and righteousness, is to malign God and especially Christ. His purpose is always holy. He cares deeply about sin. The cross is the purest picture of God's full nature -- his love, holiness, justice.... To categorize predestination in such a way as to say good and evil are irrelevant is to deny the very nature of God. We know some things and not others. One of the things we do know is that God predestined. How and why is not for us to know. We can recognized the predestined by their fruits. So the idea that belief and predestination can be ascribed to a wretched, unrepentant person is blasphemy against God.
That's how it reads to me.
You must kill the other thoughts and the ways of reason or of the flesh, for God detests them. The only thing you have to do is to receive the Son, so that Christ is welcome in your heart in His birth, miracles, and cross.
You must kill the other thoughts and the ways of reason or of the flesh, for God detests them. The only thing you have to do is to receive the Son, so that Christ is welcome in your heart in His birth, miracles, and cross.
He is not suggesting empty belief is sufficient to confirm predestination. Just the opposite. See the above part I emphasized for that.
But he did emphasize that you must do something. He didn't say, just wait and see if your priorities magically change overnight. Some day you will simply go to bed a wicked reprobate and then wake up one morning and find that you are a new creation in Christ.
No, you must kill the other thought, you must receive Christ. You must believe. You.... Must.....
Who will do so and who will not, and why?
That, my friend, is none of our business.
Scripture answers the question pretty well.
Some people "believe" in the Lord Jesus in about the same way a parent "believes" in Santa. He wants to be known for belief in front of certain audiences. But his actions easily reveal no real belief. Maybe he used to believe. But even then (as a child) he believed only when he wanted something.
I agree, P-Marlowe. However, who did so is our business. They are part of the body of Christ and we are to love them and help bear their burdens, teach them, discipline them, etc. Also we have to distinguish between true believers and wolves in sheeps clothing. There are many reasons why we need to learn to discern true from false faith. Not the least of which is to have the assurance of our own salvation.
I have no argument with you there.
Too long. Was this about Lex Luther?
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.