10andBOUNCE said:

---

I think what I was mainly getting at is that everyone has to deal with the question of if God is not limited in his sovereignty, why not save everyone? Either God chooses from before the world began or He saw our choices from before the world began. Either way, God is passing over some (Calvinist) or watching man perish while knowing they will not choose him (and not intervening). If God desires all to be saved, which Scripture affirms, God is obviously not getting what he desires. Lots of hard questions that none of us will ultimately know the complete answer to.

---

It's not really that complicated.

Imperfect analogy: You and your wife are planning to get pregnant. Somehow, someway you have the foreknowledge that this child is going to grow up and hate you. He is going to choose to leave your family. You will love him, call him, ask him to come back, but he is going to choose to refuse you. You are left with two options:

1) Choose not to have the child, so that he will never be estranged.
2) Choose to have the child and love him as much as you can anyway.

I would suggest 2 is the more loving option. Number 1 is done out of a protection of your own desires at the expense of the potential child's desires. Number 2 let's the child do what they wish, and love them anyway. In number 2, you get to love those that hate you, as Jesus teaches.

Applying this to God's perfect love and Creation:
God knows everyone who will ever be born and loves them. He wants each of them to love Him freely. Not everyone is going to choose to love Him. No matter how many times He calls them, they will refuse. So God, being creator, has three options:

1) Choose to not create all of those He knows are going to reject Him
2) reprogram these people so that He can ensure that they will love Him.
3) Let these people live, hate Him, but maintain love for them anyway. He will offer intervention, but only so much as it doesn't remove their free will

I would suggest both 1 and 2 would be solely done at the selfish desires of God. To do either means that He does not actually want our free love in return. He wants obedience at all costs. Only in number 3 do we get to see perfect love in action. Perfect love includes loving those that hate you, as Jesus teaches. Anything less than allowing people to choose not to be with Him is a reality in which true love can't exist.

The only presupposition you have to accept is that God can be fully sovereign, and in that sovereignty, let us make our own choices to accept or reject Him. And no, our choice to accept Him is not completely of our own power. It is Him calling us to follow Him and us agreeing. We can't follow Him if He doesn't first call.

ETA from your other post. Allowing people to reject His work on the cross does not necessitate that He trades some of His sovereignty for it. The choice we make is because He gave it to us in the first place, as He gave it to Adam and Eve

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I think what I was mainly getting at is that everyone has to deal with the question of if God is not limited in his sovereignty, why not save everyone? Either God chooses from before the world began or He saw our choices from before the world began. Either way, God is passing over some (Calvinist) or watching man perish while knowing they will not choose him (and not intervening). If God desires all to be saved, which Scripture affirms, God is obviously not getting what he desires. Lots of hard questions that none of us will ultimately know the complete answer to.

---

ETA from your other post. Allowing people to reject His work on the cross does not necessitate that He trades some of His sovereignty for it. The choice we make is because He gave it to us in the first place, as He gave it to Adam and Eve

---

Appreciate your feedback as always.

I would pause at this statement from above I grabbed from your response; Adam and Eve had the choice to be obedient AFTER they were given the "law of the land" or the Covenant of Works. We are talking about a salvific choice to trust in Christ as our Savior. So from my perspective, this was already done for Adam and Eve prior to their grave error - they were in fellowship with God from the very beginning. They didn't have any say in how or when they got there. They just were.

We likewise have the choice in our obedience to Christ after we are born again in the ways he has set out for us. I don't deny this free human choice.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

If he was truly a double predestination Calvinist, then the logical conclusion of his beliefs mean that there is no room for us to do anything willingly.

---

Obviously they would disagree. The quote by Perkins and Augustine show we believe willingly.

---

This is what I don't understand. They say they believe in double predestination yet then seem to back down when pressed about it.

How can a person choose if they are predestined to the choice they make? Maybe it is me.

---

If you are defining free will as "completely unrestrained" (where second causation is removed and we are all first causes like God), then yes, nobody has free will. But nobody in history defines it that way except for modern libertarians. It has always been a "rational appetite." In which case, in the words of the Westminster confession of faith on this topic: nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

---

I get that. What I do not get is that the Calvinist/Reformed say that and then say they believe in double predestination where a person has no control over whether they are saved or damned. It is all pre determined by God. Which means Hid creates beings He pre ordains to ECT hell.
Maybe it is me but it seems completely illogical.

---

Would you still not have to answer this question?

The early church fathers believed foreknowledge to be that of God knowing what we choose, before the foundation of the world.

So even before the world was put into motion, he knows there would be billions of people who wouldn't choose Him. But he still created/allowed them to be created, knowing they would perish. For what purpose? Is that loving?

So the limited sovereignty idea now is presented in that while God desires all to be saved, he has no power over the outcome. Christ essentially bore the full wrath of God on the cross in vain, since some reject it. Did he trade in some of his sovereignty for human free will?

---

According to Reformed doctrine, not just to perish, but to suffer ECT hell. So you believe God creates human beings who are damned to eternal torment with no recourse?
And Scripture clearly states God desires all men to be saved. And that God is love. And just. And merciful. And our father.
Is it just to create human beings to be tortured forever? What would you think of an earthly father who did that?
And I think you know I am not a penal substitutionary atonement guy.
I do not believe it is limiting God's sovereignty by giving us free will to accept or reject Him. And we differ wildly there.
Maybe it is the way I am wired but double predestination is completely illogical and frankly horrifying to me. Hard to worship a God who creates someone I love who has no chance for salvation.
Happy 4th!

And after re reading your post, I agree with you that God's sovereignty trumps man's free will. Couple that with He desires all to be saved and you get to where I am, an Ultimate reconciliation guy.

---

What you're saying here is logically incongruent. Universalism was brought into the theological sphere by two reformed pastors, Friedrich Schleiermacher and Karl Barth. They used the same monergistic logic that they were taught in their Calvinistic schools of thought to arrive at their conclusion that God saves everyone. No one really has a choice, because if they have a choice, God isn't sovereign. So yes, true free will, from a Universalist perspective, would limit God's sovereignty.

Every one of these issues arises from the unwillingness to acknowledge that free choice does not limit God's sovereignty if God is the one allowing for the choice to begin with. If I let my kids pick the movie, that doesn't mean the kids trump my authority when they pick a movie I don't like. I allowed them to pick, so their pick is fully under my power, even if I don't like the result. And for me to go back on my word by vetoing their pick means I never really allowed them true freedom to pick in the first place.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I think what I was mainly getting at is that everyone has to deal with the question of if God is not limited in his sovereignty, why not save everyone? Either God chooses from before the world began or He saw our choices from before the world began. Either way, God is passing over some (Calvinist) or watching man perish while knowing they will not choose him (and not intervening). If God desires all to be saved, which Scripture affirms, God is obviously not getting what he desires. Lots of hard questions that none of us will ultimately know the complete answer to.

---

ETA from your other post. Allowing people to reject His work on the cross does not necessitate that He trades some of His sovereignty for it. The choice we make is because He gave it to us in the first place, as He gave it to Adam and Eve

---

Appreciate your feedback as always.

I would pause at this statement from above I grabbed from your response; Adam and Eve had the choice to be obedient AFTER they were given the "law of the land" or the Covenant of Works. We are talking about a salvific choice to trust in Christ as our Savior. So from my perspective, this was already done for Adam and Eve prior to their grave error - they were in fellowship with God from the very beginning. They didn't have any say in how or when they got there. They just were.

We likewise have the choice in our obedience to Christ after we are born again in the ways he has set out for us. I don't deny this free human choice.

---

So sure, Adam and Eve had no say in how they got in fellowship with God, but they clearly had the choice to remain or leave. If we are predestined solely by the will of God to end up in one camp or the other, we don't actually have a choice to remain of leave. It's an illusion of choice. Any attempt to try and retain free will is forced to diminish what free will means. What you call "free human choice" is meaningless if what we are ultimately going to choose was determined for us without our consent.

This is exactly what the reformers did. And all of it stems from this fear that if we have any amount of say in whether or not we are saved, we have diminished God's sovereignty. This concern isn't necessary. All we have to do is say that he source of our ability to freely choose is God, so any of our free choices do not counteract His sovereignty.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

You read my post, the article I linked, digested it, and came up with that reply all in 5 minutes? You say "I get that", but I'm thinking you don't understand their position because you don't want to understand. Your post reflects that since you just repeated your earlier post.

---

I just read your post and responded. Sorry, will read the link.

---

Just google or research first and second causation and see if you agree with it. Because I don't know any denomination who doesn't besides modern evangelicalism or open theists.

---

Thanks and I agree totally with first and second causes. And I read the link you supplied.

It comes down to this. Is God capable of doing evil? I say Biblically the answer to that is no.

Is it good or evil to create a human being knowing it is bound for eternal torment with no recourse?

I say it is evil and thus is impossible of God and His character. And His character is the main thing here. He is always good.

A Calvinist would have to say it is not evil for God to pre ordain people He created to ECT hell. And that is illogical to me as God can not do evil.

I hope that makes sense,And I do not believe my view takes away from the sovereignty of God. A Calvinist would disagree.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

If he was truly a double predestination Calvinist, then the logical conclusion of his beliefs mean that there is no room for us to do anything willingly.

---

Obviously they would disagree. The quote by Perkins and Augustine show we believe willingly.

---

Meant to respond to you on this: Sure, Perkins and Augstine would say that we willingly believe. The issue is that if we were predestined to believe through the sovereign act of God, then we weren't actually willing. He did the willing for us (as many passages from the reformers would suggest)

On the other hand, if we are able to willingly believe, then we aren't predestined for Heaven by the sovereign act of God alone. He gives us all the grace necessary to choose Him, and without it we could do nothing. But the ultimate choice to follow or reject means we are capable of influencing our salvation in both directions, which directly cuts away at it being the fully monergistic act that Luther and Calvin suggest.

So Luther and Calvin are either wrong in that salvation is truly monergistic, or they are wrong that we are freely choosing God. There is no logical way to have both, which is why the appeal to mystery is required. And not mystery in the sense of "how do we wrap our heads around the trinity" but mystery in the sense that God wants everyone to be saved, God does all the saving, but not everyone is saved. It's not a mystery. It's a logical dead end. Which is why the Council of Orange used some Augustinian writing to condemn Pelagianism, but did not accept his leanings towards double predestination.

This is agreed upon in the article you cited with this portion:

Quote:

---

A leading feature in the teaching of the Reformers of the sixteenth century, especially in the case of Luther and Calvin, was the denial of free will. Picking out from the Scriptures, and particularly from St. Paul, the texts which emphasized the importance and efficacy of grace, the all-ruling providence of God, His decrees of election or predestination, and the feebleness of man, they drew the conclusion that the human will, instead of being master of its own acts, is rigidly predetermined in all its choices throughout life. As a consequence, man is predestined before his birth to eternal punishment or reward in such fashion that he never can have had any real free-power over his own fate. In his controversy with Erasmus, who defended free will, Luther frankly stated that free will is a fiction, a name which covers no reality, for it is not in man's power to think well or ill, since all events occur by necessity. In reply to Erasmus's "De Libero Arbitrio", he published his own work, "De Servo Arbitrio", glorying in emphasizing man's helplessness and slavery. The predestination of all future human acts by God is so interpreted as to shut out any possibility of freedom. An inflexible internal necessity turns man's will whithersoever God preordains. With Calvin, God's preordination is, if possible, even more fatal to free will. Man can perform no sort of good act unless necessitated to it by God's grace which it is impossible for him to resist. It is absurd to speak of the human will "co-operating" with God's grace, for this would imply that man could resist the grace of God.

---

Quote:

---

Which is why the Council of Orange used some Augustinian writing to condemn Pelagianism, but did not accept his leanings towards double predestination.

---

Have you read the canons of the Council of Orange?

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.

CONCLUSION. And thus according to the passages of holy scripture quoted above or the interpretations of the ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as follows. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. We therefore believe that the glorious faith which was given to Abel the righteous, and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and to all the saints of old, and which the Apostle Paul commends in extolling them (Heb. 11), was not given through natural goodness as it was before to Adam, but was bestowed by the grace of God.

We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him.

Following up just real quickly on why these are not good proof texts.

Quote:

---

Augsburg Confessions:

That we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear the Gospel; to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ's sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ's sak

---

This is addressing the Office of the Preacher/Priest.

The point here, which Rome agreed to in the Confutation is that it is not the preacher speaking, giving logic or sweet words that converts believers. It is God's Word spoken, the Sacraments given, and the Holy Spirit that works faith into the hearer.

I would assume you would agree with that?

Quote:

---

Now, if in St. Paul and in other regenerate men the natural or carnal free will even after regeneration strives against God's Law, it will be much more obstinate and hostile to God's Law and will before regeneration. Hence it is manifest (as it is further declared in the article concerning original sin, to which we now refer for the sake of brevity) that the free will from its own natural powers, not only cannot work or concur in working anything for its own conversion, righteousness, and salvation, nor follow [obey], believe, or assent to the Holy Ghost, who through the Gospel offers him grace and salvation, but from its innate, wicked, rebellious nature it resists God and His will hostilely, unless it be enlightened and controlled by God's Spirit.

---

To not agree with this is to be a Pelagian.

This is saying that because of Original Sin, we are born hostile to God's Law. That's just the definition.

They then continue that no manner of their own will, that is to say with a will that is outside of God that can assent prior to God.

Or said simply, this is a rejection of semi-Pelagianism. We know this because of this from earlier in this article:

"For the one side has held and taught that, although man cannot from his own powers fulfil God's command, or truly trust in God, fear and love Him, without the grace of the Holy Ghost, nevertheless he still has so much of natural powers left before regeneration as to be able to prepare himself to a certain extent for grace, and to assent, although feebly; however, that he cannot accomplish anything by them, but must succumb in the struggle, if the grace of the Holy Ghost is not added thereto."

That is to say that man is capable of taking the first step towards salvation, which is roundly rejected as semi-Pelagianism.

Edit: fixed some code error.

This is why I pointed to the cherry picking. In context, what you've provided shouldn't even be controversial.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

Which is why the Council of Orange used some Augustinian writing to condemn Pelagianism, but did not accept his leanings towards double predestination.

---

Have you read the canons of the Council of Orange?

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.

CONCLUSION. And thus according to the passages of holy scripture quoted above or the interpretations of the ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as follows. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. We therefore believe that the glorious faith which was given to Abel the righteous, and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and to all the saints of old, and which the Apostle Paul commends in extolling them (Heb. 11), was not given through natural goodness as it was before to Adam, but was bestowed by the grace of God.

We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him.

---

You left out this part of the conclusion:

Quote:

---

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him.

---

None of those canons bother me when interpreted with the council's own conclusion. It is clear they believe our salvation after initial justification is dependent upon our cooperation with God. The entire canon is a great read for anyone else who wants to read it.

https://www.crivoice.org/creedorange.html

Fair enough they may be taken out of context. I'll look more into it. I quoted Luther Himself, so I'd like to hear your perspective on that quote.

I have other quotes too, but rather that quote mine, maybe you'd like to respond to the conceptual line of questioning I posted earlier, when you have time.

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

If he was truly a double predestination Calvinist, then the logical conclusion of his beliefs mean that there is no room for us to do anything willingly.

---

Obviously they would disagree. The quote by Perkins and Augustine show we believe willingly.

---

This is what I don't understand. They say they believe in double predestination yet then seem to back down when pressed about it.

How can a person choose if they are predestined to the choice they make? Maybe it is me.

---

If you are defining free will as "completely unrestrained" (where second causation is removed and we are all first causes like God), then yes, nobody has free will. But nobody in history defines it that way except for modern libertarians. It has always been a "rational appetite." In which case, in the words of the Westminster confession of faith on this topic: nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

---

I get that. What I do not get is that the Calvinist/Reformed say that and then say they believe in double predestination where a person has no control over whether they are saved or damned. It is all pre determined by God. Which means Hid creates beings He pre ordains to ECT hell.
Maybe it is me but it seems completely illogical.

---

Would you still not have to answer this question?

The early church fathers believed foreknowledge to be that of God knowing what we choose, before the foundation of the world.

So even before the world was put into motion, he knows there would be billions of people who wouldn't choose Him. But he still created/allowed them to be created, knowing they would perish. For what purpose? Is that loving?

So the limited sovereignty idea now is presented in that while God desires all to be saved, he has no power over the outcome. Christ essentially bore the full wrath of God on the cross in vain, since some reject it. Did he trade in some of his sovereignty for human free will?

---

According to Reformed doctrine, not just to perish, but to suffer ECT hell. So you believe God creates human beings who are damned to eternal torment with no recourse?
And Scripture clearly states God desires all men to be saved. And that God is love. And just. And merciful. And our father.
Is it just to create human beings to be tortured forever? What would you think of an earthly father who did that?
And I think you know I am not a penal substitutionary atonement guy.
I do not believe it is limiting God's sovereignty by giving us free will to accept or reject Him. And we differ wildly there.
Maybe it is the way I am wired but double predestination is completely illogical and frankly horrifying to me. Hard to worship a God who creates someone I love who has no chance for salvation.
Happy 4th!

And after re reading your post, I agree with you that God's sovereignty trumps man's free will. Couple that with He desires all to be saved and you get to where I am, an Ultimate reconciliation guy.

---

What you're saying here is logically incongruent. Universalism was brought into the theological sphere by two reformed pastors, Friedrich Schleiermacher and Karl Barth. They used the same monergistic logic that they were taught in their Calvinistic schools of thought to arrive at their conclusion that God saves everyone. No one really has a choice, because if they have a choice, God isn't sovereign. So yes, true free will, from a Universalist perspective, would limit God's sovereignty.

Every one of these issues arises from the unwillingness to acknowledge that free choice does not limit God's sovereignty if God is the one allowing for the choice to begin with. If I let my kids pick the movie, that doesn't mean the kids trump my authority when they pick a movie I don't like. I allowed them to pick, so their pick is fully under my power, even if I don't like the result. And for me to go back on my word by vetoing their pick means I never really allowed them true freedom to pick in the first place.

---

Yeah, I can see how I was incongruent. I believe in free will. God desires all men to be saved.
So does God given free will trump God's desire to save all? I honestly do not know.

Quote:

---

None of those canons bother me when interpreted with the council's own conclusion. It is clear they believe our salvation after initial justification is dependent upon our cooperation with God. The entire canon is a great read for anyone else who wants to read it.

---

The Reformers come to the same conclusion given the canons. But you say "logic" doesn't allow it.

Did they? Calvin clearly rejects the following:

Quote:

---

We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema

---

And when we read Luther's personal writings on free well, he would not seem to agreed with this:

Quote:

---

all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul

---

and

Quote:

---

after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him.

---

Both of these Luther disagrees with when He said God does both the willing and the doing of any good work. Luther truly did not believe we had any role to play in our salvation. It was solely monergistic. He said it's our fault that we're damned though, which is why it's illogical. Calvin was at least logical in his conclusions.

If someone had never heard of Calvinism or Free Will, and they decided to read all the scriptures - without consulting any outside sources for enlightenment - do you think they would describe a theology that approaches Calvinism? Or do you think they would describe a theology more in line with Free Will? I think it's overwhelming in one direction.

Agilaw said:

---

If someone had never heard of Calvinism or Free Will, and they decided to read all the scriptures - without consulting any outside sources for enlightenment - do you think they would describe a theology that approaches Calvinism? Or do you think they would describe a theology more in line with Free Will? I think it's overwhelming in one direction.

---

Free will for the win.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

One of my favorite short videos (7 mins). I would be curious your takeaways.

---

Really do not like MacArthur or how he handles stuff like this. Very condescending in my opinion.

The gist of the issue is his belief on double predestination and how that shows us what he thinks about the character of God. By Macarthur's actions, I think I know what that is.

And I believe he has a real high opinion of himself also. RC Sproul would have handled this differently.

I think he's arrogant but that it was a jovial teaching situation, not a sermon etc.

nortex97 said:

---

I think he's arrogant but that it was a jovial teaching situation, not a sermon etc.

---

Fair enough. And I will admit I am biased from watching sermons and talks of his. Maybe it is me, but he just creeps me out. Sorry, And it is probably me.

https://www.lambsreign.com/blog/saying-goodbye-to-john-macarthur
He is not a good guy. And neither is Piper.
Sproul was a good guy.

I think most 'mega church' leaders wind up…getting sucked into the money/fame willfully or not (wait, is this a crossover into the 'free will' debate topic, LOL?). Most of that blog isn't particularly damning, but I do think he wound up committing plenty of bad acts at GTY etc. Hey, he was no Jimmy Swaggart, though (too soon?).

But part of that is also a reflection of having been an outspoken champion of a very unpopular theological position for decades, imho. One can see it in this thread, early on '…why Calvinism should have been abandoned from the start' etc.'

These topics are so sensitive/personal to many (at least, those who study them and take them seriously) that the differing ideas/theological positions drive very angry responses/debates/vitriol. The ideas/reasoning I still enjoy thinking through/discussing, but have come to accept that the 'hero's of the faith,' whether ancient such as Paul, Augustine, Origen etc. or much more current times are themselves quite acerbic men to read/think with, perhaps for a reason.

I'm posting for the record I love John MacArthur. Why is Kenneth Copeland 300X richer than MacArthur? MacArthur never has been about getting rich. He could have a lot more money than he does.

Anyone besides Jesus Himself in ministry as long as MacArthur has will have people fail around him.

He has been a faithful steward of the Gospel and has done more to further it than anyone on this forum I can promise you that.

nortex97 said:

---

I think most 'mega church' leaders wind up…getting sucked into the money/fame willfully or not (wait, is this a crossover into the 'free will' debate topic, LOL?). Most of that blog isn't particularly damning, but I do think he wound up committing plenty of bad acts at GTY etc. Hey, he was no Jimmy Swaggart, though (too soon?).

But part of that is also a reflection of having been an outspoken champion of a very unpopular theological position for decades, imho. One can see it in this thread, early on '…why Calvinism should have been abandoned from the start' etc.'

These topics are so sensitive/personal to many (at least, those who study them and take them seriously) that the differing ideas/theological positions drive very angry responses/debates/vitriol. The ideas/reasoning I still enjoy thinking through/discussing, but have come to accept that the 'hero's of the faith,' whether ancient such as Paul, Augustine, Origen etc. or much more current times are themselves quite acerbic men to read/think with, perhaps for a reason.

---

Great post. I need to remember these are just men who make mistakes like me. And I believe most are very sincere and do a lot of good for the Lord.

lobopride said:

---

I'm posting for the record I love John MacArthur. Why is Kenneth Copeland 300X richer than MacArthur? MacArthur never has been about getting rich. He could have a lot more money than he does.

Anyone besides Jesus Himself in ministry as long as MacArthur has will have people fail around him.

He has been a faithful steward of the Gospel and has done more to further it than anyone on this forum I can promise you that.

---

Agree with what you say except for the record I do not like his theology or style. But he has done a ton to spread the Gospel and that should over ride any of my fairly petty views. He would not like my theology either.

The Banned said:

---

Fair enough they may be taken out of context. I'll look more into it. I quoted Luther Himself, so I'd like to hear your perspective on that quote.

I have other quotes too, but rather that quote mine, maybe you'd like to respond to the conceptual line of questioning I posted earlier, when you have time.

---

Quote:

---

"When the Spirit of God begins to work faith in a person, the will is no longer in the same bondage as before. It is loosed from the chains of sin and death and becomes willing to follow God's commandments. But this willing is not of its own strength or nature; rather, it is moved, bent, and renewed by the Spirit, who causes the will to desire and do what pleases God.
Yet this new freedom of the will does not mean that the person is perfectly free from sin in this life. The will is still weak and inclined to evil, but it now strives against sin and cooperates in good works not by its own power but by the grace that the Spirit continually imparts.
Therefore, the will is truly free only insofar as it is governed by the Spirit and united to Christ. Apart from this union, the will remains captive and powerless."

---

I'd want to see where this quote is from. I'm assuming you pulled it from the Bondage of the Will, but in my book version, I can't find it.

Assuming that's true, I want to start by pointing out that the Bondage of the will isn't part of the Book of Concord. It's not even a scholarly work per se. Maybe the best comparison would be to say it's comparable to a letter/book from a Pope/Bishop/etc. We should read it seriously, but it's not Gospel.

To the quote though, your quibble seems to be with Original Sin, not with Luther.

What Luther is saying here is Romans 6.

That we/mankind are born "slaves of sin" and that it is only through the work of God that we come to know Him. Like I said above, it is through the work of God, not the Preacher, friend, etc that bring someone to God.

The next part talks about concupiscence, which again, Rome agrees with it. In Baptism, in coming to know the Lord, that does not mean we are free from the temptation. Our ungodly desires persist through the rest of this life.

Finally, note that Luther agrees that we can cooperate in good works, but our ability to overcome sin and temptation are not a power we naturally hold. That is to say, Luther isn't a "once saved, always saved" believer. If we choose to pursue sin, our heart turns that way. Rome of course believes in the same with their concept of mortal and venial sins. Said differently, it God pulled His grace from us, would you really want to stand up to Satan and evil on your own?

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Fair enough they may be taken out of context. I'll look more into it. I quoted Luther Himself, so I'd like to hear your perspective on that quote.

I have other quotes too, but rather that quote mine, maybe you'd like to respond to the conceptual line of questioning I posted earlier, when you have time.

---

Quote:

---

"When the Spirit of God begins to work faith in a person, the will is no longer in the same bondage as before. It is loosed from the chains of sin and death and becomes willing to follow God's commandments. But this willing is not of its own strength or nature; rather, it is moved, bent, and renewed by the Spirit, who causes the will to desire and do what pleases God.
Yet this new freedom of the will does not mean that the person is perfectly free from sin in this life. The will is still weak and inclined to evil, but it now strives against sin and cooperates in good works not by its own power but by the grace that the Spirit continually imparts.
Therefore, the will is truly free only insofar as it is governed by the Spirit and united to Christ. Apart from this union, the will remains captive and powerless."

---

I'd want to see where this quote is from. I'm assuming you pulled it from the Bondage of the Will, but in my book version, I can't find it.

Assuming that's true, I want to start by pointing out that the Bondage of the will isn't part of the Book of Concord. It's not even a scholarly work per se. Maybe the best comparison would be to say it's comparable to a letter/book from a Pope/Bishop/etc. We should read it seriously, but it's not Gospel.

To the quote though, your quibble seems to be with Original Sin, not with Luther.

What Luther is saying here is Romans 6.

That we/mankind are born "slaves of sin" and that it is only through the work of God that we come to know Him. Like I said above, it is through the work of God, not the Preacher, friend, etc that bring someone to God.

The next part talks about concupiscence, which again, Rome agrees with it. In Baptism, in coming to know the Lord, that does not mean we are free from the temptation. Our ungodly desires persist through the rest of this life.

Finally, note that Luther agrees that we can cooperate in good works, but our ability to overcome sin and temptation are not a power we naturally hold. That is to say, Luther isn't a "once saved, always saved" believer. If we choose to pursue sin, our heart turns that way. Rome of course believes in the same with their concept of mortal and venial sins. Said differently, it God pulled His grace from us, would you really want to stand up to Satan and evil on your own?

---

Yes, it was from Bondage of the Will. I thought about posting more of Luther's quotes on both this topic and his personal views on his particular accuracy on this topic despite he standing alone in his views, but I think it's more productive to go a different route. Of these two statements, which do you believe best represents the Lutheran view? Maybe both options are lacking, so if writing in an answer is best, that works for me.

A) After regeneration, the Spirit inspires/encourages/asks/leads us to know what the right thing to do is, and we make an active choice to assent our will to His influence. Sometimes we miss the mark. Regardless of good or bad, we are an active agent in assenting to the good action, or choosing the bad action.

B) After regeneration, our human nature is still hopelessly bound to sin, and the only reason we can do any good thing is because God's grace, working through the Holy Spirit, overwhelms our baser desires to ensure we do the good? In short, even after regeneration, we aren't actively choosing the good. We're only capable of choosing bad without the Spirit directly intervening.

nortex97 said:

---

I think most 'mega church' leaders wind up…getting sucked into the money/fame willfully or not (wait, is this a crossover into the 'free will' debate topic, LOL?). Most of that blog isn't particularly damning, but I do think he wound up committing plenty of bad acts at GTY etc. Hey, he was no Jimmy Swaggart, though (too soon?).

But part of that is also a reflection of having been an outspoken champion of a very unpopular theological position for decades, imho. One can see it in this thread, early on '…why Calvinism should have been abandoned from the start' etc.'

These topics are so sensitive/personal to many (at least, those who study them and take them seriously) that the differing ideas/theological positions drive very angry responses/debates/vitriol. The ideas/reasoning I still enjoy thinking through/discussing, but have come to accept that the 'hero's of the faith,' whether ancient such as Paul, Augustine, Origen etc. or much more current times are themselves quite acerbic men to read/think with, perhaps for a reason.

---

I suggested that Calvinism should have been abandoned from the start because it is literally a logcial contradiction. Not because MacArthur or RC or even Calvin himself are horrible, rotten people. What we can clearly see is that Calvin chose to interpret the bible in his own particular way. His particular way requires a logical contradiction. Rather than acknowledging that his particular interpretation might have reached a dead end, humbled himself, and considered an alternative, he plowed on ahead, certain that he had found the answer. It makes much more sense to me to abandon the illogical view than force a square peg into a round hole, but the reformers thought differently.

The Banned said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

I think most 'mega church' leaders wind up…getting sucked into the money/fame willfully or not (wait, is this a crossover into the 'free will' debate topic, LOL?). Most of that blog isn't particularly damning, but I do think he wound up committing plenty of bad acts at GTY etc. Hey, he was no Jimmy Swaggart, though (too soon?).

But part of that is also a reflection of having been an outspoken champion of a very unpopular theological position for decades, imho. One can see it in this thread, early on '…why Calvinism should have been abandoned from the start' etc.'

These topics are so sensitive/personal to many (at least, those who study them and take them seriously) that the differing ideas/theological positions drive very angry responses/debates/vitriol. The ideas/reasoning I still enjoy thinking through/discussing, but have come to accept that the 'hero's of the faith,' whether ancient such as Paul, Augustine, Origen etc. or much more current times are themselves quite acerbic men to read/think with, perhaps for a reason.

---

I suggested that Calvinism should have been abandoned from the start because it is literally a logcial contradiction. Not because MacArthur or RC or even Calvin himself are horrible, rotten people. What we can clearly see is that Calvin chose to interpret the bible in his own particular way. His particular way requires a logical contradiction. Rather than acknowledging that his particular interpretation might have reached a dead end, humbled himself, and considered an alternative, he plowed on ahead, certain that he had found the answer. It makes much more sense to me to abandon the illogical view than force a square peg into a round hole, but the reformers thought differently.

---

I used your explanatory judgment as to the tenets of Calvinism as an example of the attitude of some who take their faith seriously, but also have a lot of strong opinions/judgment about Calvinists and this set of doctrines. I frankly doubt you've read Calvin's Institutes though. Again, Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, Zwingli, and the leaders of the faith in both the Orthodox and Protestant/Reformed traditions are in my opinion often seen in their writings struggling with the details of their faith and beliefs as I expect 'good' Christians of all stripes do.

Luther would famously strike out words in his writings, and in the edges curse at the devil for having misled his thoughts. I enjoy the historical and theological debates but I don't dismiss Calvinism writ large as illogical, so we can continue to disagree, respectfully. Again, it's very difficult to paint Calvinists with such a broad brush anyway, as they wrestle with his ideas constantly (and notably of course TULIP is not a construct he literally used.). I think doing so, or espousing an idea that they are all believers in a logical contradiction reflects a low understanding/appreciation of the depth of the subject matter, which frankly is a challenge to explain briefly in a format as we have here.

nortex97 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

I think most 'mega church' leaders wind up…getting sucked into the money/fame willfully or not (wait, is this a crossover into the 'free will' debate topic, LOL?). Most of that blog isn't particularly damning, but I do think he wound up committing plenty of bad acts at GTY etc. Hey, he was no Jimmy Swaggart, though (too soon?).

But part of that is also a reflection of having been an outspoken champion of a very unpopular theological position for decades, imho. One can see it in this thread, early on '…why Calvinism should have been abandoned from the start' etc.'

These topics are so sensitive/personal to many (at least, those who study them and take them seriously) that the differing ideas/theological positions drive very angry responses/debates/vitriol. The ideas/reasoning I still enjoy thinking through/discussing, but have come to accept that the 'hero's of the faith,' whether ancient such as Paul, Augustine, Origen etc. or much more current times are themselves quite acerbic men to read/think with, perhaps for a reason.

---

I suggested that Calvinism should have been abandoned from the start because it is literally a logcial contradiction. Not because MacArthur or RC or even Calvin himself are horrible, rotten people. What we can clearly see is that Calvin chose to interpret the bible in his own particular way. His particular way requires a logical contradiction. Rather than acknowledging that his particular interpretation might have reached a dead end, humbled himself, and considered an alternative, he plowed on ahead, certain that he had found the answer. It makes much more sense to me to abandon the illogical view than force a square peg into a round hole, but the reformers thought differently.

---

I used your explanatory judgment as to the tenets of Calvinism as an example of the attitude of some who take their faith seriously, but also have a lot of strong opinions/judgment about Calvinists and this set of doctrines. I frankly doubt you've read Calvin's Institutes though. Again, Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, Zwingli, and the leaders of the faith in both the Orthodox and Protestant/Reformed traditions are in my opinion often seen in their writings struggling with the details of their faith and beliefs as I expect 'good' Christians of all stripes do.

Luther would famously strike out words in his writings, and in the edges curse at the devil for having misled his thoughts. I enjoy the historical and theological debates but I don't dismiss Calvinism writ large as illogical, so we can continue to disagree, respectfully. Again, it's very difficult to paint Calvinists with such a broad brush anyway, as they wrestle with his ideas constantly (and notably of course TULIP is not a construct he literally used.). I think doing so, or espousing an idea that they are all believers in a logical contradiction reflects a low understanding/appreciation of the depth of the subject matter, which frankly is a challenge to explain briefly in a format as we have here.

---

Just to be clear, from my perspective, I don't dismiss Calvinism writ large as illogical. My topic on this thread was focused on a particular tenet. And I have not come to my own conclusion that this particular tenet is illogical. MacArthur in the video posted had to appeal to mystery and said logic cannot comprehend it. I have listened to and read a significant number of Calvinist and Lutheran scholars on this topic, and they agree is has to be left to some sort of mystery. I have read a decent amount of source material, but I defer to Lutheran and Calvinistic interpretations of the material, because as AgLiving has stated, I could unintentionally misinterpret or cherry pick. I don't think I'm saying anything that is erroneous in a general sense.

To review the logical fallacy:

1. God wants everyone to be saved
2. God is 100% in control of who is saved.
3. God doesn't save all people

Conclusion: God doesn't do what He wants, or He does do what He doesn't want. Obviously this makes no sense at all, so we have to call it a mystery.

I don't think I'm misrepresenting this issue. It's a bald faced acceptance of a a square circle. It's agreeing that God can make an object He isn't strong enough to lift. It makes no sense. And in order to show I'm not committing the logical fallacy of "because Calvin was wrong about A he is therefore wrong about B", I'll say I think Calvin got plenty of things right. I have no quarrel with him working out his faith as best he can, as we all do.

What I do take issue with is that he had many other learned, religious men write and dialogue with him, attempting the correct his errors. He refused to listen And the reason he refused to listen is because he "listened" to scripture alone, failing to realize he was actually listening to his own internal interpretation. so when I say Calvinism should have been abandoned at the beginning, what I mean is he should have sought wiser counsel when he arrived at this issue and he chose not to. Luther did the same. They seemed to think they knew better than everyone else, and Luther was pretty explicit about it.

500 years later, it's been reduced to a matter of intrigue. You and I both put our faith in Jesus, so let's "major in the majors and minor in the minors". There is some wisdom to this now. But the only reason we're divided to begin with is because these individuals created movements of division. And the only primary driver of their unwillingness to stay with the Church's teaching was because of this radical idea that the sovereignty of God necessitates that the person, for all intents and purposes, has no final agency. Christ prayed for us to be one, and we're living in a time of division. I believe that had the reformers not gotten this so wrong, we'd be much more unified.

No worries. Thx, all good and agree with most all of that.

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Fair enough they may be taken out of context. I'll look more into it. I quoted Luther Himself, so I'd like to hear your perspective on that quote.

I have other quotes too, but rather that quote mine, maybe you'd like to respond to the conceptual line of questioning I posted earlier, when you have time.

---

Quote:

---

"When the Spirit of God begins to work faith in a person, the will is no longer in the same bondage as before. It is loosed from the chains of sin and death and becomes willing to follow God's commandments. But this willing is not of its own strength or nature; rather, it is moved, bent, and renewed by the Spirit, who causes the will to desire and do what pleases God.
Yet this new freedom of the will does not mean that the person is perfectly free from sin in this life. The will is still weak and inclined to evil, but it now strives against sin and cooperates in good works not by its own power but by the grace that the Spirit continually imparts.
Therefore, the will is truly free only insofar as it is governed by the Spirit and united to Christ. Apart from this union, the will remains captive and powerless."

---

I'd want to see where this quote is from. I'm assuming you pulled it from the Bondage of the Will, but in my book version, I can't find it.

Assuming that's true, I want to start by pointing out that the Bondage of the will isn't part of the Book of Concord. It's not even a scholarly work per se. Maybe the best comparison would be to say it's comparable to a letter/book from a Pope/Bishop/etc. We should read it seriously, but it's not Gospel.

To the quote though, your quibble seems to be with Original Sin, not with Luther.

What Luther is saying here is Romans 6.

That we/mankind are born "slaves of sin" and that it is only through the work of God that we come to know Him. Like I said above, it is through the work of God, not the Preacher, friend, etc that bring someone to God.

The next part talks about concupiscence, which again, Rome agrees with it. In Baptism, in coming to know the Lord, that does not mean we are free from the temptation. Our ungodly desires persist through the rest of this life.

Finally, note that Luther agrees that we can cooperate in good works, but our ability to overcome sin and temptation are not a power we naturally hold. That is to say, Luther isn't a "once saved, always saved" believer. If we choose to pursue sin, our heart turns that way. Rome of course believes in the same with their concept of mortal and venial sins. Said differently, it God pulled His grace from us, would you really want to stand up to Satan and evil on your own?

---

Yes, it was from Bondage of the Will. I thought about posting more of Luther's quotes on both this topic and his personal views on his particular accuracy on this topic despite he standing alone in his views, but I think it's more productive to go a different route. Of these two statements, which do you believe best represents the Lutheran view? Maybe both options are lacking, so if writing in an answer is best, that works for me.

A) After regeneration, the Spirit inspires/encourages/asks/leads us to know what the right thing to do is, and we make an active choice to assent our will to His influence. Sometimes we miss the mark. Regardless of good or bad, we are an active agent in assenting to the good action, or choosing the bad action.

B) After regeneration, our human nature is still hopelessly bound to sin, and the only reason we can do any good thing is because God's grace, working through the Holy Spirit, overwhelms our baser desires to ensure we do the good? In short, even after regeneration, we aren't actively choosing the good. We're only capable of choosing bad without the Spirit directly intervening.

---

I wouldn't be able to fully accept either, and honestly, I don't think you could either as a Roman Catholic.

So let me start with this. This is from the Augsburg Confession:

Quote:

---

[1] Concerning free will it is taught that a human being has some measure of free will, so as to live an externally honorable life and to choose among the things reason comprehends. [2] However, without the grace, help, and operation of the Holy Spirit a human being cannot become pleasing to God, fear or believe in God with the whole heart, or expel innate evil lusts from the heart. [3] Instead, this happens through the Holy Spirit, who is given through the Word of God. For Paul says (1 Cor. 2[:14*]): "Those who are natural do not receive the gifts of God's Spirit."

....

[8] Rejected here are those who teach that we can keep the commandments of God without grace and the Holy Spirit. For although we are by nature able to do the external works of the commandments, yet we cannot do the supreme commandments in the heart, namely, truly to fear, love, and believe in God

---

So clearly we see there is never a denial of man's ability to choose to do good or bad.

There are two additional points to consider.

Concupiscence. your scenarios don't factor it in, and it is something that both Rome and Lutherans agree exists. Rough definition being: the impure/evil desires associated with Original Sin that tempt man even after baptism and regeneration. This temptation will persist through the remainder of this life.

Rome and Lutherans will disagree over whether the very nature of concupiscence is a sin or not (Lutherans say yes, Rome says no), but the temptation towards sin never goes away. To not include that in your first option makes this invalid.

To your second one. No we aren't "hopeless bound towards sin" per se. The existence of concupiscence remains, but through prayer, Sacraments, study, and obedience, we can reduce that desire somewhat. That is to say, even in the most regenerate of men, from the Pope or Head of the LCMS, down to you and I, we can all fall back into temptation. We could all fall away.

Back to the first option. I would argue our works will always miss the mark in some way because we are always corrupted from Original Sin. The temptation is there, the desire is there. Did we give God the glory in everything we did? Or did we take a bit too much pride in the work we did? Did we curse at that driver who cut us off? Did we feel a little better watching someone lose an argument? Our works are always insufficient, but the good news it that Jesus was perfect and His works are more than sufficient for our salvation.

Hope that helps to start to clarify.

nortex97 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

I think most 'mega church' leaders wind up…getting sucked into the money/fame willfully or not (wait, is this a crossover into the 'free will' debate topic, LOL?). Most of that blog isn't particularly damning, but I do think he wound up committing plenty of bad acts at GTY etc. Hey, he was no Jimmy Swaggart, though (too soon?).

But part of that is also a reflection of having been an outspoken champion of a very unpopular theological position for decades, imho. One can see it in this thread, early on '…why Calvinism should have been abandoned from the start' etc.'

These topics are so sensitive/personal to many (at least, those who study them and take them seriously) that the differing ideas/theological positions drive very angry responses/debates/vitriol. The ideas/reasoning I still enjoy thinking through/discussing, but have come to accept that the 'hero's of the faith,' whether ancient such as Paul, Augustine, Origen etc. or much more current times are themselves quite acerbic men to read/think with, perhaps for a reason.

---

I suggested that Calvinism should have been abandoned from the start because it is literally a logcial contradiction. Not because MacArthur or RC or even Calvin himself are horrible, rotten people. What we can clearly see is that Calvin chose to interpret the bible in his own particular way. His particular way requires a logical contradiction. Rather than acknowledging that his particular interpretation might have reached a dead end, humbled himself, and considered an alternative, he plowed on ahead, certain that he had found the answer. It makes much more sense to me to abandon the illogical view than force a square peg into a round hole, but the reformers thought differently.

---

I used your explanatory judgment as to the tenets of Calvinism as an example of the attitude of some who take their faith seriously, but also have a lot of strong opinions/judgment about Calvinists and this set of doctrines. I frankly doubt you've read Calvin's Institutes though. Again, Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, Zwingli, and the leaders of the faith in both the Orthodox and Protestant/Reformed traditions are in my opinion often seen in their writings struggling with the details of their faith and beliefs as I expect 'good' Christians of all stripes do.

Luther would famously strike out words in his writings, and in the edges curse at the devil for having misled his thoughts. I enjoy the historical and theological debates but I don't dismiss Calvinism writ large as illogical, so we can continue to disagree, respectfully. Again, it's very difficult to paint Calvinists with such a broad brush anyway, as they wrestle with his ideas constantly (and notably of course TULIP is not a construct he literally used.). I think doing so, or espousing an idea that they are all believers in a logical contradiction reflects a low understanding/appreciation of the depth of the subject matter, which frankly is a challenge to explain briefly in a format as we have here.

---

Ironically, I think Calvin's system fails not because it's illogical, but because it tries to be too logical. In many ways, it's the same critique I have of Rome. Both systems seek to answer questions that the Bible is silent on.

The most obvious (to me) is the Lord's Supper.

Calvin sought to explain 'how" Jesus was found in the Lord's Supper and turned to logic to try and solve it. The historical critique from Lutherans has been that this actually changes the nature of Jesus as explained in the Scriptures by seeking a sort of "nestorian" divide. This is found in his [in]famous Consensus Tigurinus document Article 25:

Quote:

---

And that no ambiguity may remain when we say that Christ is to be sought in Heaven, the expression implies and is understood by us to intimate distance of place. For though philosophically speaking there is no place above the skies, yet as the body of Christ, bearing the nature and mode of a human body, is finite and is contained in Heaven as its place, it is necessarily as distant from us in point of space as Heaven is from Earth.

---

Likewise, Rome needed a philosophical answer to "how" the body and blood of Jesus was found in the Eucharist, which led them to transubstantiation as the answer.

It's the lack of comfort with mystery that seemingly led both groups down a path into error.

Quote from our sermon today made me think of this thread - "Work like an Arminian. Rest like a Calvinist"

The contradictions and mystery are a direct result of the gospels themselves, imho.

The Eucharist is another topic we can easily slip into polemics/criticism over, but I would rather cite the Beautitudes, certainly one of my favorite parts of the Bible, which are almost certainly real sayings/words from Christ and are classic paradoxes for Matthew's (formerly Jewish/hebrew Old Testament educated) community/reader, when truly studied all the more so. I believe God wants us to be challenged in our faith/thoughts about His message and our redemption in some ways. Mystery and astonishment required.

(From, 'What the Gospels Meant' by Garry Wills).

I agree.

It can be an unsettling thing to do, but finding comfort in the mystery or paradox of God is not easy. We always want the "why." In some cases, it can lead to a deeper understanding of the Scriptures. In others, it can lead to applying philosophical/logical systems to the text vs letting the text speak for itself.

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Fair enough they may be taken out of context. I'll look more into it. I quoted Luther Himself, so I'd like to hear your perspective on that quote.

I have other quotes too, but rather that quote mine, maybe you'd like to respond to the conceptual line of questioning I posted earlier, when you have time.

---

Quote:

---

"When the Spirit of God begins to work faith in a person, the will is no longer in the same bondage as before. It is loosed from the chains of sin and death and becomes willing to follow God's commandments. But this willing is not of its own strength or nature; rather, it is moved, bent, and renewed by the Spirit, who causes the will to desire and do what pleases God.
Yet this new freedom of the will does not mean that the person is perfectly free from sin in this life. The will is still weak and inclined to evil, but it now strives against sin and cooperates in good works not by its own power but by the grace that the Spirit continually imparts.
Therefore, the will is truly free only insofar as it is governed by the Spirit and united to Christ. Apart from this union, the will remains captive and powerless."

---

I'd want to see where this quote is from. I'm assuming you pulled it from the Bondage of the Will, but in my book version, I can't find it.

Assuming that's true, I want to start by pointing out that the Bondage of the will isn't part of the Book of Concord. It's not even a scholarly work per se. Maybe the best comparison would be to say it's comparable to a letter/book from a Pope/Bishop/etc. We should read it seriously, but it's not Gospel.

To the quote though, your quibble seems to be with Original Sin, not with Luther.

What Luther is saying here is Romans 6.

That we/mankind are born "slaves of sin" and that it is only through the work of God that we come to know Him. Like I said above, it is through the work of God, not the Preacher, friend, etc that bring someone to God.

The next part talks about concupiscence, which again, Rome agrees with it. In Baptism, in coming to know the Lord, that does not mean we are free from the temptation. Our ungodly desires persist through the rest of this life.

Finally, note that Luther agrees that we can cooperate in good works, but our ability to overcome sin and temptation are not a power we naturally hold. That is to say, Luther isn't a "once saved, always saved" believer. If we choose to pursue sin, our heart turns that way. Rome of course believes in the same with their concept of mortal and venial sins. Said differently, it God pulled His grace from us, would you really want to stand up to Satan and evil on your own?

---

Yes, it was from Bondage of the Will. I thought about posting more of Luther's quotes on both this topic and his personal views on his particular accuracy on this topic despite he standing alone in his views, but I think it's more productive to go a different route. Of these two statements, which do you believe best represents the Lutheran view? Maybe both options are lacking, so if writing in an answer is best, that works for me.

A) After regeneration, the Spirit inspires/encourages/asks/leads us to know what the right thing to do is, and we make an active choice to assent our will to His influence. Sometimes we miss the mark. Regardless of good or bad, we are an active agent in assenting to the good action, or choosing the bad action.

B) After regeneration, our human nature is still hopelessly bound to sin, and the only reason we can do any good thing is because God's grace, working through the Holy Spirit, overwhelms our baser desires to ensure we do the good? In short, even after regeneration, we aren't actively choosing the good. We're only capable of choosing bad without the Spirit directly intervening.

---

I wouldn't be able to fully accept either, and honestly, I don't think you could either as a Roman Catholic.

So let me start with this. This is from the Augsburg Confession:

Quote:

---

[1] Concerning free will it is taught that a human being has some measure of free will, so as to live an externally honorable life and to choose among the things reason comprehends. [2] However, without the grace, help, and operation of the Holy Spirit a human being cannot become pleasing to God, fear or believe in God with the whole heart, or expel innate evil lusts from the heart. [3] Instead, this happens through the Holy Spirit, who is given through the Word of God. For Paul says (1 Cor. 2[:14*]): "Those who are natural do not receive the gifts of God's Spirit."

....

[8] Rejected here are those who teach that we can keep the commandments of God without grace and the Holy Spirit. For although we are by nature able to do the external works of the commandments, yet we cannot do the supreme commandments in the heart, namely, truly to fear, love, and believe in God

---

So clearly we see there is never a denial of man's ability to choose to do good or bad.

There are two additional points to consider.

Concupiscence. your scenarios don't factor it in, and it is something that both Rome and Lutherans agree exists. Rough definition being: the impure/evil desires associated with Original Sin that tempt man even after baptism and regeneration. This temptation will persist through the remainder of this life.

Rome and Lutherans will disagree over whether the very nature of concupiscence is a sin or not (Lutherans say yes, Rome says no), but the temptation towards sin never goes away. To not include that in your first option makes this invalid.

To your second one. No we aren't "hopeless bound towards sin" per se. The existence of concupiscence remains, but through prayer, Sacraments, study, and obedience, we can reduce that desire somewhat. That is to say, even in the most regenerate of men, from the Pope or Head of the LCMS, down to you and I, we can all fall back into temptation. We could all fall away.

Back to the first option. I would argue our works will always miss the mark in some way because we are always corrupted from Original Sin. The temptation is there, the desire is there. Did we give God the glory in everything we did? Or did we take a bit too much pride in the work we did? Did we curse at that driver who cut us off? Did we feel a little better watching someone lose an argument? Our works are always insufficient, but the good news it that Jesus was perfect and His works are more than sufficient for our salvation.

Hope that helps to start to clarify.

---

When I said we sometimes miss the mark, that was supposed to be the concession for concupiscence. I didn't intend to leave it out. I guess I'll ask it this way: After regeneration, do you believe you choose to do the good things you do, at the prompting of the spirit, or do you believe God is doing the work through you? Or how would you word it?

I'm still re-reading the book of cocord to try and find the most appropriate language for it.