Free Will and the Cause of Sin (Augsburg Confession Articles XVIII-XIX)

Our website: www.justandsinn...
Patreon: / justandsinner
This is part of our series on the Augsburg Confession in which I overview each article. In this video, I discuss the nature of free will, the bondage of the will, sin's impact upon the will, and God's relationship to evil.

[@timothybrooks1429]

"O Lord, everything good in me is due to you. The rest is my fault."-St. Augustine

[@bigniftydude]

That just seems right. -A Lutheran coming back to the faith.

[@EricBryant]

Amen

[@EricBryant]

16:45: "There is no free, autonomous human decision to have faith." Another way to put this: "You can't will yourself to believe." I've also said, "Belief isn't a choice." Great point!

[@nicolaalbury8290]

Every time you mention a topic or series people are less interested in, those seem to be the ones I'm most keen to hear about. Keep up the great work!

[@indycarfanrw8552]

Excellent. Liturgy series would be great.

[@katemolly100]

For future episodes, I’d love to see a history of Lutheranism. The splits, discussions, the attempts at mending differences and where you think things are headed.

[@Mooklyn]

a series on the liturgy would be interesting, your book explaining it was quite informative and it would be neat to see something like it in video format

[@cwstreeper]

I have very much enjoyed this series. Coming from a Baptist background your commentary has helped me digest the theology contained in the confessions, apology, catechism and liturgy. Thank you.

[@petarw]

I've been watching you for awhile without officially subscribing. Now I'm all in. Let's get you to 50K KZbin subs until the end of this year! On the topic of posting short videos, I've seen you sharing excerpts from your long videos as separate short ones. This is a very good strategy many long form content KZbinrs do. I'd suggest you continue in this direction.

[@blakehanson4683]

This video was the final straw.. I'm joining team Lutheran.

[@Mygoalwogel]

Welcome to the family! Let me know if you're ever in Taiwan.

[@Andrew-wo8ry]

Thank you for your ministry, a liturgy series would be good.

[@TheAndreas1008]

Thank you for the work you do, Jordan! It's a great extra level of depth for a Lutheran theology student. It would be very interesting to have a series going through a book of the Bible, chapter for chapter. Romans would be a fun one!

[@jonathanvickers3881]

These are the best videos! I’ve been loving them. Thanks for this series.

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

1:18 Lutheran Seminary professor sounding like a Minecraft youtuber over here

[@logicaredux5205]

I second the idea on a series on Liturgy.

[@petergranlund7082]

Need these teachings

[@newreformationapologetics4953]

I think the issue here is that a lot of the time luther makes a hyperbolic statement and people take it as literal.

[@Robert-vv6qp]

Excellent series idea.

[@jimmyking8074]

Keep going brother, these are excellent and help a lot as I sparse through the Augsburg Confession myself, God bless! (Also am looking forward to the liturgy series! :D)

[@theknitfoxvideography5795]

I'd love to see a program that is a review of Elizabeth Lev's book How Catholic Art Saved the Faith. It feels right up your alley. I think she is too triumphalist in her history and barely mentions protestant artists

[@dukeofstonehaven4039]

I would definitely call Erasmus a theologian. His textual work pretty much spawned the Reformation, as many flaws as it had. It can be said Luther received the egg from Erasmus, which he rejected, and hatched that egg.

[@j.harris83]

Have a conversation with Paul Vanderklay or Brett Salkeld over his book “Transubstantiation: Theology, History, and Christian Unity”

[@AmericanShia786]

Excellent video. I was reminded of things and learned new things as well. I have watched several of your videos in the past, but never on a regular basis. I am trying to become more regular in viewing your videos. I watch your channel as well as Ask The Pastor by ELDoNA Pastor Joshua Sullivan. I've also watched some videos with Dr. Robert Kolb, but you and Pastor Sullivan are the only two Lutheran KZbinrs who I will take the time to watch regularly. I know ... Objective Justification. Never even heard of that teaching until I began attending a Confessional Lutheran parish for awhile. I don't see it, but its not a big issue to me, personally. I may have to start support this channel in through Patron because its excellent. Now that I'm disabled, I need to "redeem the time", and your KZbin channel is a good way to do so.

[@cheryl9856]

Ideas for videos: Monasticism (It's general history, it's history in Lutheranism and how it can be implemented in today's Confessional Lutheran bodies) The importance of other atonement theories for Lutheran orthodoxy along side penal substitution The scope of Mariology in the Confessions and Lutheran history generally Answers to the most common objections given by Catholics regarding Luther, namely that he left the Catholic Church, forsook vows, ect. Thanks.

[@vngelicath1580]

The question of Atonement is a good and important topic because I think there's a lot of confusion even in Confessional Lutheran circles as to our basic position. It's key to remember that while the Anselmian teaching of 'vicarious satisfaction' was the all-but official position of the Western church and assumed as default by the Lutheran confessions and her dogmaticians... 'penal substitution' (as a variation _on_ Anselm) was a uniquely Calvinist development and as a result an alien idea to classical Lutheranism.

[@andremauricio1248]

@@vngelicath1580 could yo explain me about vicarious satisfaction and the difference between penal substitution ? Thanks 👍🏻

[@vngelicath1580]

@@andremauricio1248 Yeah. So vicarious satisfaction is that idea that Christ paid the debt for sin (in a sense this is a "penalty" but in the sense of consequence)... you could look at it as the cross is pointing upward, Christ laying down his perfect life as a spotless offering in exchange for reconciliation and expiation of punishment on behalf of mankind. Penal Substitution, on the other hand collapses "penalty" as consequence into "penalty" as punishment. In this idea, the cross isn't Christ (humanity's) offering upward to Heaven, but God the Father's act of substitutionary wrath/punishment poured out on Christ in the place of sinners. I often use this metaphor... you commit a serious traffic violation and are left with a choice: "pay the fine (consequence) or do the time (punishment)"... you are poor and are incapable of paying the ticket, so someone else steps in and pays it all back for you. It's not that he goes to jail on your behalf, but his act enables you to not have to go either. A natural result of penal substitution is two problematic notions common in much of Protestantism: 1) Christ's descent into Hell is warped into an extension on his punishment (humiliation), rather than a declaration of victory as was the historic view. 2) All of atonement is reduced to the cross and so Christ's whole life of perfect, active obedience is inconsequential to our redemption but merely a prerequisite to the atonement. In vivarious satisfaction (and christus victor), His whole life is an atoning for sin and the cross is simply the culmnination and high point.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@@andremauricio1248 I've been unclear about this as well. However I looked up penal substitution in Wikipedia and it says that it was developed during the Reformation being advocated by both Luther and Calvin. So as I have a copy of What Luther Says I looked in the index under Wrath of God and was directed to entry 1844, and there Luther does indeed deal with the subject of penal substitution. I'll quote what he says: Because Christ has become a King and Priest for you and has bestowed this great blessing on you, you dare not imagine that it was done for nothing or cost little or comes to you because of your merit. Sin and death were overcome for you in Him and through Him. Grace and life were given you; but it meant bitter work for Him. It cost Him much. He earned it at the greatest expense with His own blood, body, and life. For to put down God's wrath, judgment, conscience, hell, death, and everything evil and to gain everything good could not be done without satisfying divine justice, paying for sin, and really overcoming death. This is why St. Paul is in the habit of touching also on Christ's suffering and blood wherever he preaches God's grace in Christ, in order to note that all our blessings are given to us through Christ, but not without His unspeakable merit and cost. Thus he writes (Rom. 3:25): "God has set Him forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood." I then looked up the definition of propitiation in my dictionary app and it defines it as "The act of propitiating; placation, atonement, similar to expiation but with the added concept of appeasement of anger." So penal substitution goes right back to the Bible and originated with Paul.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@@andremauricio1248 Actually I think I was mistaken to say that the doctrine of penal substitution originated with Paul as surely it goes back at least to Isaiah. Isaiah said: Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. [5] But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. [6] All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned - every one - to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (53:4-6 ESV) Surely what Isaiah says here carries with it the implication that Christ being the substitute is being punished because of God's anger at sin. Chastisement surely implies that the punishment is deserved because of righteous anger against the transgressions which have been committed. So if it's the case as previously mentioned that Lutheranism has never adopted the penal substitution understanding of atonement, then this is another example of how Lutheranism has deviated from Scripture and what Luther taught.

[@daric_]

58:20 Thought my wife was leaving laundry in the dryer late at night as usual. Went back and realized it was in your video 😂

[@richardfrerks8712]

Good stuff. My favorite series.. The Augsburg Confession is so awesome. It connects my faith back to Jesus historically and articulates the "True Faith" by which we stand.... It really connects back to Genesis.. 🍞 🍷

[@benpeters4007]

Dr. Cooper - this is great as always. I would love to hear you go a little deeper into why you prefer the Ecclesiastical Text. Maybe walk through Letis' book? I think this would be very helpful.

[@vngelicath1580]

I know I can't speak for anyone else, but I honestly think your videos need to be longer, not shorter. 1 hour is just not enough time to set up a topic and sufficiently resolve it -- by the end it feels like we're only just getting started lol (Then again, I'm used to listening to audiobooks and long-form podcasts at work, so maybe my attention-span is abnormal haha) In either case, yes PLEASE do a series on Liturgy. I also hope that you continue your analysis of ecumenical dialogue and specifically the question of Luther Reed and the Eucharistic prayer/sacrifice (I found those few weeks quite thrilling!)

[@kiwigirl1107]

This was very interesting, thank you.

[@OnBelayClimbOn]

Thanks so much!!

[@CruciformCoding]

Yes on the manners videos!

[@janky2532]

Looking forward to a liturgy series, within Lutheranism, specifically theologically conservative Lutheranism, worship and liturgy is the biggest upcoming challenge. P.s. the sound quality on this video is lit.

[@NB-qo4ds]

I hope you have a good time at the ETS, Father Cooper, and that God will also use it to bless, edify, and refresh you.

[@EricBryant]

Could you do a short video covering the Eastern Orthodox notion of "gnomic will?" (E.g. I believe St. Maximos the Confessor has a treatise on it). I'd be interested in knowing how Eastern and Western Christianity differ on the efficacy of the will. I was a catechumen in the EO for 2 years but am now considering Lutheranism. I noticed that the East has a different anthropology, stemming from a different view of the Fall of Man. I think personally this makes the East more "Pelagian" in practice at least if not in doctrine. I think St. Paul argues in Roman 7 that the will's bondage to sin can still continue post baptism. Only a regenerate Christian would even really have a Romans 7 type struggle. Therefore, even St. Paul understands that our wills have been marred and stymied by sin in a way I think the East doesn't see.

[@Joseph-eh9co]

Interestingly, the Roman Confutation received and accepted/approved both article XVIII and XIX.

[@joabthejavelin5119]

Congratulations on almost 30k subscribers. I don't know if you would be interested, but I think it would be interesting to have a series on art and what makes it good or beautiful. Maybe for a short video; pick a song, painting, sculpture, or scene or theme from a play or movie and explain what makes it good or bad and how it brings, or does not bring, glory to God.

[@NB-qo4ds]

A video series on St John Chrysostom's liturgy would be good.

[@Matt-Pursley]

Chapter breaks would be very helpful.

[@William_Farmer]

In scholarship, an over-reliance on the work of one author tends to lead to a distortion of emphasis and interpretation. Likewise, in theology, an over-reliance on the work of one church father may lead to a distortion of scriptural interpretation. It is better to look at the witness of many fathers , and of the Church as a whole if one hopes to arrive at a correct or orthodox interpretation. Augustine is indeed a Church father, but he is one among many. We all agree that it is possible for one father to have an erroneous interpretation of a given passage of scripture. Therefore we should be careful to avoid the possibility that we may fall into error by following the teaching of one father to the neglect of others who may hold opposing views. This over-emphasis on Augustine has, in my view, led the Western Church into more than one error.

[@voyager7]

Yes the emphasis in de servo arbitrio is not on the lack of free WILL, but rather the lack of FREE will. Moral agency to make decisions remains, though the "flight envelope" of the will after the fall, short of the Holy Spirit and His regenerative work, is to sin only. This is consistent with the Lutheran confessions and scripture. The Catholic response was to take the former ie asserting that Lutherans deny that any will remains after the fall, and then denying this false assessment; but even more than that, asserting that the natural man's will albeit weakly, can cooperate with grace and even merit grace though weakly.

[@Dilley_G45]

All the supporters of fighting for the faith and like minded channels should subscribe

[@austinmallow9503]

Perhaps a parishioner centered video during Devine service, such as genuflecting before entering the pew, bow at the processional cross, Gloria patri, and Jesus’ name. There seems to be little conformity when it comes to this in Lutheranism.

[@dialogos585]

Thank you Dr. Cooper! Isn't the only way free will works is if God allows us to make choices, regardless of they're evil or not? Such that if evil happens in the world, it's because we've chosen it?

[@gagegarlinghouse258]

Subscribe, and free me from the daily retweet that I have hoisted upon myself. Also, I second the liturgy idea. Another idea is a series of videos giving a basic rundown of theologians that people should know. So like one video per theologian. Kind of like those "why you should read" videos a while back.

[@yecksd]

COOPER GANG 😈

[@vngelicath1580]

I tend to think that damnation functions as the ultimate act of Judicial Hardening. God never damns anyone, they damn themselves by having God harden them in their resistance such that they remain for eternity in their desire for self-worship/unbelief and idolatry (Dante got this intuition right I believe).

[@vngelicath1580]

The fire of Hell is the same fire as Pentecost (God's love), just experienced in eternal resistance.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@@vngelicath1580 I disagree with your assertion that God never damns anyone, and so did Luther. See my comments below this video in connection with The Bondage of the Will and the Formula of Concord.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@pouya I'm not sure I understand you exactly, but I'm in basic agreement that free will doesn't really exist, but not because human thoughts are determined by the brain, but because God determines what happens and not us. The brain is merely the physical organ which the mind operates through, and the mind is a non material thing which is governed by God in that we can only choose what He has determined we will choose, so that things are predestined to happen according to what He has willed and foreknown will happen. People wrongly assume that they're self-determining creatures who make their own independent decisions, but that's largely an illusion so I'm in basic agreement with you there. I don't entirely rule out a degree of free will in that it maybe the case that God doesn't determine every single thing that happens in the world, but generally speaking the future is determined by God, and if there is any free will it's only with respect to insignificant matters.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@pouya Your interpretation of reality isn't something that I can subscribe to. I believe according to what the Bible teaches, which is that God created the universe including us, but we became sinful and estranged from God so that it was necessary for a Saviour to atone for sin and give eternal life to those who believe in Him. This may seem like a fairy tale to you but Christians are convinced that it is true, and that those who reject it are deceived by Satan. If you've never read the New Testament can I urge you to read it so that God may open your eyes to the truth.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@pouya You made no mention of God in your previous reply (now deleted), and your opening sentence was " We are conscious programmed meat robots inside a Matrix Designed and programmed to colonize Earth and other planets." That's not Biblical in several ways. We're not meat robots but intelligent human beings, and our home is exclusively this planet. The is the only planet that's capable of sustaining life in the solar system, and Christ will return only to this earth to gather up His believers as explained in the Bible. The rest of what you said after this didn't make a whole lot of sense to me to be honest. But the overall impression I got on reading your reply was that you weren't a Christian.

[@newreformationapologetics4953]

So does the bondage of the will effect or interact with the sensus divinitas (if you are in agreement with Calvin on that)?

[@BibleFanatics]

I am subbed!

[@alpha4IV]

I am reading the Augsburg confession alongside the Council of Trent. This has been bothering me. What about animals? Can animals sin? If they can do or commit evil acts, but as animals they have no libertarian or christian free will, who is the author of their acts and choices? I’m thinking here of the most conscious of animals (dogs, cats, dolphins, elephants). Kierkegaad gives the least satisfactory answers on this as he seems to deny any will or self awareness at all to nonhuman animals (I’m thinking here of the Sickness onto Death). Any help or opinion would be greatly appreciated.

[@Mygoalwogel]

The bible never accuses animals of sin. If animals can sin, it’s our fault. If they can’t, then they suffer and die, not because God is cruel and unfair, but because our sin is just that cruel and unfair. Infants suffer and die for the sins of their parents. (e.g. David’s son by Bathsheba). In other words, it is my fault that my kids are growing into bad habits and are sometimes just mean. They need a heavenly Father because I’m not good enough. And a Savior, because I can’t fix them. And the Holy Spirit, because my influence is rotten. This puts original sin and infant baptism into a sobering perspective. Instead of whining that, “Babies don’t commit actual sins of commission!” I should be scared to death that, “My kids are already doomed and it’s all my fault! Jesus, save them!” God placed animals under man (Gen 1:26) in a similar way as he placed infants under parents. The animals died in the flood, and it was all our fault. The animals died in Israelite sacrifice and it was for _my_ sins. Maybe the only reason fire hasn’t consumed _my_ city is because of the animals (Jonah 3:7-8; 4:11). In my individual suffering, it’s important to remember that God does not owe me an explanation. I am to believe that he knows exactly what he is doing and how he will end my suffering. We are commanded to believe the same even about sparrows. (Matt 10:29).

[@alpha4IV]

@@Mygoalwogel animals do cruel and violent acts, they also dream, have memories, suffer trauma, and have emotional, phycological, social, and physical needs. our lower nature is that of the animal, we are after all human animals. Animal suffering and animal cruelty are things that have not been properly explored in the Christian zeitgeist. vegans and exantityist philosopher such as cosmic skeptic or making a lot of headway by the fact that we as a community have ignored these animal issues for such a long time. individual Christians may have addressed and even been active in addressing these issues but we as a community have underestimated the capacity of animals in both of their intelligence and their emotional capacity. in reading the church fathers and in reading many Christian theologians they seem to downplay any emotional or psychological capacity of nonhuman animals which I think is a mistake. for instance, pretend we find out about intelligent extraterrestrial life tomorrow are we gonna say that the aliens are subject to death and sin only because of Adam's fall, or could we look at these fictional aliens whether we would look at animals now with our better understanding of psychology in the mind, that animals are capable of committing sins maybe not against God but against themselves and against nature and if so where does their ability to do and be subject to evil come from. Even in the garden humans and animals ate. Would not plucking or eating the "fruit" of the tree kill that fruit. If we can eat of any tree but one, then death was a possibility before the fall. So again, rephrased, if humans get their sin natures from Adam, where do animals get their sins natures from. If sun entered our world through one man, and through one man all were redeemed, what of the animals (what of our possible extraterrestrial should he one day be real and not a fiction. Did Adam's sin distort its connection to grace as well?

[@Racinek]

If ever you are called to minister to someone who was abused as a child, you may want to keep the traditionist view of souls for another person in your pastoral care. It locks me into a despair spiral, especially as my parents were/are unbelievers and were also children of abuse.

[@jaimeherrera-naranjo4305]

How can you say Erasmus was not much of a theologian? Please study the meaning of what constitutes a theologian.

[@goldenarm2118]

The purpose of the Law was to lead us to Christ. The Law was a school mater. What was it teaching us? Our need for the cross. Everything you read in 1 Corinthians 2 was after verse 6. Paul didn't preach the spiritual things to the Corinthians, as he admits in verse 6. But what did he preach? See verse 2. The testimony of God, Christ and Him crucified. Paul preached the CROSS, which he admits in verse 6 is not spiritual things which he refers to in verse 14. Please read in context.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

Luther's position in The Bondage of the Will (TBOTW) is that what God foreknows is predestined to happen on the basis that God wills what He foreknows and omnipotently brings it about, so it's not just that people are predestined to be saved and damned, but also that the course of human history itself is determined by God. Luther says for instance: It says in Isaiah: "My counsel shall stand and my will shall be done" [Isa. 46:10]. What schoolboy does not know the meaning of these terms "counsel," "will," "shall be done," "shall stand"? But why are these things abstruse to us Christians, so that it is irreverent and inquisitive and vain to discuss and come to know them, when heathen poets and even the common people speak of them quite freely? How often does Virgil (for one) remind us of Fate! "By changeless law stand all things fixed". "Each man's day stands fixed"' "If the Fates call thee"; "If thou canst break the harsh bonds of Fate." That poet has no other aim than to show that in the destruction of Troy and the rise of the Roman Empire, Fate counts for more than all the endeavors of men, and therefore it imposes a necessity on both things and men. Moreover, he makes even their immortal gods subject to Fate, to which even Jupiter himself and Juno must necessarily yield. Hence the current conception of the three Parcae, immutable, implacable, irrevocable. The wise men of those days were well aware of what fact and experience prove, namely, that no man's plans have ever been straightforwardly realized, but for everyone things have turned out differently from what he thought they would. Virgil's Hector says, "Could Troy have stood by human arm, then it had stood by mine." Hence the very common saying on everyone's lips, "God's will be done"; and "God willing, we will do it," or "Such was the will of God." "So it pleased those above"; "Such was your will," says Virgil. From this we can see that the knowledge of God's predestination and foreknowledge remained with the common people no less than the awareness of his existence itself. But those who wished to appear wise went so far astray in their reasonings that their hearts were darkened and they became fools (Rom. 1[:21 f.]), and denied or explained away the things that the poets and common people, and even their own conscience, regarded as entirely familiar, certain, and true. (p.40,41, Vol.33, Luther's Works) Luther's basic argument is that what God foreknows must necessarily happen, and therefore there's no free will, and if one thinks about it that is obviously true. If God foreknows that tomorrow I will do a particular thing then I have no free will to decide to do anything different otherwise God's foreknowledge would be proved wrong and He wouldn't be omniscient. His foreknowledge is certain knowledge not speculative knowledge based on possibility, so God's foreknowledge therefore determines what happens and we have no free will. The only way we can have a degree of free will is if God's foreknowledge doesn't extend to literally everything, so that we are left with the freedom to choose to do things which God hasn't determined in advance will happen. Where Luther is on this I'm not quite sure. It's possible that what Luther meant by God predestining everything doesn't include the small decisions involved in everyday living, although he does say in his lectures on Genesis that he had written in TBOTW ”that everything is absolute and unavoidable" (p.50, Vol.5, Luther's Works), and in his conclusion to TBOTW he says: I will here bring this little book to an end, though I am prepared if need be to carry the debate farther. However, I think quite enough has been done here to satisfy the godly and anyone who is willing to admit the truth without being obstinate. For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it (as reason itself is forced to admit), then on the testimony of reason itself there can't be any free choice in man or angel or any creature. (Ibid, p.293) So does Luther mean by "everything" literally everything, and that God foreknows even the small everyday decisions that people make? Possibly not because he does say at one point "that a man should know that with regard to his faculties and possessions he has the right to use, to do, or to leave undone, according to his own free choice, though even this is controlled by the free choice of God alone who acts in whatever way pleases (ibid, p.70). It depends what Luther means by God controlling our free choice. If God doesn't control every small decision that people make then there is a degree of free will in insignificant matters in Luther's eyes. When Melanchthon says in the Augsburg Confession that we have the free will to make decisions affecting our lives in this world such as to build a house, take a wife, engage in a trade etc it's hardly likely that Luther believed that God wouldn't foreknow where we would live, who we would marry, and what career path we would take, so it has to be that what Luther understood by free will in these matters wasn't a libertarian free will where we have autonomous freedom to choose to do what we decide, but only a limited ability to choose only what God has determined we will choose, which in reality isn't free will. The essential point is was Luther biblically correct in saying that what God’s foreknows is predestined to happen, and that He wills and omnipotently works whatever comes to pass? I believe he was correct and that he proved from Scripture that God predestines people to both heaven and hell. Confessional Lutherans say that what they believe is determined by their confessions, and that it’s an incidental matter what exactly Luther believed. But this is where I hold that they’ve gone wrong. They shouldn’t have accepted the teaching of The Formula of Concord on predestination because not only does it conflict with what Luther taught but more importantly it conflicts with what Scripture teaches. Also they have no right to call themselves Lutherans when they reject what Luther taught on God’s foreknowledge and predestination. This isn’t much different from Roman Catholics claiming to be Catholics when in reality they’re papists. People don’t have the right to identify themselves as something they’re not. Confessional Lutherans in reality aren’t Lutherans they’re followers of Martin Chemnitz.

[@andremauricio1248]

You have to read the whole work of Luther not only servo Arbitrio. At his last days Luther reject double predestination, determinisim, and everything you wrote. Luther's teaching was right in according with The Holy Scriptures and Holy Fathers. If you believe in Calvinism that's ok but don't think that servo arbitrio was his final position.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@@andremauricio1248 There's no evidence for your statement that Luther rejected determinism and double predestination in his last days, and I simply don't accept that he did. He was in sync with what Scripture teaches when he taught double predestination because he based his theology on what Paul teaches in Romans 9. So I for one refuse to accept that before he died he rejected what he had written against Erasmus. It's easily said, but there's no evidence for this. You're no doubt reading too much into things he said which only have an appearance that he no longer believed in determinism. I mean when he preached the Gospel he didn't say to people that if they've been predestined to believe they'll believe, and if they've been predestined to be damned they won't believe. That isn't how one goes about preaching the Gospel. One presents the Gospel to people on the basis that all can believe since we have no knowledge of who God has predestined to save and damn. And one tries to convince them of the truth of Christianity which can come across as if one is implying that we have free will to believe it or not. Probably that's at the back of why you believe that Luther in later life rejected divine predestination. He no doubt said things which sounded like he was denying that God determines what happens to people, when at the same time he still held that God has predestined people to be saved and damned.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@@andremauricio1248 I regard myself as a Lutheran by the way. It's just that I don't accept that the Formula of Concord's teaching on predestination agrees with what Luther and the early Lutherans held, or what Scripture teaches - there's ample evidence to show this. I hold to the truth contained in the documents that were in existence in Luther's lifetime that are included in the Book of Concord. It's just the revisionist teaching of Martin Chemnitz on predestination and grace in the Formula of Concord that I don't accept. I've read about a dozen volumes of Luther's sermons and not found anything which contradicts his teaching in The Bondage of the Will, and I've also read other things he's written later in life and likewise not found anything. Usually confessional Lutherans say in opposition to the teaching of double predestination that the Scriptures teach that God desires to save everyone and that Christ died for the whole world and not just for the elect, but I don't accept that this is evidence that God hasn't predestined anyone to be damned. Luther also acknowledged this in The Bondage of the Will whilst still holding to the truth of double predestination. He distinguished between God's hidden will which has predestined what happens to people, and His revealed will in Christ which desires to save everyone. This is how I understand the matter. It doesn't follow that because God through Christ has the desire to save rather than condemn people, that He hasn't in eternity determined that only some people will be saved and others will be damned. An analogous situation can exist here. A judge might take pity on a criminal and personally wish he could set him free, but in the interests of justice he has to sentence him to a term of imprisonment. So God in eternity has made a just decision that He will only save some people rather than everyone, and that those He doesn't elect to save will be condemned to hell. I accept that this doesn't seem just to us, but as Luther said we can't understand God's justice in this life, and we'll have to wait till the next to be able to understand how He is righteous in predestining people to be damned.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@@andremauricio1248 I'd like to add that if you're a confessional Lutheran and believe according to the Formula of Concord in single predestination to heaven, then you are in this respect believing in determinism, because you're affirming that only those whom God has elected to save will be saved. However at the same time you're also believing in free will because you're saying that the reason why people are damned is because they've resisted being saved. To believe in both predestination and free will with respect to salvation and damnation is absurd. It simply can't be the case that those whom God doesn't predestine to save are damned because they've resisted being saved. The reason why they're damned is because God didn't elect and predestine them to be saved, and therefore it follows they're predestined to be damned. This is without a doubt Paul's meaning in Romans 9 where he says that God only has mercy on some people not everyone, and that He hardens in unbelief those He doesn't have mercy upon. Confessional Lutherans assume wrongly that God has mercy on everyone and tries to convert everyone through the Word, but Scripture teaches differently. Only those who are drawn by the Father to Christ can believe, and the reason why people don't believe is because the Father hasn't drawn them to Christ and enabled them to believe - John 6:44,64,65. In other words the Father doesn't send the Holy Spirit to all but only sends Him to those who He has elected to save, and the ones who He hasn't elected to save are therefore predestined to be damned. If God has predestined to save a person He irresistibly converts him by the Holy Spirit through the Word so that he believes and has true faith, and contrary wise if He doesn't elect to save a person He withholds the Holy Spirit from him so that he can't truly believe and consequently he's predestined to be damned.

[@andremauricio1248]

@@Edward-ng8oo I never say that Luther didn't believe what you wrote in his early days but you have to read the whole books of Luther. If you stay only with servo Arbitrio and his Roman commentary you just don't have the full picture. Nowadays Confessional Lutheranism have a problem. They don't follow the Lutheran fathers and the Lutheran Orthodoxy. Finally, double predestination is a heresy which was rejected by a regional council in The Church and yes, you are right Luther believed it for a time but not in his last days. I know that confessional lutheranism believe in unconditional election but that is very similar to calvinist. The truth position was intuitu fidei and yet is not synergism. Lutheranism was and is monergism but not like calvinism. You need to read the Holy fathers and the Arles and Orange council. Predestinarian was a heresy.