All good questions, and I’m sure @TheologyNerd can answer them himself. In fact, I hope he does, since you’ve tagged him.
And yes, I don’t agree with everything Luther said or wrote, nor do I agree with everything the Reformers said. But that doesn’t mean I can’t glean some valuable nuggets of truth from them.
J.
As a Lutheran I’m less interested in Luther’s Bondage of the Will and more interested in the Lutheran Confessions on the subject.
My understanding is that Luther’s Bondage of the Will is a scathing criticism of Erasmus’ half-hearted defense of free will rooted in Erasmus’ philosophical background. Erasmus was a philosopher, not a theologian. Luther’s criticisms are borne out of Erasmus’ failure to take the subject seriously.
An accurate understanding of the Lutheran doctrine on human inability would be found in the Solid Declaration and its Epitome,
From the Epitome of the Solid Declaration of Concord
1. Concerning this subject, our doctrine, faith, and confession is, that in spiritual things the understanding and reason of man are [altogether] blind, and by their own powers understand nothing, as it is written 1 Cor. 2:14: The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them when he is examined concerning spiritual things.
2. Likewise we believe, teach, and confess that the unregenerate will of man is not only turned away from God, but also has become an enemy of God, so that it only has an inclination and desire for that which is evil and contrary to God, as it is written Gen. 8:21: The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Also Rom. 8:7: The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither, indeed, can be. Yea, as little as a dead body can quicken itself to bodily, earthly life, so little can man, who by sin is spiritually dead, raise himself to spiritual life, as it is written Eph. 2:5: Even when we were dead in sins, He hath quickened us together with Christ; 2 Cor. 3:5: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything good as of ourselves, but that we are sufficient is of God.
3. God the Holy Ghost, however, does not effect conversion without means, but uses for this purpose the preaching and hearing of God’s Word, as it is written Rom. 1:16: The Gospel is the power of God
unto salvation to every one that believeth. Also Rom. 10:17: Faith cometh by hearing of the Word of God. And it is God’s will that His Word should be heard, and that man’s ears should not be closed. Ps. 95:8. With this Word the Holy Ghost is present, and opens hearts, so that they, as Lydia in Acts 16:14, are attentive to it, and are thus converted alone through the grace and power of the Holy Ghost, whose
work alone the conversion of man is. For without His grace, and if He do not grant the increase, our willing and running, our planting, sowing, and watering, all are nothing, as Christ says John 15:5: Without Me ye can do nothing. With these brief words He denies to the free will its powers, and ascribes everything to God’s grace, in order that no one may boast before God. 1 Cor. 1:29; 2 Cor. 12:5; Jer. 9:23.
As I’ve never read the Bondage of the Will, nor is it an authoritative text within the Lutheran Confessional tradition, I am unable nor particularly motivated to defend it or Luther’s rhetoric within it.
Luther’s rhetoric, historically, was known to be quite sharp to the point of hostile–though this was not altogether unusual for the time. Men like Philip Melancthon tried to soften Luther’s rhetoric, though this sometimes led to controversy as Philip was soft to the point of compromise. Which is why the best source for the Evangelical tradition is the Book of Concord.
I find the idea of God enslaving the human will to be a strange idea. As best as I’m aware Dr. Luther never taught this; the will is in bondage due to sin. God is not the enslaver of the will, but the liberator of the will.
It is only the regenerate man who can, by the power of the Holy Spirit, cooperate with God in sanctification through the new obedience which is born of grace by the Spirit on account of the Gospel–that is to say, by faith.
At any rate, I reject Decision Theology because I do not believe it to be biblically defensible; and because it places the locus of saving power not at the Cross and in God’s mercy alone, but attributes to man the powers of his own salvation in order that man may boast of himself, rather than in God’s grace alone, and the Cross alone.
I didn’t choose God. God, in His love, chose me in Christ.
Also, from Dr.Luther…
STATUS CONTROVERSIAE. The Principal Question in This Controversy. (Source: II. Free Will. · BookOfConcord.org )
7 Accordingly, we reject and condemn all the following errors as contrary to the standard of God’s Word:
8 1. The delirium [insane dogma] of philosophers who are called Stoics, as also of the Manicheans, who taught that everything that happens must so happen, and cannot happen otherwise, and that everything that man does, even in outward things, he does by compulsion, and that he is coerced to evil works and deeds, as inchastity, robbery, murder, theft, and the like.
9 2. We reject also the error of the gross Pelagians, who taught that man by his own powers, without the grace of the Holy Ghost, can turn himself to God, believe the Gospel, be obedient from the heart to God’s Law, and thus merit the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
10 3. We reject also the error of the Semi-Pelagians, who teach that man by his own powers can make a beginning of his conversion, but without the grace of the Holy Ghost cannot complete it.
I’ve noticed that quite a few people misquote Luther and the Reformers, @TheologyNerd.
Just an observation, and keep up the good work for Christ Jesus and our Abba, sealed with the Holy Spirit.
Ephesians 4:30
καὶ μὴ λυπεῖτε τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ἐσφραγίσθητε εἰς ἡμέραν ἀπολυτρώσεως.
Grace and Shalom to you and family.
J.
How do you reconcile the 2nd half of Romans chapter 1?
Good question, Pater. But don’t you think we’re veering quite a bit off topic here? Last time I’ve checked this thread is about “Knowing God’s Holiness”
Correct?
J.
Thank you for your response.
We can agree that " It is finished ".
I should say that I’m no adherent to sola scriptura, and although I believe the Canon of Scripture to be complete and finished, The Word remains alive and active in our lives.
Im not proposing a change in the text ( although most will not agree on what the precise text should be ) just another way of thinking about it.
I think you may be giving the old man, that wiley lying lizard more credit than due. He is defeated, and can do nothing to us unless we give permission. I view evil as merely the absence of Good.
I do like your reference to Babal. I think about that often.
Which I suppose prompted me to suggest other language, other words. Not to replace The Canon, but to illuminate it.
If nothing else, the act of discussing it may. It has for me.
I suppose the best way I can respond is by a bad metaphor.
I see mankind as God’s kids. And we’re making a mess of our playroom. Its what we do naturally.
I believe our “Teacher” will be much more successful in emulating love, expressing the Fruits of The Spirit, then pointing out the obvious.
I suspect most people can recognize what darkness they abide in, when they see The Light.
@Johann From the OP:
@NetChaplian is making a claim of explanation for the PoE. And part of his claim is a statement of God’s foreknowledge and determination. So that’s how we got here.
If I understand you and @TheologyNerd, your reformed doctrine denies any human free will prior to conversion. Which would mean that Adam and Eve had no choice but to do what they did, and that Paul’s examples had no choice but to do what they did.
Romans 1:21 “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.”
@NetChaplian says in the OP that God knew what would happen, and allowed it in order to reveal His holiness. You (and the reformers) seem to disagree.
I believe that Adam and Eve freely chose their beliefs, and that people continue to choose their beliefs (within constraints) as illustrated by the passage in Romans for one example.
So I think our disagreement is on the nature of human beliefs and the magnitude of God’s involvement. The problem is that if God determines our beliefs in toto, that means He sends persons into eternal conscious torment because He determined that that would be good, independent of any agency that they might exercise. They don’t have any agency with regard to their beliefs.
I can’t believe that.
How is the “old man” defeated, @Oakback? Paul actually tells us what happened to the old man. Romans 6:6 says, “our old man is crucified with him,” and Ephesians 4:22–24 speaks of putting off the old man and putting on the new man. Colossians 3:9–10 says essentially the same thing.
So when you say you want “other language, other words,” I’m curious. In your own words, how do you understand what Scripture means by the old man being crucified and put off? And how is that accomplished in the life of the believer?
J.
I am out for the week, taking the grandkids camping.
God’s blessings to you all!
Perhaps " old man " was a poor choice, as it was not my intention to imply your reference.
Several decades ago, I had a spiritual director who happened to be the Archdiocene exorcist.
He taught me well. And to this day, I refuse to give " the accuser of men" the time of day.
There seems to be an obsession these days with that slithering serpent.
And as with any prideful deceiver, I suspect is relishing the undeserved attention.
Ignoratio elenchi.
Your feedback seems to be a deflection through a topic shift. I asked about Paul’s ‘old man,’ but your response shifts the discussion to Satan and the attention Christians give him.
J.
Enjoy, my government “froze” my Grant/Pension.
J.
Friends.
I have not been involved in this thread to date, primarily because when I read the title, “Knowing God’s Holiness” I already felt defeated. It seems a much more attainable goal would be to know the depths of the universe. I admit I am nowhere close to attaining either.
Since @Pater15 is willingly submitting himself to a week of unmitigated privation coupled with inexplicable joy (camping with grandkids) I thought I might try to occupy the chair he is leaving unattended.
Holiness = Perfection. That means Holiness cannot change, or be sullied in any way to remain Holy. Here’s the new part I don’t think anyone has mentioned. Holy God created… Well I’ll let Him tell you Himself:
“God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1:27-28)
The part I’m pointing out is His Holy command “Be fruitful and multiply”. Now I’m sure Adam had the legal agency to disobey this command, but c’mon guys, did he really have the ability to disobey this command? Adam examines his stunningly designed counterpart, and every cell in his body (every inclination of his will) urged him to “Be fruitful and multiply”. His perfectly designed body did not hesitate to weigh the decision because his craving body had stopped listening to his intelligent head. (I know this is extrabiblical, but who among us can argue?) Adam was no-doubt driven toward Eve as if he were shot out of a cannon, and Eve was no-doubt anxious for the encounter too.
Here’s the part I am asking us to consider. God gave Adam BOTH a command, and a nearly irrepressible drive to follow through. You might notice God had previously given the same command, “Be fruitful and multiply”, to His other creations (v 22), and likewise implanted in them the innate instinct to comply. This simple undeniable example demonstrates the Holiness of God in determining His perfect will and also putting His Holy finger on the scale to see it through to fruition. We might consider this aspect of Holiness when we contemplate the PoE, and the concept of Free will.
Just a thought.
KP
Hurry up and wait - grandkids still packing!
Getting back to the intent of the OP @johann …..
I have this thing that I do. I’m kind of an inventor, with patents etc. And I have been focused on this PoE problem for many years. Any time I have a significant breakthrough in either pursuit, it gets me fired up and I go outside and run around the house a couple times. More like hobble around these days.
This concept of God allowing evil as context for the description of His greatness was my first “breakthrough” that sent me outside for a few laps. I think you are onto something. But I would suggest to expand the scope.
Because He created this whole universe as context for the purpose of describing and demonstrating His maximal greatness in every aspect. He wants us to know His holiness, and His greatness, and His love, and His mercy. So He shows us Himself within a relevant definitional context for that purpose.
That context must include, ultimately, people/spirits who are evil enough to crucify an innocent Man who never sinned in His life. The very Son of God.
God allowed evil in the garden because it is necessary for us to see and know Him in his fullness, and we need to have the knowledge of good and evil if we are to successfully live forever as free, sinless beings in heaven.
And we get watch Him destroy evil forever. That will be a good day!
Sorry to hear that! Praying for your best!
Again, sorry for the confusion. “old man” is a term many use to refer to that deceiver of men. Not to be confused with the self, prior to becoming “born again”.
I am intimately aware of MY old man. That sorry reprobate.
Hopefully no one will take issue with these words.
Hi KP, and what is PoE? Thanks!
Tremendous commenting in my opinion! Appreciate the boost and God bless!
The Problem of Evil, with the many and varied theodicies proposed to explain it, is hardly a settled matter. From the Free Will Defence and Soul-Making Theodicy to Leibniz’s Greater Good approach, each attempts to account for how evil can exist in a world governed by an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God.
J.