I came across the follow excerpt while teaching a few weeks ago and it was striking that the self-made man and pursuer of virtue, Ben Franklin, was no fan of doctrinal preaching. I suspect that his objections to the preaching of Jedediah Andrews, the pastor at First Presbyterian in Philadelphia, would have also applied to redemptive historical sermons. Here is what Franklin observed:
Tho’ I seldom attended any public worship, I had still an opinion of its propriety, and of its utility when rightly conducted, and I regularly paid my annual subscription for the support of the only Presbyterian minister or meeting we had in Philadelphia. He us’d to visit me sometimes as a friend, and admonish me to attend his administrations, and I was now and then prevail’d on to do so, once for five Sundays successively. Had he been in my opinion a good preacher, perhaps I might have continued, notwithstanding the occasion I had for the Sunday’s leisure in my course of study; but his discourses were chiefly either polemic arguments, or explications of the peculiar doctrines of our sect, and were all to me very dry, uninteresting, and unedifying, since not a single moral principle was inculcated or enforc’d, their aim seeming to be rather to make us Presbyterians than good citizens.
At length he took for his text that verse of the fourth chapter of Philippians, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, or of good report, if there be any virtue, or any praise, think on these things.” And I imagin’d, in a sermon on such a text, we could not miss of having some morality. But he confin’d himself to five points only, as meant by the apostle, viz.: 1. Keeping holy the Sabbath day. 2. Being diligent in reading the holy Scriptures. 3. Attending duly the publick worship. 4. Partaking of the Sacrament. 5. Paying a due respect to God’s ministers. These might be all good things; but, as they were not the kind of good things that I expected from that text, I despaired of ever meeting with them from any other, was disgusted, and attended his preaching no more. I had some years before compos’d a little Liturgy, or form of prayer, for my own private use (viz., in 1728), entitled, Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion. I return’d to the use of this, and went no more to the public assemblies. My conduct might be blameable, but I leave it, without attempting further to excuse it; my present purpose being to relate facts, and not to make apologies for them.
This is not meant to be an expression of guilt by association, as if those who want application in preaching share Franklin’s views about religion more generally. I personally continue to be impressed by Franklin in a host of ways — his industry, his humor and style, his remarkable literary interests, and his statesmanship. But he wasn’t right about everything. People are complicated. That likely includes preaching and revivals (he was a fan, after all, of Whitefield).
Old Life 
Richard, no, we are not talking past each other. It is revivalism opposing confessionalism and vice versa, cross opposing glory and vice versa. To oppose glory with the cross is to glory lazy and disobedient, which sounds awful synonymous with foolishness. But that’s exactly what Paul said you’d say.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, no, we are not talking past each other. It is revivalism opposing confessionalism and vice versa, cross opposing glory and vice versa.
RS: I am not supporting revivalism and I am not opposing the cross. It is not the cross opposing glory, it is the cross opposing the glory of man and then being the manifestation of the glory of God. There is no seeking the glory of God apart from the cross.
Galatians 6:14 “But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”
Zrim: To oppose glory with the cross is to glory lazy and disobedient, which sounds awful synonymous with foolishness. But that’s exactly what Paul said you’d say.
RS: Just to be clear (and to repeat), man’s glory is opposed by the cross but not the glory of God which shone forth and shines forth by the cross. To oppose the glory of God in this day is to go against the confessions and the cross of Christ. I don’t think that is what Paul said. I know that is not what the catechisms say. In the catechisms we are taught that the highest thing we are to seek in all that we do and is our very purpose for life is the glory of God. Part of that very purpose is also to enjoy Him fully. The seeking of true revival is very consistent with seeking the manifestation of the glory of God in and through His Church and then in the world. When God comes, as the Psalms so frequently set forth, God is the joy of our joys. Both the Bible and the catechisms teach these things. If you are going to be a true confessionalist, then at least believe all that they teach. The very first thing that the two Westminster catechisms teach are given below.
WSC Q. 1 What is the chief end of man?
A. To glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.
WLC: Q. 1. What is the chief and highest end of man?
A. Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever.
LikeLike
Richard, if the glory of God shines forth by the cross then why is it lazy and disobedient to be content with the cross and the preaching of Christ and him crucified?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, if the glory of God shines forth by the cross then why is it lazy and disobedient to be content with the cross and the preaching of Christ and him crucified?
RS: Here is where I think you and I may be talking past each other. When you say preaching Christ and Him crucified, I hear you talking about giving a lecture on Sunday morning about the historical data and background. When I talk about how the glory of God shines forth by the cross, I mean that the cross should be declared in a way where the glory (attributes and beauty of the triune God) is set forth in a way that God’s beauty and delightfulness is seen. I am also saying that this glory should be preached to where the resurrected and living Christ is seen and exalted. I am trying to get at how Christ is the very life of the believer each and every moment of every day. I am speaking of the living Christ who cannot be contained by formal religious meetings on Sunday, though those are important. I am speaking of the resurrected Christ who has authority over all human flesh and He can give eternal life to those whom the Father gives Him. I am speaking of the Christ who should be preached to people whether they come to church or not. The glory of God is worth being made known to all human beings in all places, whether they come to church or not. Of course they should come, but if they don’t, we are to go.
LikeLike
Richard, I agree that even if others don’t come to church that we should.
But seriously, when you speak of the “living Christ who cannot be contained by formal religious meetings on Sunday” I wonder why you think the Belgic spends not less than six Articles on the church (27-32). In particular, Article 28 speaks in a way that doesn’t seem conducive to the revivalist’s apparent yawning at the prospect of formal participation:
We believe that since this holy assembly and congregation is the gathering of those who are saved and there is no salvation apart from it, no one ought to withdraw from it, content to be by himself, regardless of his status or condition.
But all people are obliged to join and unite with it, keeping the unity of the church by submitting to its instruction and discipline, by bending their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ, and by serving to build up one another, according to the gifts God has given them as members of each other in the same body.
And to preserve this unity more effectively, it is the duty of all believers, according to God’s Word, to separate themselves from those who do not belong to the church, in order to join this assembly wherever God has established it, even if civil authorities and royal decrees forbid and death and physical punishment result.
And so, all who withdraw from the church or do not join it act contrary to God’s ordinance.
The point is that God has ordained and sustains his church to be more than merely a homeroom for like-minded individuals—it’s where he promises to be personally, and if that’s the case, I don’t see why anyone wouldn’t want to put the accent on the church . You admit that formal religious participation is important, but the tone is the rote almost dismissive way one might speak of homeroom.
By the way, if it helps, to my confessionalist mind there is an important difference between a lecture and a sermon and the way many conservative P&R encourage note-taking instead of old-fashioned use of that instrument of faith commonly called “the ear,” I feel your pain.
LikeLike
Richard,
I would advise against thinking you stand above and are able to correct a stellar Lutheran theologian who understands Luther and his theology.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I agree that even if others don’t come to church that we should.
But seriously, when you speak of the “living Christ who cannot be contained by formal religious meetings on Sunday” I wonder why you think the Belgic spends not less than six Articles on the church (27-32). In particular, Article 28 speaks in a way that doesn’t seem conducive to the revivalist’s apparent yawning at the prospect of formal participation:
RS: But “the church” cannot be contained to one meeting on Sunday. I guess this is one of the reasons that I think we are talking past each other to some degree. True revival must happen within the church because it is for those who are already converted. In the teaching of Jonathan Edwards, he encouraged believer and unbeliever alike to attend the meetings of the church as often as the doors were opened.
Zrim quoting the Belgic Confession: We believe that since this holy assembly and congregation is the gathering of those who are saved and there is no salvation apart from it, no one ought to withdraw from it, content to be by himself, regardless of his status or condition.
RS: Agreed, but this is not contrary to seeking for the church to be revived.
Zrim quoting the Belgic Confession: But all people are obliged to join and unite with it, keeping the unity of the church by submitting to its instruction and discipline, by bending their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ, and by serving to build up one another, according to the gifts God has given them as members of each other in the same body.
RS: Agreed, but this is not contrary to seeking for the church to be revived.
Zrim quoting the Belgic Confession: And to preserve this unity more effectively, it is the duty of all believers, according to God’s Word, to separate themselves from those who do not belong to the church, in order to join this assembly wherever God has established it, even if civil authorities and royal decrees forbid and death and physical punishment result.
RS: But once again, this is not contrary to seeking for the church to be revived,
Zrim: And so, all who withdraw from the church or do not join it act contrary to God’s ordinance.
The point is that God has ordained and sustains his church to be more than merely a homeroom for like-minded individuals—it’s where he promises to be personally, and if that’s the case, I don’t see why anyone wouldn’t want to put the accent on the church . You admit that formal religious participation is important, but the tone is the rote almost dismissive way one might speak of homeroom.
RS: My tone, if it sounds dismissive, is about the way churches seem to operate. One is said to attend church rather than be part of the body of Christ which is the Church. One is said to go hear the homily or lecture, take the sacrament, and is then good for a week. On the other hand, the early believers in Acts seemed to have met almost every day and were devoted to the apostles teaching and to prayer. They thought so much of church that they met often and prayed together when they met. It was more than just agreeing that a confession is true, it was the resurrected Christ living in and through His people. So I don’t think that I am dismissive of the Church, but I just think that it is so important that folks should be more serious about it.
Zrim: By the way, if it helps, to my confessionalist mind there is an important difference between a lecture and a sermon and the way many conservative P&R encourage note-taking instead of old-fashioned use of that instrument of faith commonly called “the ear,” I feel your pain.
RS: I am glad we have a mutual pain at one point. I like to think that it points to a hunger for true preaching of Christ crucified.
LikeLike
Lily: Richard, I would advise against thinking you stand above and are able to correct a stellar Lutheran theologian who understands Luther and his theology.
RS: If a person is a modern Lutheran, I would say that person does not follow the theology of Luther. He was quite one with Calvin on the Bondage of the Will and predestination. If you are interested in a book On Being A Theologian of the Cross, there is one written by Gerhard O. Forde. He is a professor of systematic theology at Luther Seminary. Unless I have read him incorrectly, he would agree with my general assessment. So while I may disagree with one Lutheran theologian, I do agree with another one.
LikeLike
Richard,
Goodness, you do beat all. Calvin and Luther are one in agreement on predestination. You opine what “modern” Lutherans believe and practice. You opine that Gerhard would agree with you and rank Lutheran theologian’s work as interchangeable. My, my – your understanding is as dark as the inside of a bull.
LikeLike
Richard, the point isn’t that the church can be contained to one meeting on a Sunday—or even two for those with certain Reformed sensibilities. The point is that the Lord’s Day is the day he has set apart as holy and in which to meet with his people and feed them. It is typological for that final day of consummation.
But the pattern of one in seven is also better than the 24/7 concept in revivalosity because, though redeemed, we are also still creatures who have earthly vocations to attend, to say nothing of how revivalosity’s 24/7 notion seems to be another example of redemption swallowing up creation at high octane speeds. Yes, Jesus is Lord of all of life and every second of every year, but it’s hardly obvious that this means every day is the Lord’s Day. I bet you’re a “all of life is worship” sort of fellow. But if all of life is worship then nothing is. This is where revivalists sound like children who want every day to be their birthday but need the aid of maturity to realize just how misguided it is to neglect patterns set in the order of things. The sacred-secular distinction exists for our good.
LikeLike
Richard,
Since Calvin held to double predestination and Luther held to single predestination, that should be a clue that the two men are not in agreement even though they agreed on the bondage of man’s will and saw the same impasses with man’s depravity, universal grace, and God’s election. Some Reformed would posit that since the two men agreed in part, that they were in full agreement. In order to understand why the Reformed are mistaken, one needs to read/understand Luther’s full work and see why Luther and Calvin are not in full agreement.
Unlike Calvin, Luther stops where scripture stops, and does not try to resolve the impasses, but leaves them in tension. He does not teach limited atonement. He leaves God’s hidden will on why some are saved and others are not a mystery. Luther taught that we are to look to the revealed will of God in the cross of Christ, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper and not to look for the hidden will of God. Look to Christ to find ourselves in Christ and not to ourselves (eg: works, emotions, etc.).
Luther Addresses the Problems that Occur When Christians Misunderstand Predestination:
But it pleases me to take from this passage the opportunity to discuss doubt, God, and the will of God; for I hear that here and there among the nobles and persons of importance vicious statements are being spread abroad concerning predestination or God’s foreknowledge. For this is what they say: “If I am predestined, I shall be saved, whether I do good or evil. If I am not predestined, I shall be condemned regardless of my works.” I would be glad to debate in detail against these wicked statements if the uncertain state of my health made it possible for me to do so. For if the statements are true, as they, of course, think, then the incarnation of the Son of God, His suffering and resurrection, and all that He did for the salvation of the world are done away with completely. What will the prophets and all Holy Scripture help? What will the sacraments help? Therefore let us reject all this and tread it underfoot.
These are devilish and poisoned darts and original sin itself, with which the devil led our first parents astray when he said (Gen. 3:5): “You will be like God.” They were not satisfied with the divinity that had been revealed and in the knowledge of which they were blessed, but they wanted to penetrate to the depth of the divinity. For they inferred that there was some secret reason why God had forbidden them to eat of the fruit of the tree which was in the middle of Paradise, and they wanted to know what this reason was, just as these people of our time say: “What God has determined beforehand must happen. Consequently, every concern about religion and about the salvation of souls is uncertain and useless.” Yet it has not been given to you to render a verdict that is inscrutable. Why do you doubt or thrust aside the faith that God has enjoined on you? For what end did it serve to send His Son to suffer and to be crucified for us? Of what use was it to institute the sacraments if they are uncertain or completely useless for our salvation? For otherwise, if someone had been predestined, he would have been saved without the Son and without the sacraments or Holy Scripture. Consequently, God, according to the blasphemy of these people, was horribly foolish when He sent His Son, promulgated the Law and the Gospel, and sent the apostles if the only thing He wanted was that we should be uncertain and in doubt whether we are to be saved or really to be damned.
But these are delusions of the devil with which he tries to cause us to doubt and disbelieve, although Christ came into this world to make us completely certain. For eventually either despair must follow or contempt for God, for the Holy Bible, for Baptism, and for all the blessings of God through which He wanted us to be strengthened over against uncertainty and doubt. For they will say with the Epicureans: “Let us live, eat, and drink; tomorrow we shall die” (cf. 1 Cor. 15:32). After the manner of the Turks they will rush rashly into the sword and fire, since the hour in which you either die or escape has been predetermined.
But to these thoughts one must oppose the true and firm knowledge of Christ, just as I often remind you that it is profitable and necessary above all that the knowledge of God be completely certain in us and that we cling to it with firm assent of the heart. Otherwise our faith is useless. For if God does not stand by His promises, then our salvation is lost, while, on the other hand, this is our comfort, that, although we change, we nevertheless flee for refuge to Him who is unchangeable. For in Mal. 3:6 He makes this assertion about Himself: “I the Lord do not change.” And Rom. 11:29 states: “The gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.” Accordingly, this is how I have taught in my book On the Bondage of the Will and elsewhere, namely, that a distinction must be made when one deals with the knowledge, or rather with the subject, of the divinity. For one must debate either about the hidden God or about the revealed God. With regard to God, insofar as He has not been revealed, there is no faith, no knowledge, and no understanding. And here one must hold to the statement that what is above us is none of our concern. For thoughts of this kind, which investigate something more sublime above or outside the revelation of God, are altogether devilish. With them nothing more is achieved than that we plunge ourselves into destruction; for they present an object that is inscrutable, namely, the unrevealed God. Why not rather let God keep His decisions and mysteries in secret? We have no reason to exert ourselves so much that these decisions and mysteries be revealed to us.
Moses, too, asked God to show him His face; but the Lord replies: “You shall see My back, but you will not be able to see My face” (cf. Ex. 33:23). For this inquisitiveness is original sin itself, by which we are impelled to strive for a way to God through natural speculation. But this is a great sin and a useless and futile attempt; for this is what Christ says in John 6:65 (cf. John 14:6): “No one comes to the Father but by Me.” Therefore when we approach the unrevealed God, then there is no faith, no Word, and no knowledge; for He is an invisible God, and you will not make Him visible.
Furthermore, God has most sternly forbidden this investigation of the divinity. Thus when the apostles ask in Acts 1:6, “Has it not been predestined that at this time the kingdom should be restored?” Christ says to them: “It is not for you to know the times” (Acts 1:7). “Let Me be hidden where I have not revealed Myself to you,” says God, “or you will be the cause of your own destruction, just as Adam fell in a horrible manner; for he who investigates My majesty will be overwhelmed by My glory.”
And it is true that God wanted to counteract this curiosity at the very beginning; for this is how He set forth His will and counsel: “I will reveal My foreknowledge and predestination to you in an extraordinary manner, but not by this way of reason and carnal wisdom, as you imagine. This is how I will do so: From an unrevealed God I will become a revealed God. Nevertheless, I will remain the same God. I will be made flesh, or send My Son. He shall die for your sins and shall rise again from the dead. And in this way I will fulfill your desire, in order that you may be able to know whether you are predestined or not. Behold, this is My Son; listen to Him (cf. Matt. 17:5). Look at Him as He lies in the manger and on the lap of His mother, as He hangs on the cross. Observe what He does and what He says. There you will surely take hold of Me.” For “He who sees Me,” says Christ, “also sees the Father Himself” (cf. John 14:9). If you listen to Him, are baptized in His name, and love His Word, then you are surely predestined and are certain of your salvation. But if you revile or despise the Word, then you are damned; for he who does not believe is condemned (Mark 16:16).
You must kill the other thoughts and the ways of reason or of the flesh, for God detests them. The only thing you have to do is to receive the Son, so that Christ is welcome in your heart in His birth, miracles, and cross. For here is the book of life in which you have been written. And this is the only and the most efficacious remedy for that horrible disease because of which human beings in their investigation of God want to proceed in a speculative manner and eventually rush into despair or contempt. If you want to escape despair, hatred, and blasphemy of God, give up your speculation about the hidden God, and cease to strive in vain to see the face of God.
Otherwise you will have to remain perpetually in unbelief and damnation, and you will have to perish; for he who doubts does not believe, and he who does not believe is condemned (Mark 16:16).
Therefore we should detest and shun these vicious words which the Epicureans bandy about: “If this is how it must happen, let it happen.” For God did not come down from heaven to make you uncertain about predestination, to teach you to despise the sacraments, absolution, and the rest of the divine ordinances. Indeed, He instituted them to make you completely certain and to remove the disease of doubt from your heart, in order that you might not only believe with the heart but also see with your physical eyes and touch with your hands. Why, then, do you reject these and complain that you do not know whether you have been predestined? You have the Gospel; you have been baptized; you have absolution; you are a Christian. Nevertheless, you doubt and say that you do not know whether you believe or not, whether you regard as true what is preached about Christ in the Word and the sacraments.
But you will say: “I cannot believe.” Thus many are troubled by this trial, and I recall that at Torgau a little woman came to me and complained with tears in her eyes that she could not believe. Then, when I recited the articles of the Creed in order and asked about each one whether she was convinced that these things were true and had happened in this manner or not, she answered: “I certainly think that they are true, but I cannot believe.” This was a satanic illusion. Consequently, I kept saying: “If you think that all these things are true, there is no reason why you should complain about your unbelief; for if you do not doubt that the Son of God died for you, you surely believe, because to believe is nothing else than to regard these facts as the sure and unquestionable truth.”
God says to you: “Behold, you have My Son. Listen to Him, and receive Him. If you do this, you are already sure about your faith and salvation.” “But I do not know,” you will say, “whether I am remaining in faith.” At all events, accept the present promise and the predestination, and do not inquire too curiously about the secret counsels of God. If you believe in the revealed God and accept His Word, He will gradually also reveal the hidden God; for “He who sees Me also sees the Father,” as John 14:9 says. He who rejects the Son also loses the unrevealed God along with the revealed God. But if you cling to the revealed God with a firm faith, so that your heart is so minded that you will not lose Christ even if you are deprived of everything, then you are most assuredly predestined, and you will understand the hidden God. Indeed, you understand Him even now if you acknowledge the Son and His will, namely, that He wants to reveal Himself to you, that He wants to be your Lord and your Savior. Therefore you are sure that God is also your Lord and Father.
Observe how pleasantly and kindly God delivers you from this horrible trial with which Satan besets people today in strange ways in order to make them doubtful and uncertain, and eventually even to alienate them from the Word. “For why should you hear the Gospel,” they say, “since everything depends on predestination?” In this way he robs us of the predestination guaranteed through the Son of God and the sacraments. He makes us uncertain where we are completely certain. And if he attacks timid consciences with this trial, they die in despair, as would almost have happened to me if Staupitz had not delivered me from the same trial when I was troubled. But if they are despisers, they become the worst Epicureans. Therefore we should rather impress these statements on our hearts, such as John 6:44: “No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him.” Through whom? Through Me. “He who sees Me also sees the Father” (cf. John 14:9). And God says to Moses: “You cannot see My face, for man shall not see Me and live” (Ex. 33:20). And we read (Acts 1:7): “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by His own authority. But go, and carry out what I command.” Likewise (Ecclus. 3:22): “Seek not the things that are too high for you, and search not into things above your ability; but the things that God has commanded you, think on them always, and in many of His works be not curious.” Listen to the incarnate Son, and predestination will present itself of its own accord.
Staupitz used to comfort me with these words: “Why do you torture yourself with these speculations? Look at the wounds of Christ and at the blood that was shed for you. From these predestination will shine. Consequently, one must listen to the Son of God, who was sent into the flesh and appeared to destroy the work of the devil (1 John 3:8) and to make you sure about predestination. And for this reason He says to you: ‘You are My sheep because you hear My voice’ (cf. John 10:27). ‘No one shall snatch you out of My hands’ ” (cf. v. 28).
Many who did not resist this trial in such a manner were hurled headlong into destruction. Consequently, the hearts of the godly should be kept carefully fortified. Thus a certain hermit in The Lives of the Fathers advises his hearers against speculations of this kind. He says: “If you see that someone has put his foot in heaven, pull him back. For this is how saintly neophytes are wont to think about God apart from Christ. They are the ones who try to ascend into heaven and to place both feet there. But suddenly they are plunged into hell.” Therefore the godly should beware and be intent only on learning to cling to the Child and Son Jesus, who is your God and was made flesh for your sake. Acknowledge and hear Him; take pleasure in Him, and give thanks. If you have Him, then you also have the hidden God together with Him who has been revealed. And that is the only way, the truth, and the life (cf. John 14:6). Apart from it you will find nothing but destruction and death.
But He manifested himself in the flesh to snatch us from death, from the power of the devil. From this knowledge must come great joy and delight that God is unchangeable, that He works in accordance with unchangeable necessity, and that He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13) but keeps His promises. Accordingly, one is not free to have such thoughts or doubts about predestination; but they are ungodly, vicious, and devilish. Therefore when the devil assails you with them, you should only say: “I believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, about whom I have no doubt that He was made flesh, suffered, and died for me. Into His death I have been baptized.” This answer will make the trial disappear, and Satan will turn his back.
Thus on other occasions I have often mentioned the noteworthy example of a nun who underwent the same trial. For under the papacy there were also many godly persons who experienced these spiritual trials, which are truly hellish and thoughts of the damned. For there is no difference at all between one who doubts and one who is damned. Therefore whenever the nun felt that she was being assailed with the fiery darts of Satan (cf. Eph. 6:16), she would say nothing else than this: “I am a Christian.”
We must do the same thing. One must refrain from debates and say: “I am a Christian; that is, the Son of God was made flesh and was born; He has redeemed me and is sitting at the right hand of the Father, and He is my Savior.” Thus you must drive Satan away from you with as few words as possible and say: “Begone, Satan! (Matt. 4:10.) Do not put doubt in me. The Son of God came into this world to destroy your work (1 John 3:8) and to destroy doubt.” Then the trial ceases, and the heart returns to peace, quiet, and the love of God.
Otherwise doubt about some person’s intention is no sin. Thus Isaac doubts that he will live or have a pious host. About a man I can be in doubt. Indeed, I should be in doubt. For he is not my Savior, and it is written (Ps. 146:3): “Put not your trust in princes.” For man is a liar (Ps. 116:11) and deceitful. But one cannot deal doubtfully with God. For He neither wants nor is able to be changeable or a liar. But the highest form of worship He requires is your conviction that He is truthful. For this is why He has given you the strongest proofs of His trustworthiness and truth. He has given His Son into the flesh and into death, and He has instituted the sacraments, in order that you may know that He does not want to be deceitful, but that He wants to be truthful. Nor does He confirm this with spiritual proofs; He confirms it with tangible proofs. For I see the water, I see the bread and the wine, and I see the minister. All this is physical, and in these material forms He reveals Himself. If you must deal with men, you may be in doubt as to the extent to which you may believe a person and as to how others may be disposed toward you; but concerning God you must maintain with assurance and without any doubt that He is well disposed toward you on account of Christ and that you have been redeemed and sanctified through the precious blood of the Son of God. And in this way you will be sure of your predestination, since all the prying and dangerous questions about GOD’S secret counsels have been removed—the questions to which Satan tries to drive us, just as he drove our first parents.
But how great would our first parent’s happiness have been if he had kept the Word of God carefully in sight and had eaten of all the other trees except the one from which he had been forbidden to eat! But he wanted to search out why God had forbidden him to enjoy the fruits from that one tree. In addition, there was Satan, the malicious teacher who increased and abetted this curiosity. Thus he was hurled headlong into sin and death.
Thus God reveals His will to us through Christ and the Gospel. But we loathe it and, in accordance with Adam’s example, take delight in the forbidden tree above all the others. This fault has been implanted in us by nature. When Paradise and heaven have been closed and the angel has been placed on guard there (cf. Gen. 3:24), we try in vain to enter. For Christ has truthfully said: “No one has ever seen God” (John 1:18). Nevertheless, God, in His boundless goodness, has revealed Himself to us in order to satisfy our desire. He has shown us a visible image. “Behold, you have My Son; he who hears Him and is baptized is written in the book of life. This I reveal through My Son, whom you can touch with your hands and look at with your eyes.”
I have wanted to teach and transmit this in such a painstaking and accurate way because after my death many will publish my books and will prove from them errors of every kind and their own delusions. Among other things, however, I have written that everything is absolute and unavoidable; but at the same time I have added that one must look at the revealed God, as we sing in the hymn: Er heist Jesu Christ, der HERR Zebaoth, und ist kein ander Gott, “Jesus Christ is the Lord of hosts, and there is no other God”—and also in very many other places. But they will pass over all these places and take only those that deal with the hidden God. Accordingly, you who are listening to me now should remember that I have taught that one should not inquire into the predestination of the hidden God but should be satisfied with what is revealed through the calling and through the ministry of the Word. For then you can be sure about your faith and salvation and say: “I believe in the Son of God, who said (John 3:36): ‘He who believes in the Son has eternal life.’ ” Hence no condemnation or wrath rests on him, but he enjoys the good pleasure of God the Father. But I have publicly stated these same things elsewhere in my books, and now I am also teaching them by word of mouth. Therefore I am excused.
(From the American Edition of Luther’s Works 5:43-50; Luther’s Genesis Commentary, commenting on Genesis 29:9).
LikeLike
Richard,
The Book of Concord (1577) is the historic doctrinal standard of the Lutheran Church that confessional Lutherans believe, teach, and confess. Hermann Sasse (d. 1976) was a premier twentieth century confessional Lutheran theologian whose theology was orthodox. Gerhard Forde (d. 2005) was a respected theologian whose theology was not completely compatible with Lutheran orthodoxy (eg: he did not accept the third-use of the law and the inerrancy of scripture; he did accept women’s ordination; etcetera). Forde’s book, The Heidelberg Disputation is well regarded and well worth reading and digesting. I sincerely doubt that Forde would agree with your theology of glory / theology of revival, for the Disputation reads in part:
“That wisdom which sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.
This has already been said. Because men do not know the cross and hate it, they necessarily love the opposite, namely, wisdom, glory, power, and so on. Therefore they become increasingly blinded and hardened by such love, for desire cannot be satisfied by the acquisition of those things which it desires. Just as the love of money grows in proportion to the increase of the money itself, so the dropsy of the soul becomes thirstier the more it drinks, as the poet says: »The more water they drink, the more they thirst for it.« The same thought is expressed in Eccles. 1:8: »The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.« This holds true of all desires.
Thus also the desire for knowledge is not satisfied by the acquisition of wisdom but is stimulated that much more. Likewise the desire for glory is not satisfied by the acquisition of glory, nor is the desire to rule satisfied by power and authority, nor is the desire for praise satisfied by praise, and so on, as Christ shows in John 4:13, where he says, »Every one who drinks of this water will thirst again.«
The remedy for curing desire does not lie in satisfying it, but in extinguishing it. In other words, he who wishes to become wise does not seek wisdom by progressing toward it but becomes a fool by retrogressing into seeking »folly«. Likewise he who wishes to have much power, honor, pleasure, satisfaction in all things must flee rather than seek power, honor, pleasure, and satisfaction in all things. This is the wisdom which is folly to the world..”
LikeLike
Lily: Richard, Goodness, you do beat all. Calvin and Luther are one in agreement on predestination.
RS: Yes, that is correct. It has been stated that Calvin was a Lutheran and Luther was a Calvinist.
Lily: You opine what “modern” Lutherans believe and practice.
RS: Yes, as a whole Lutherans hold to ‘free-will’ and followed Melancthon away from Luther.
Lily: You opine that Gerhard would agree with you and rank Lutheran theologian’s work as interchangeable. My, my – your understanding is as dark as the inside of a bull.
RS: Read Gerhard and simply see if Luther’s theology of the cross was not indeed to the glory of God. I simply said one Lutheran said one thing and you say another Lutheran says another. I guess I don’t know how dark it is inside of a bull, so I will have to take your word for it.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, the point isn’t that the church can be contained to one meeting on a Sunday—or even two for those with certain Reformed sensibilities. The point is that the Lord’s Day is the day he has set apart as holy and in which to meet with his people and feed them. It is typological for that final day of consummation.
RS: Yet, some do like to eat more than once a week.
Zrim: But the pattern of one in seven is also better than the 24/7 concept in revivalosity because, though redeemed, we are also still creatures who have earthly vocations to attend, to say nothing of how revivalosity’s 24/7 notion seems to be another example of redemption swallowing up creation at high octane speeds. Yes, Jesus is Lord of all of life and every second of every year, but it’s hardly obvious that this means every day is the Lord’s Day. I bet you’re a “all of life is worship” sort of fellow. But if all of life is worship then nothing is. This is where revivalists sound like children who want every day to be their birthday but need the aid of maturity to realize just how misguided it is to neglect patterns set in the order of things. The sacred-secular distinction exists for our good.
RS: I am not sure of the “all of life is worship” thing, but the Great Commandment teaches us that we are to love God 24/7 and that all we do is to be for His glory.
LikeLike
In His “Proclamation” book, Forde quite clearly rejects any idea of Christ’s atonement as that which satisfies God’s wrath and justice. I am not saying to not read Forde. I do. I like his soundbites. I enjoy when he exposes Sinclair Ferguson in Five Views of Christian Spirituality. I even think we can quote somebody who has a false gospel. But the fundy in me wants to also report every time I quote–“despite this guy’s false gospel….”
Of course I don’t want to teach “sanctification by effort” anymore than Forde did.
LikeLike
Lily: Richard’ The Book of Concord (1577) is the historic doctrinal standard of the Lutheran Church that confessional Lutherans believe, teach, and confess. Hermann Sasse (d. 1976) was a premier twentieth century confessional Lutheran theologian whose theology was orthodox. Gerhard Forde (d. 2005) was a respected theologian whose theology was not completely compatible with Lutheran orthodoxy (eg: he did not accept the third-use of the law and the inerrancy of scripture; he did accept women’s ordination; etcetera). Forde’s book, The Heidelberg Disputation is well regarded and well worth reading and digesting. I sincerely doubt that Forde would agree with your theology of glory / theology of revival, for the Disputation reads in part:
RS: Let me be clear once again. The theologian of the cross learns his theology by suffering. The theologian of glory learns his theology in order to glory in himself. But the theologian of the cross should seek the glory of God in his suffering. If one seeks to suffer for the glory of self, that is still seeking the glory of self.
Forde’s work On Being a Theologian of the Cross says the following on pages 14-15:
Quoting Luther: “But in the kingdom of his divinity and glory he will make us like unto his glorious body, where we shall be like him and shall be no longer sinners, no longer weak, but shall ourselves be kings, the sons of God, and as the angels that are in heaven. Then we shall say “my God” in real possession, which now we say only in hope.”
Forde’s footnote says this: “It goes without saying, perhaps, that “glory” here means something different from the glory in a theology of glory. The glory of God comes by God’s grace and power. The glory of the theology of glory is made, sought, and appropriated by fallen creatures in the attempt to usurp divine glory.”
LikeLike
Richard,
Please see my previous two comments where each of your points are refuted.
LikeLike
Mark,
Forde was orthodox Lutheran in his theology in a number of areas. That’s why his work has value.
LikeLike
Lily: Luther held to single predestination
Canons of Dort (1:15)
Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God’s eternal election – those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision: to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice. And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.
God Decrees the Damnation of the Lost From All Eternity (Luther)
Now, if you are disturbed by the thought that it is difficult to defend the mercy and justice of God when he damns the undeserving, that is to say, ungodly men who are what they are because they were born in ungodliness and can in no way help being and remaining ungodly and damnable, but are compelled by a necessity of nature to sin and to perish (as Paul says: “We were all children of wrath like the rest,” since they are created so by God himself from seed corrupted by the sin of the one man Adam)—rather must God be honored and revered as supremely merciful toward those whom he justifies and saves, supremely unworthy as they are, and there must be at least some acknowledgement of his divine wisdom so that he may be believed to be righteous where he seems to us to be unjust. For if his righteousness were such that it could be judged to be righteous by human standards, it would clearly not be divine and would in no way differ from human righteousness. But since he is the one true God, and is wholly incomprehensible and inaccessible to human reason, it is proper and indeed necessary that his righteousness also should be incomprehensible, as Paul also says where he exclaims: “O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways!” But they would not be incomprehensible if we were able in every instance to grasp how they are righteous. What is man, compared with God? How much is there within our power compared with his power? What is our strength in comparison with his resources? What is our knowledge compared with his wisdom? What is our substance over against his substance? In a word, what is our all compared with his? (LW, vol. 33, 289)
God Hates Many Men From All Eternity
God’s love toward men is eternal and immutable, and his hatred is eternal, being prior to the creation of the world, and not only to the merit and work of free choice; and everything takes place by necessity in us, according as he either loves or does not love us from all eternity, . . . (LW, vol. 33, 198)
Limited Atonement:
Luther’s sermon on Hebrews 1:1-12, and the quote is expounding on verse 3 “who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”
32. The apostle says “our,” “our sins;” not his own sin, not the sins of unbelievers. Purification is not for, and cannot profit, him who does not believe. Nor did Christ effect the cleansing by our free-will, our reason or power, our works, our contrition or repentance, these all being worthless in the sight of God’, he effects it by himself. And how? By taking our sins upon himself on the holy cross, as Isaiah 53:6 tells us.
LikeLike
Lily: Richard,
Please see my previous two comments where each of your points are refuted.
RS: I guess I did not see anything that actually refuted what I said.
LikeLike
Lily: Luther held to single predestination
RS: It is impossible to believe in real predestination without believing in double predestination. If God chose some and did not choose others, then that is double predestination. By definition a true believer in predestination is one who believes in double predestination. If one does not believe in double predestination, then one does not really believe in predestination.
LikeLike
Richard,
It’s easy to see that you did not have time to read, much less digest what I posted in my comments. At this point, there appears to be little purpose in your debates other than to argue for the sake of arguing. Taking quotes out of context and making false comparisons also doesn’t bolster support for your arguments.
It is clear in one Luther quote that he was speaking of the church triumphant not the church militant when it comes to glory. The confused comparison using the Canons of Dordt (official Reformed doctrine) with Luther’s heated debate with Erasmus where he is arguing for the fact that man cannot be saved apart from the grace of God for us in Christ is not particularly surprising. The failure to understand that a quote does not make an argument when Luther’s body of work and later work will not support your claim should be evident. Luther’s last sermon on predestination, which I have posted, clearly shows his final thoughts on the subject and these are the teachings which have been incorporated into the Book of Concord (official Lutheran doctrine).
It’s strange that you do not recognize that when scripture teaches that not all men will be saved, it must mean Reformed double predestination. My best guess is that you are not very familiar with other Christian traditions. Lutherans are elect in Christ and also know that scripture teaches that it is possible for the elect to become apostate (eg: A man who was never saved cannot become apostate or fall away from something he never had). I give this example, not to argue, but to point out how little you understand about Luther, a tradition to which you do not belong, and how little you understand about the ease that one might take with Calvin’s writings by cherry-picking and insist he’s an Anglican.
Lastly – regarding your last comment that was separate from what I addressed above. You are creating some debatable if/thens by insisting that if there is a real predestination, then it must be double predestination. To say that someone who doesn’t agree with your logic or view of predestination is not a true believer takes judgment where God forbids you to take it. It would be good to learn that what your tradition considers orthodox, other traditions consider heterodox, but not apostate. Please stay within the boundaries.
LikeLike
Mark,
If you want to say Forde proclaimed a false gospel, you would need to say the Eastern Orthodox proclaim a false gospel. Read up on all of the history and different explanations of Christ’s atonement. I think you may find it fascinating and edifying reading.
LikeLike
Lily: Richard, It’s easy to see that you did not have time to read, much less digest what I posted in my comments.
RS: Digesting does not always mean agreeing.
Lily: At this point, there appears to be little purpose in your debates other than to argue for the sake of arguing. Taking quotes out of context and making false comparisons also doesn’t bolster support for your arguments.
RS: That is why I didn’t do those things.
Lily: It is clear in one Luther quote that he was speaking of the church triumphant not the church militant when it comes to glory. The confused comparison using the Canons of Dordt (official Reformed doctrine) with Luther’s heated debate with Erasmus where he is arguing for the fact that man cannot be saved apart from the grace of God for us in Christ is not particularly surprising.
RS: I was not comparing the quote from Dordt with Luther, but showing that to believe in predestination is to believe in double predestination. The quote from Luther demonstrated that he believed in double predestination as well. So your statement that I used a confused comparison is simply a confused statement.
Lily: The failure to understand that a quote does not make an argument when Luther’s body of work and later work will not support your claim should be evident. Luther’s last sermon on predestination, which I have posted, clearly shows his final thoughts on the subject and these are the teachings which have been incorporated into the Book of Concord (official Lutheran doctrine).
RS: It is not quite so simple to deny that a man that taught something (in this case, predestination) for years and years would simply deny it outright later on and that the later teaching (if correct) should overwhelm all of his former teaching. Nada. Luther taught the Bondage of the Will and considered it his greatest work because he was defending the sovereign grace of God in that work.
Lily: It’s strange that you do not recognize that when scripture teaches that not all men will be saved, it must mean Reformed double predestination.
RS: I did not say that. What I said was that if a person truly believes in predestination, that person is compelled to believe in double predestination. You cannot have one without the other.
Lily: My best guess is that you are not very familiar with other Christian traditions. Lutherans are elect in Christ and also know that scripture teaches that it is possible for the elect to become apostate (eg: A man who was never saved cannot become apostate or fall away from something he never had).
RS: A reading of Romans 8:29-30 should help you see the great error in that teahcing: “29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.”
Lily: I give this example, not to argue, but to point out how little you understand about Luther, a tradition to which you do not belong, and how little you understand about the ease that one might take with Calvin’s writings by cherry-picking and insist he’s an Anglican.
RS: Like I said earlier, though using different words, the teachings of Lutheranism are not necesarily the same as those of Martin Luther. I gave you direct quotes and you insist that I am cherry-picking. As I read the Luther sermon again, he is not denying predestination. Remember, a few times he mentions it he is quoting what others say.
Lily: Lastly – regarding your last comment that was separate from what I addressed above. You are creating some debatable if/thens by insisting that if there is a real predestination, then it must be double predestination. To say that someone who doesn’t agree with your logic or view of predestination is not a true believer takes judgment where God forbids you to take it.
RS: When did I say that if someone does not agree with my logic or of my view of predestination is not a true believer? I didn’t say that. Please, listen to my logic just once. Don’t leap over the words that I actually used to implications that are not proper deductions.
Lily: It would be good to learn that what your tradition considers orthodox, other traditions consider heterodox, but not apostate. Please stay within the boundaries.
RS: Sorry, but you don’t make the boundaries. While we are to listen to other traditions, we are to listen to Christ alone for the Gospel.
LikeLike
Richard, yes, Calvin advocated for the Lord’s Supper at least once a week. I’d settle for just once though every week. But revivalosity doesn’t tend to be good for eucharistic frequency, probably in part because to focus so much on Christ’s first advent is considered lazy and disobedient.
LikeLike
Richard, the self-importance regarding your possession of reason, logic, and deductive skills, and your omniscient comprehension regarding Luther’s work, the Book of Concord, and Lutherans are beyond words. Kyrie eleison.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, yes, Calvin advocated for the Lord’s Supper at least once a week. I’d settle for just once though every week. But revivalosity doesn’t tend to be good for eucharistic frequency, probably in part because to focus so much on Christ’s first advent is considered lazy and disobedient.
RS: But again, back when people spent a few days getting ready to take the sacrament and then a day of thanksgiving after it, revival did break out. But wouldn’t you agree that if all people did would be to meet on Sunday, affirm the confession, take the sacrament, and then leave that this would be something less than non-lazy and obedient? I am not arguing that all confessionalist are that way, but if they are wouldn’t they be something like the passage below?
Mat 25:24 “And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed.
25 ‘And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’
26 “But his master answered and said to him, ‘You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed.
LikeLike
Lily: Richard, the self-importance regarding your possession of reason, logic, and deductive skills, and your omniscient comprehension regarding Luther’s work, the Book of Concord, and Lutherans are beyond words.
RS: What can be said other than you did not deal with what I really said. Do I think I get the heart of Luther’s theology? Yes, I have read Bondage of the Will several times and have led studies over it. He called it his most important writing. I claim no expertise on the Book of Concord and no real expertise on Lutherans. However, from what study I have done and of Lutherans I have spoken to and listened to, the doctrine of ‘free-will’ is there. Luther said without mincing words that you must deny your ‘free-will’ in order to be saved.
Lily: Kyrie eleison.
RS: May the Lord have mercy on you too.
LikeLike
Richard, I don’t understand how doing what God commands–to attend his means of grace on his appointed day–is lazy and disobedient. I also don’t understand why it takes a few days to get ready and another whole day to give thanks. My guess is that what you have in mind is something like a communion season in the Scottish Highlands, and as I understand it it’s fairly complicated and mirrors the once-a-year medieval system of Calvin’s day. The parallels seem instructive. But Reformed worship is supposed to be, amongst other things, simple. And one benefit of conducting worship the “lazy and disobedient” way is that routine and regularity have a helpful way of guarding against spiritual complication.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I don’t understand how doing what God commands–to attend his means of grace on his appointed day–is lazy and disobedient.
RS: But if that is all that one does. Scripture tells us that we have a Great Commissin. Scripture tells us that we are in a spiritual war. There are many comands regarding the life of the body and that the Church is to be salt and light in the world. It does seem like one is hiding the talent in the ground and not doing anything with it.
Mat 25:24 “And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed.
25 ‘And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’
26 “But his master answered and said to him, ‘You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed.
Zrim: I also don’t understand why it takes a few days to get ready and another whole day to give thanks. My guess is that what you have in mind is something like a communion season in the Scottish Highlands, and as I understand it it’s fairly complicated and mirrors the once-a-year medieval system of Calvin’s day. The parallels seem instructive. But Reformed worship is supposed to be, amongst other things, simple. And one benefit of conducting worship the “lazy and disobedient” way is that routine and regularity have a helpful way of guarding against spiritual complication.
RS: Yes, it is something like they did in Scotland, but they did it perhaps two or three times a year if I recall correctly. However, they also handed out tokens when they did these communion seasons. Each person was examined by the elders to see if the person could take communion. If they passed, the person received a token. It took quite a while to carry out these examinations.
I have read in a few different places about the special services and communion services of John Howe. Here is the description of those:
1. He began at 9:00 with a prayer of about one quarter of an hour
2. He read and expounded the Scripture for about three quarters of an hour
3. He prayed an hour
4. He preached another hour
5. He then prayed for half an hour
6. The people sang about a quarter of an hour while he took a little refreshment
7. He then prayed for an hour more
8. Preached for another hour
9. Then concluded with a prayer of half an hour
LikeLike
Richard,
Regarding predestination, I said the difference between Luther and Calvin was single and double. I gave you evidence that Luther did not adhere to double predestination by offering you one of Luther’s last sermons given not too long before his death. Apparently, you skimmed it at best and I have doubts about the skimming. Why would I think that? You didn’t have time to read Luther’s sermon before you gave your reply.
In reading the sermon, you would have seen that Luther was addressing double predestination and speaking strongly against it. Why might you not see that? I would guess that you might have problems seeing that if you are imposing your Reformed thinking upon Luther. You do seem determined to impose double predestination on Luther and make his purpose “defending the sovereign grace of God” based on one book. Did he make points like that? Granted, he did in his furious speech against Erasmus’ work: On Free Will. That was central to the debate. But since you aren’t familiar with Luther’s body of work and the history, you wouldn’t know that Luther believed in universal grace and that God was not willing that any perish – both deny limited atonement and double predestination. Here is an excerpt from the Book of Concord with a partial summary of Luther’s views on predestination:
“This Bible-revelation, however, by which alone Luther would have men guided in judging God, plainly teaches both, that grace is universal, and that salvation is by grace alone. Luther always taught the universality of God’s love and mercy, as well as of Christ’s redemption, and the operation of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace. Also according to De Servo Arbitrio, God wants all men to be saved, and does not wish the death of sinners, but deplores and endeavors to remove it. Luther fairly revels in such texts as Ezek. 18, 23 and 31, 11: “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die,O house of Israel? “He calls the above a “glorious passage” and “that sweetest Gospel voice-illam vocem dulcissimi Evangelii.” (E. v. a. 7, 218.)
Thus Luther rejoiced in universal grace, because it alone was able to convince him that the Gospel promises embraced and included also him. In like manner he considered the doctrine that salvation is by grace alone to be most necessary and most comforting. Without this truth divine assurance of salvation is impossible, with it, all doubts about the final victory of faith are removed. Luther was convinced that, if he were required to contribute anything to his own conversion, preservation, and salvation, he could never attain these blessings. Nothing can save but the grace which is grace alone. In De Servo Arbitrio everything is pressed into service to disprove and explode the assertion of Erasmus that the human will is able to and does “work something in matters pertaining to salvation,” and to establish the monergism or sole activity of grace in man’s conversion. (St. L. 18, 1686, 1688.)
At the same time Luther maintained that man alone is at fault when he is lost. In De Servo Arbitrio he argues: Since it is God’s will that all men should be saved, it must be attributed to man’s will if any one perishes. The cause of damnation is unbelief, which thwarts the gracious will of God so clearly revealed in the Gospel. The question, however, why some are lost while others are saved, though their guilt is equal, or why God does not save all men, since it is grace alone that saves, and since grace is universal, Luther declines to answer. Moreover, he demands that we both acknowledge and adore the unsearchable judgments of God, and at the same time firmly adhere to the Gospel as revealed in the Bible. All efforts to solve this mystery or to harmonize the hidden and the revealed God, Luther denounces as folly and presumption.”
As I hope you can see, Luther taught single predestination.
Re: Do you get to the heart of Luther’s theology?
No. The heart of Luther’s theology is Christ crucified not God’s sovereignty, predestination, or the bondage of man’s will. Until you understand that Christ crucified is central to Luther, you will never get Luther. That is why you don’t “get” the Heidelberg Disputation.
Re: I claim no expertise on the Book of Concord and no real expertise on Lutherans. However, from what study I have done and of Lutherans I have spoken to and listened to, the doctrine of ‘free-will’ is there.
Apparently you’ve not read orthodox Lutheran theology or met any confessional Lutherans.
Re: Bondage of the Will was Luther’s “most important work”
Let’s see what Luther said in the letter written 10 years prior to his death:
“Regarding the plan to collect my writings in volumes, I am quite cool and not at all eager about it because, roused by a Saturnian hunger, I would rather see them all devoured. For I acknowledge none of them to be really a book of mine, except perhaps the one On the Bound Will and the Catechism.”
Sounds like “most important” is grade inflation. I would suggest that you read Lutheran writers if you wish to understand Luther, not Reformed writers. The Reformed don’t speak Luther any better than the Lutherans speak Calvin.
LikeLike
Lily: Richard, Regarding predestination, I said the difference between Luther and Calvin was single and double. I gave you evidence that Luther did not adhere to double predestination by offering you one of Luther’s last sermons given not too long before his death. Apparently, you skimmed it at best and I have doubts about the skimming. Why would I think that? You didn’t have time to read Luther’s sermon before you gave your reply.
RS: I am aware of the difference you said regarding Luther and Calvin. I am also aware that I read the sermon whether you believe that or not. I still believe that anyone who believes in predestination has to believe in double predestination. That does not preclude the idea that some people are not aquainted with the teaching of double predestination, or at least some of the real implications of it.
Lily: In reading the sermon, you would have seen that Luther was addressing double predestination and speaking strongly against it. Why might you not see that? I would guess that you might have problems seeing that if you are imposing your Reformed thinking upon Luther.
RS: Because Luther was not speaking against double predestination at all, though indeed you may think he was. Actually, Luther has imposed his Reformed thinking on me.
Lily: You do seem determined to impose double predestination on Luther and make his purpose “defending the sovereign grace of God” based on one book. Did he make points like that? Granted, he did in his furious speech against Erasmus’ work: On Free Will. That was central to the debate.
RS: Don’t be so sure that he was furious when he wrote that. Sure enough that might help explain to you how he could be so strong in certain areas, but his thinking in that book did not display fury but a strong reason and a strong desire for the glory of God’s grace.
Lily: But since you aren’t familiar with Luther’s body of work and the history, you wouldn’t know that Luther believed in universal grace and that God was not willing that any perish – both deny limited atonement and double predestination. Here is an excerpt from the Book of Concord with a partial summary of Luther’s views on predestination:
“This Bible-revelation, however, by which alone Luther would have men guided in judging God, plainly teaches both, that grace is universal, and that salvation is by grace alone. Luther always taught the universality of God’s love and mercy, as well as of Christ’s redemption, and the operation of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace. Also according to De Servo Arbitrio, God wants all men to be saved, and does not wish the death of sinners, but deplores and endeavors to remove it. Luther fairly revels in such texts as Ezek. 18, 23 and 31, 11: “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die,O house of Israel? “He calls the above a “glorious passage” and “that sweetest Gospel voice-illam vocem dulcissimi Evangelii.” (E. v. a. 7, 218.)
RS: “All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned.” Luther on Romans
Lily: Thus Luther rejoiced in universal grace, because it alone was able to convince him that the Gospel promises embraced and included also him.
RS: What can I say. The statement of your book does not convince me. Luther’s commentaries on Romans and Galatians along with his Bondage of the Will are more convincing.
Lily: In like manner he considered the doctrine that salvation is by grace alone to be most necessary and most comforting. Without this truth divine assurance of salvation is impossible, with it, all doubts about the final victory of faith are removed.
RS: True, but evidently there is some difference on what true grace really is.
Lily: Luther was convinced that, if he were required to contribute anything to his own conversion, preservation, and salvation, he could never attain these blessings. Nothing can save but the grace which is grace alone. In De Servo Arbitrio everything is pressed into service to disprove and explode the assertion of Erasmus that the human will is able to and does “work something in matters pertaining to salvation,” and to establish the monergism or sole activity of grace in man’s conversion. (St. L. 18, 1686, 1688.)
At the same time Luther maintained that man alone is at fault when he is lost. In De Servo Arbitrio he argues: Since it is God’s will that all men should be saved, it must be attributed to man’s will if any one perishes. The cause of damnation is unbelief, which thwarts the gracious will of God so clearly revealed in the Gospel. The question, however, why some are lost while others are saved, though their guilt is equal, or why God does not save all men, since it is grace alone that saves, and since grace is universal, Luther declines to answer. Moreover, he demands that we both acknowledge and adore the unsearchable judgments of God, and at the same time firmly adhere to the Gospel as revealed in the Bible. All efforts to solve this mystery or to harmonize the hidden and the revealed God, Luther denounces as folly and presumption.”
As I hope you can see, Luther taught single predestination.
RS: Your statements do not convince me. It is better to read Luther than trust in fallible men to synthesize him.
Lily: The heart of Luther’s theology is Christ crucified not God’s sovereignty, predestination, or the bondage of man’s will. Until you understand that Christ crucified is central to Luther, you will never get Luther. That is why you don’t “get” the Heidelberg Disputation. As a side note, Luther rested a lot on Augustine who believed both in double predestination and in the bound will as well
RS: Until you understand that there are reasons that Christ was crucified, you will not understand Luther. Heidelberg Thesis 18:” It is certain that man must utterly despair of his own ability before he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ.” This is repeated in even stronger language in Bondage of the Will. Until a person understands the bondage of the will, one will not understand the necessity of the cross and the righteousness and the resurrection of Christ.
Lily: Apparently you’ve not read orthodox Lutheran theology or met any confessional Lutherans.
RS: I do not agree with Lutheran theology.
Lily, quoting Luther: “Regarding the plan to collect my writings in volumes, I am quite cool and not at all eager about it because, roused by a Saturnian hunger, I would rather see them all devoured. For I acknowledge none of them to be really a book of mine, except perhaps the one On the Bound Will and the Catechism.”
RS: So Luther is not eager to have any of his works collected, but then sets out Bondage of the Will and the Catechism. Sounds like Luther himself esteemed these two books above all of his others. By the way, in the Bondage of the Will he congratulated Erasmus for getting at the main point.
Lily: Sounds like “most important” is grade inflation. I would suggest that you read Lutheran writers if you wish to understand Luther, not Reformed writers. The Reformed don’t speak Luther any better than the Lutherans speak Calvin.
RS: I prefer to go the primary sources themselves. It is almost like gossip when we only read what a person says that Luther said. I want to go to the source. It might be helpful if you did that as well.
LikeLike
Richard, “all that one does”? I have to say, for someone who says he wants to take the church seriously you sure have an ironic way of undermining her.
Re Howe, yeow. What about Jesus’ own instructions not to heap up many words in prayer?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, “all that one does”? I have to say, for someone who says he wants to take the church seriously you sure have an ironic way of undermining her.
RS: But again, Scripture tells us that the Church is the body of Christ and that each true believer is part of that body. The Church is not the building that people meet in and the Church has to do with the life of the believers during the week as well. I see that as exalting the Church and the local church. How does this undermine the local church?
Zrim: Re Howe, yeow. What about Jesus’ own instructions not to heap up many words in prayer?
RS: I think that we are warned that we are not heard because of our many words and not to use meaningless repetition.. Maybe he was convinced that he was heard for another reason and did not repeat himself very often. But yes, it does seem like a very long service. It could also be that he and his people thought of prayer as worship and so the prayers were acts of adoration and praise as they sought the face of God. Assuredly, though, one would only hope that his preaching was real preaching and not a simple lecture. If not, then the people that listened to him had the patience of Job (so to speak). Interestingly enough, Howe wrote a work on Delighting in God that extended to almost 200 pages with fairly small print.
LikeLike
Richard, you undermine the church by yawning at her attending God’s means of grace on his appointed day. And it’s hard to imagine any man praying publicly for hours on end and not vainly repeating himself. But, I know, I know, the revivalist’s default setting is to think this MUST be the work of God, couldn’t possibly be human vanity. Just handing out thou-mayest-pass tokens and seeking the face of God is all.
LikeLike
Richard,
I do not fault you for reading primary sources nor for not agreeing with Luther and Lutheran theology. I find it strange that you dismiss the witnesses of your primary source (the men who knew Luther) and give them no consideration in that you may be mistaken in your judgments of Luther and his times. I find it peculiar how easily you dismiss the expertise of trusted theologians and historians whose life work is far superior to your own in theological and church matters. You call them gossips and fail recognize that label would necessarily include you. It is uncanny that even though you have no expertise in a theologian, tradition, or doctrine you “think and feel” you are qualified to unabashedly critique while at the same time assenting to your ignorance. Astounding.
The lack of self-awareness of the inherent risks and dangers in not heeding our limitations and placing trust in our own fallible reason and emotion in matters that are beyond our familiarity is staggering. It continues to sound like the American non-denominational evangelical temperament where each man is his own infallible Pope. In light of these difficulties and in hopes of waking you up – please give me give me your concrete evidence:
1. “Anyone who believes in predestination has to believe in double predestination.” Show me the evidence starting with early church theologians and proceed to our current era.
2. “Don’t be so sure that he was furious when he wrote that.” Show me the evidence to refute the historical claim.
3. “Luther on Romans.” Show me why double predestination is compatible with the rest of Luther’s teaching on predestination: Luther saying that God, desiring to save all fallen human beings, sent his Son Jesus Christ to atone for the sins of the whole world on the cross. Those God saves have been predestined from eternity in Christ and those who are condemned are condemned because of their fallen will.
4. “Heidelberg 18.” Show the evidence that 18 (man’s bondage) is the central to Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation and not Christ. (Hint: If you understand the Heidleberg Disputation arguments regarding the Hidden God and the Revealed God, question 5 will be easy to answer).
5. “Luther’s sermon.” Show me the evidence that Luther is not speaking against double predestination. Include refuting these passages:
a) …this is what they say: “If I am predestined, I shall be saved, whether I do good or evil. If I am not predestined, I shall be condemned regardless of my works.” I would be glad to debate in detail against these wicked statements if the uncertain state of my health made it possible for me to do so.
b) … these people of our time say: “What God has determined beforehand must happen. Consequently, every concern about religion and about the salvation of souls is uncertain and useless.” Yet it has not been given to you to render a verdict that is inscrutable. Why do you doubt or thrust aside the faith that God has enjoined on you? For what end did it serve to send His Son to suffer and to be crucified for us? Of what use was it to institute the sacraments if they are uncertain or completely useless for our salvation? For otherwise, if someone had been predestined, he would have been saved without the Son and without the sacraments or Holy Scripture. Consequently, God, according to the blasphemy of these people, was horribly foolish when He sent His Son, promulgated the Law and the Gospel, and sent the apostles if the only thing He wanted was that we should be uncertain and in doubt whether we are to be saved or really to be damned.
c) this is how I have taught in my book On the Bondage of the Will and elsewhere, namely, that a distinction must be made when one deals with the knowledge, or rather with the subject, of the divinity. For one must debate either about the hidden God or about the revealed God. With regard to God, insofar as He has not been revealed, there is no faith, no knowledge, and no understanding. And here one must hold to the statement that what is above us is none of our concern. For thoughts of this kind, which investigate something more sublime above or outside the revelation of God, are altogether devilish. With them nothing more is achieved than that we plunge ourselves into destruction; for they present an object that is inscrutable, namely, the unrevealed God. Why not rather let God keep His decisions and mysteries in secret? We have no reason to exert ourselves so much that these decisions and mysteries be revealed to us.
d) this inquisitiveness is original sin itself, by which we are impelled to strive for a way to God through natural speculation. But this is a great sin and a useless and futile attempt; for this is what Christ says in John 6:65 (cf. John 14:6): “No one comes to the Father but by Me.” Therefore when we approach the unrevealed God, then there is no faith, no Word, and no knowledge; for He is an invisible God, and you will not make Him visible.
e) Therefore we should detest and shun these vicious words which the Epicureans bandy about: “If this is how it must happen, let it happen.” For God did not come down from heaven to make you uncertain about predestination…
f) I have wanted to teach and transmit this in such a painstaking and accurate way because after my death many will publish my books and will prove from them errors of every kind and their own delusions. Among other things, however, I have written that everything is absolute and unavoidable; but at the same time I have added that one must look at the revealed God … But they will pass over all these places and take only those that deal with the hidden God….remember that I have taught that one should not inquire into the predestination of the hidden God but should be satisfied with what is revealed.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, you undermine the church by yawning at her attending God’s means of grace on his appointed day.
RS: I am not aware of yawning at this, though indeed I yawn at times during the Sunday morning services. I just see the Bible teaching things about the body of Christ that requires more than just Sunday morning.
Zrim: And it’s hard to imagine any man praying publicly for hours on end and not vainly repeating himself.
RS: But when prayer is taken up with God, then there is an infinite amount of things to say about His glory in praise, thanksgiving, worship, and in praying for His name to be hallowed and for His kingdom to come.
Zrim: But, I know, I know, the revivalist’s default setting is to think this MUST be the work of God, couldn’t possibly be human vanity. Just handing out thou-mayest-pass tokens and seeking the face of God is all.
RS: That sounds like the confessionalists default setting of blaming all that one cannot explain or understand or like on revivalists. In other words, it seems like you are saying that this MUST NOT be the work of God. Of course some of this could logically be human vanity, but it could also be a real work of God. Right?
LikeLike
Richard,
Why don’t you show us from the Book of Concord where Lutherans teach “free will”?
Also, here’s a link to an article written by a Calvinist on the question of whether Luther held to the “five points”:
http://tquid.sharpens.org/Martin%20Luther%20and%20TULIP.htm
LikeLike
Richard, when the gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered it is ALWAYS the real work of God–even when done by and amid hypocrites, or men handing out tokens and praying for hours on end. But that doesn’t mean hypocrisy, tokens and endless prayers are the work of God.
LikeLike