To show you just how prevalent radical Lutheranism is even in the LCMS, in my philosophy class at one of the Concordias, the professor had us divvy up between those who sided with Ockham and those who sided with Aquinas on God‘s nature and law and I was pretty much the only anti-voluntarist.
Blessings to you and God be praised for your wonderful teaching videos and all the time and energy you have given to the edification of the Just/Sinner!!!
@Sage of Synergism What exactly do you believe then? I believe in justification through faith alone. I believe that God regards me as righteous because He has given me the gift of faith which justifies me before Him, and that my good works being tinged with sin don't count before God as a means of making me righteous. So I'm both saint and sinner - a sinner having been corrupted by original sin which inclines one towards committing sin in thought word and deed, but which is resisted by Christians although they can't avoid sinning from weakness; and a saint in that God regards me as forgiven through Christ and therefore acceptable in his sight. So what are you saying you are? Since you regard the idea of being a saint and sinner at the same time to be contradictory that means you must regard yourself as one or the other. So do you regard yourself as a pure sinless saint or an unregenerate and unforgiven sinner?
@Sage of Synergism You say you're not aware of any sin you're committing, but what about any you've recently committed? In the recent past have you any recollection of having inclinations towards lust, greed, pride, self promotion, envy, anger, coveting etc. One doesn't have to sin outwardly by committing some actual sinful deed to be a sinner in God's eyes. The mere entertaining of a sinful thought like a lustful thought about a real or imaginary woman qualifies as sin in God's eyes. It's not possible to avoid sinful thoughts, but if a person acts on these thoughts and commits actual sin then he no longer has the Holy Spirit. Christians try and suppress any sinful thoughts they have. If they give free reign to them and this results in actual sin then they're no longer living in faith. (1 Corinthians 10:13 is applicable here) Deuteronomy 30:11-14 KJV For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. I understand this passage to mean that Moses commanded the Israelites to obey God's commandments, and that they didn't have the excuse that they needed to go up to heaven to learn them or travel the seas in search of them because he, Moses, had proclaimed God's commandments to them. And if God gave them the ability to keep them then they would be able to keep them. The idea which you seem to be suggesting that they could keep His commandments through the free exercise of their wills is demonstrably false. If they could actually keep God's commandments, and justify themselves by keeping them, then they wouldn't need God to justify them through faith. Also Paul denies that there are any who are able to keep God's commandments in their unregenerate state before conversion. (And even after conversion the commandments can only be imperfectly kept as we still sin in thought): What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one." "Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit"; "The poison of asps is under their lips"; "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; Destruction and misery are in their ways; And the way of peace they have not known." “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Romans 3:9-18 NKJV) I don't agree that open theism is Scriptural. The Scriptures teach that God is omniscient. The NIV study Bible commenting in Genesis 18.21 says "Not a denial of God’s infinite knowledge but a figurative way of stating that he as “Judge” (v. 25) does not act on the basis of mere complaints." The Scriptures often depict God as if He's learning something to which He then responds to, but it doesn't mean God is ignorant of anything. It's anthropomorphizing God to make Him understandable to us finite beings. God is omnipotent and omniscient and everything that happens is foreknown and predestined by Him to happen.
@Sage of Synergism I quoted Paul saying "For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one …..." and you commented that Romans 3 does not say "unregenerate men are not able to keep God's commandments." True it doesn't specifically say that, but then who is Paul talking about in your eyes? There's only two choices. Either Paul is talking about all men in their unregenerate state before conversion, or he's talking about all those who have been converted to Christ. Does it make any sense to say that Paul was talking about those who are Christians? Is this an accurate description of Christians?: "Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit"; "The poison of asps is under their lips"; "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; Destruction and misery are in their ways; And the way of peace they have not known." Do Christians behave as Paul describes in this passage? No they obviously don't. Therefore Paul is plainly talking of all human beings in their unregenerate state. So it follows that no one can keep the commandments unless he has been first regenerated by the Holy Spirit. In order to become a believer in Christ we need to be converted which can only be done by God giving us the gift of faith. We don't have free will to decide to believe in Christ. God must first take the initiative and draw us to Christ and grant us faith. Paul says in John 6:44,64,65: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them …. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” (NIV) Paul is clearly saying here that we can't come to Christ and believe in Him through free will. We must be drawn and enabled to believe in Christ by the Father, and if the Father doesn't draw and enable us we can't believe in Christ. Christ says the reason why people don't believe in Him is because they haven't been enabled to believe in Him by the Father, not because they choose not to believe in him through free will. This shows that we must be predestined to be saved in order to be saved, and if we aren't predestined to be saved we will be damned - predestined to be damned that is, since God has determined and foreknown all things from eternity. You say that Christians can avoid all sin but in that case why do we need to pray as Christ instructed us to pray. The Lord's Prayer includes the petition that God should forgive us our tresspasses. Also John says: "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:8-9 NIV) You're clearly misinterpreting Scripture. Christians can never be sinless and pure in this life. It's unavoidable that we will sin through weakness, but such sins are forgiven us if we continue in the faith. If you think you're sinless then you're unfortunately deluding yourself. Deuteronomy 30:14 "But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it" doesn't mean that we have the ability to keep God's commandments through free will. That's a misinterpretation. We can only keep the commandments, and then not perfectly, if we have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. If it was possible to keep them perfectly without sin, then the obvious question is why did Christ need to come and die on the cross? If we can keep God's commandments perfectly so that God is satisfied and accepts us as his children, then why do we need to believe in Christ? The reason of course why faith in Christ is necessary for salvation is because we can't make ourselves righteous by keeping the Law. We need to be counted righteous in God's eyes through faith, not through the works of the Law, because through the Law no one will be counted righteous. Paul says: "Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it - the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe." (Romans 3:19-22 ESV) Paul says the Law (the commandments) show us to be sinners. Whereas you're saying we can keep the Law through free will and not be sinners. It sounds like you've been viewing too many videos by that false teacher L F. If you have you need to unlearn what you've heard from him. By the way I believe that Christ atoned for the sins of the world but I also believe, as Luther did, in double predestination.
@Sage of Synergism Paul is saying that no one can obey the Law because everyone is under the power of sin, and the Law only shows us to be sinners. Paul in Romans 3:11-18 is mentioning the sins which people taken enmass commit. To single out particular groups and say they don't commit some of those sins which Paul mentions therefore Paul wasn't including everyone when he said all are sinners is a silly argument. Why do you believe in Christ (assuming you do) if you can keep the Commandments without sinning? The Gospel is that we can't make ourselves righteous through keeping the Commandments because we can at best only keep them outwardly (unless we're converted), and therefore we need to be saved from our sins. If people have the ability to keep the Commandments without sinning why do we need a divine Saviour to shed his blood for our salvation? Matthew 5:29 "If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell." (ESV). I understand by this, that it's necessary to remove from one's life those things which lead one into sin. Obviously blind men sin so Christ isn't advocating literally removing one's eye. Christ is emphasizing the seriousness of sin, but He's not suggesting that all sin can be avoided, otherwise He wouldn't have told us to pray continually for forgiveness from the Father in the Lord's Prayer. He's talking of avoiding committing habitual sinful acts, and indulging in interior sinful contemplations which are allowed to grow without being checked. For instance If we don't resist lustful thoughts the next step is that one gets drawn into viewing pornography and then committing fornication and adultery etc. So if it were possible for a person's eye to be the cause of falling into sin we should pluck it out, but then one's eye cannot in reality cause one to sin, since sin comes from one's fallen mind or heart. "For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come-sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly." (Mark 7:21-22 NIV) John 6:64-65 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them .” The reason Christ gives for why people are unbelievers isn't because they chose through free will to refuse to come to Him, but was because the Father didn't enable them to believe in Him. It was because the Father didn't draw them to Christ that they refused to come to Him. They refused to come to Him because they hadn't been predestined to be saved from eternity and drawn and enabled by the Father. That's why they didn't believe. It has nothing to do with any imaginary free will which they decided to exercise by refusing to believe in Him. John 12:47 “If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world" I make a distinction between God's revealed will and His hidden will. God as the omnipotent and omniscient ruler of the universe determines everything that happens and foreknows all events because He has willed everything that happens from eternity by His hidden will. However according to His revealed will in Scripture He desires through Christ everyone's salvation. I think of this in terms of an analogy. A Judge for instance could desire to set a convicted criminal free because he sympathises with his plight, but the demands of justice means he must send him to prison. In a similar way God desires everyone's salvation, but the demands of justice (a justice beyond our understanding) means that He must consign some to damnation from eternity. I can't explain why that's necessary for God to do so, but I believe it because that's what the Scriptures teach (Romans 9 etc). How it is that God acts righteously in predestining some to be damned I don't know. But I believe that in the next life He will be seen by Christians to be perfectly just. I said that I believed in universal atonement which obviously includes the nation of Israel.
@Sage of Synergism I just wanted to add that one needs to distinguish between venial and mortal sins. Mortal sins such as premeditated sins against one's conscience, like murder and adultery, separate a person from the Holy Spirit and damn a person, and he needs to be reinstated in the faith through repentance in order to be saved. Venial sins on the other hand such as sinful thoughts and impatience which are unpremeditated don't separate us from the Holy Spirit and salvation because God forgives them.
If I am to be held accountable for sin that I do, then necessarily i could have freely not sinned, but if i cannot freely choose to not sin then I cannot be held accountable because I cannot freely do otherwise. So if God holds people accountable for sin then he has given us the freedom to not sin therefore I have free will not to sin. Moreover, if I can freely not sin, I can freely do good because I have been given freedom to do either.
This is true, but there is one instance to consider. Imagine this scenario: 3 men, named Mr. A, Mr. B, and Mr. C Mr. A wants Mr. C dead, and he's going to use Mr. B to do it. So while Mr. B sleeps, Mr. A skillfully implants a chip into Mr. B's head. When Mr. B awakes, Mr. A asks him to go and kill Mr. C. Off he goes. The chip that was planted is a sort of mind control. If Mr. B chooses to spare Mr. C, then a light goes off on the chip, and his will is altered to kill Mr. C. Now Mr. B arrives at Mr. C's house, walks inside, and shoots him down. But the chips light never went off. Mr. B never had his will altered. In this scenario, the killer techniquely had no choice. If he had willed differently, it would have been overridden by Mr. A. However, his will didn't need to be overridden, and he killed Mr. C of his own will, even though there was no choice to the contrary.
@@KevinSmile If Mr. B could have chosen differently then he would have free will. IF he would have chosen differently, then the chip kicks in 'overrides' his free will' and makes him kill Mr. C. So the chip makes MR. B an 'unwilling' participate - in the fullest sense of unwilling. If the chip activates then Mr. A is the murderer and Mr. B has been framed because without the chip Mr B. would not have murdered Mr. C.
I wanna look up your book, but I don't see it on Amazon. If you could drop a link to the book either in the comment section or video description I'd appreciate it.
Luther certainly didn't promote double predestination nor limited atonement, the Augsburg confession authored by Luther mentions nothing of those doctrines.
@@reformedcatholic457 You're quite wrong to say that Luther didn't promote double predestination. His Bondage of the Will promotes very strongly the doctrine of double predestination. His whole argument against Erasmus revolved round his insistence that God has predestined all things because God's omniscience and omnipotence mean that everything is determined and necessitated to happen. (See my main comments under this video for proof of this). Also the Augsburg Confession wasn't authored by Luther. It was composed by Melanchthon. Luther was a fugitive in that he had been condemned as a heretic who could be apprehended on sight, and so he never went to Augsburg and had no direct hand in the composition of the Confession. It was left to Melanchthon to draw it up. The Augsburg Confession wasn't designed to be a comprehensive document covering all theological topics, but was designed to cover the main areas of theological agreement and disagreement with Roman Catholicism, and so predestination never got dealt with. But in any case by the 1530's Melanchthon probably had significant differences with Luther over predestination so it wouldn't have made any sense for him to bring the subject up in the Confession and risk Luther's disapproval. He carefully worded it so it could be accepted by Luther, and didn't state that the Holy Spirit is always efficacious in the Word and sacraments as later Lutherans under the influence of Chemnitz came to believe. Luther in The Bondage of the Will had defended particular irresistible grace and Melanchthon worded Article 5 so that this was the implied meaning. Article 5 states To obtain such faith God instituted the office of the ministry, that is, provided the Gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit, who works faith, when and where he pleases, in those who hear the Gospel” (Tappert). Article 5 only came to be interpreted as teaching the universal operation of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace at a later date, but you'll notice that it doesn't actually teach this. What Luther understood was the meaning of article 5 was that God through the Word and sacraments sends the Holy Spirit to irresistibly regenerate those who are predestined to be saved.
@@reformedcatholic457 With regards to the atonement Luther of course did teach that Christ had atoned for the sins of the whole world and so he rejected limited atonement. But one needs to understand that Luther made a clear distinction between God's secret will of Majesty which from eternity has predestined all that happens in the universe, and his revealed will which through Christ desires everyone's salvation. It was only through His revealed will, which merely expresses His heartfelt wish that all should be saved, that God can be said to not will a person's damnation. However according to His secret will He has predestined some people to be damned. Erasmus had argued that Christ's lament over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37 disproved that God had predestined anyone to be damned, but Luther replied by saying that it was wrong of Erasmus to attempt to dispute with God's secret will in this way, and that God both desired to save everyone through Christ, and had predestined some to be damned from eternity: "It is God incarnate, moreover, who is speaking here: "I would you would not"-God incarnate, I say, who has been sent into the world for the very purpose of willing, speaking, doing, suffering, and offering to all men everything necessary for salvation. Yet he offends very many, who being either abandoned or hardened by that secret will of the Divine Majesty do not receive him as he wills speaks, does, suffers, and offers, as John says: "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness does not comprehend it" [John 1:5] and again: "He came to his own home, and his own people received him not" [John 1:11]. It is likewise the part of this incarnate God to weep, wail, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, when the will of the Divine Majesty purposely abandons and reprobates some to perish. And it is not for us to ask why he does so, but to stand in awe of God who both can do and wills to do such things." (p.146, Vol. 33, Luther's Works)
Am sichersten und frömmsten wäre es, dieses Wort ganz aufzugeben. Wollen wir das nicht tun, sollten wir es doch nach bestem Wissen so zu verwenden lehren, dass dem Menschen ein freies Willensvermögen nicht im Blick auf eine ihm übergeordnete, sondern nur im Blick auf eine ihm untergeordnete Sache zugestanden werde. Das heißt, dass er wisse, er habe im Blick auf sein Vermögen und seinen Besitz ein Recht, [Dinge] nach seinem freien Willensvrmögen zu gebrauchen, zu tun, zu lassen. Obwohl selbst hier durch das freie Willensvermögen Gottes alles allein dahin gelenkt wird, wohin immer es ihm gefällt. Ansonsten hat der Mensch gegenüber Gott und den Dingen, die sich auf Heil oder Verdammung beziehen, kein freies Willensvermögen (Engl: Otherwise man has no free capacity of the will towards God and the things concerning salvation and damnation). Hier ist er vielmehr ein Gefangener, ein Unterworfener und ein Knecht entweder des Willens Gottes oder des Willens Satans. (Vom unfreien Willensvermögen/On the Bondage of the Will; Lateinisch-Deutsche Studienausgabe - Martin Luther, S. 297)
Why make it so complex? Can we choose God in our old nature? No, we simply wouldn't, because we have no knowledge of God being in our old nature. But if The Lord knocks on the door either through evangelism, a dream, a vision or by reading The Word then The Holy Spirit can convict us and we are able to answer either positively by surrendering ourselves, or negatively by walking away from it. As of today do not harden your hearts says Scripture. That's really all there is to it. We don't need an our of thelogy for it.
No dealing with Acts 4:27-28 or with Augustine in "De Praedestinatione Sanctorum" saying no one can reject God's grace because he takes away hardness of heart when giving it to us? I'm so thankful for your work most of the time but it's so frustrating when it's about the creature's will, such an important topic for the early Luther.
There are two basic theological positions. The first is that God from eternity has predestined all people to be either saved or damned, and has predetermined who He will irresistibly regenerate and grant faith in Christ to, and who He will not do so. The second position is that God provides the means for everyone to be saved, but it depends on people's libertarian free will as to whether they will believe in Christ in order that they can be saved. The first position has two variations. Some interpret those verses in Scripture as teaching that God through Christ desires all to be saved as referring to all classes of men, not all people individually. Others (like Luther) interpret these verses as applying to all people individually, whilst also holding that God through His hidden will has predestined some to be damned. Both variations deny that humans have libertarian free will. The Second position (libertarian free will) interprets those passages which mention predestination as meaning that God predestines what will become of those who He foresees will choose to believe in Christ through their own free will, (this is in contrast to the first position in which God predestines those who will and won't believe in Christ). They understand God's desire to save all as meaning that everyone has been provided with an equal opportunity to be saved, and it's up to men to choose to respond affirmatively to the Gospel in order to be saved. There's a third group (confessional Lutherans) who reject exclusive adherence to either predestination or free will, and who combine them both. They believe that God determines who will be saved, but man determines who will be damned. This is obviously contradictory, and therefore can't be true, because those whom God doesn't determine will be saved are necessarily destined to be damned, and it has nothing to do with any decisions that humans make. The first two positions are logical interpretations of Scripture, but I don't accept that the second, that of free will, is faithful to the Scriptures. I'm in agreement with Luther, and hold that the Scriptures teach that God has predestined people to be both saved and damned, but that He also desires everyone to be saved through Christ. However His desiring to save all is an attitude of mind, not a statement of intent. Lutherans however wrongly believe that since God desires that all should be saved that He tries to give everyone the Holy Spirit and faith through the Gospel. This idea however is obviously in contradiction to His eternal will whereby He elected to save only a certain number of people, and didn't choose to save everyone. If God in eternity had willed to save everyone then He would have elected and predestined everyone to be saved and decreed that they would all receive faith and the Holy Spirit. The fact that He didn't elect to save everyone shows that He doesn't will to save everyone but rather to damn some.
Excellent post, Edward! I agree that the Confessional Lutheran position has inconsistencies. That's why I'm Reformed and not Lutheran. I have argued for some time now that the whole issue of "human free will" is often discussed without really looking at the definition most people give to the concept itself. Rather than simply assuming the definition of "free will" as, 'the power of contrary choice,' or, 'the equal ability to choose between two or more incompatible options under the same circumstances,' if we go to Scripture we will see that the biblical definition of "human free will" is quite different than this. I have often used Jn. 8:31-38 as a guiding text concerning this issue. My conclusion has been, and will always remain, this: Jesus gives what we might call a 'two-part' definition of human free will. A human free will is: 1) a will that never assents to any errant propositions as if they were true; and, 2) a will that never wills to do anything other than that which is good and well-pleasing to God. This is a human free will, biblically defined. Assenting to an errant proposition as if it were true is what the fall was all about. After assenting to the false proposition made by the serpent our first parents engaged in the actual disobedience. The actual disobedience followed from and was the result of assenting to an errant proposition as if it were true. *Eve said as much when she said, "the serpent deceived me". Deception, of course, is when one believes an errant proposition(s) to be true, when it is in fact fallacious. Jesus reversed this slavery to lies and sin. Jesus never assented to errant propositions (doctrine, philosophies, teachings...etc.) as if they were true; rather, He combatted error WITH truth (just like we attempt to do in Apologetics). Jesus never willed to do anything other than that which was good and well-pleasing to God. He never sinned. He was impeccable. And so, in Glory, the saints of Christ will have totally "free wills" as well: never will we assent to errors, falsehoods and lies as if they were true; and, we will never will to do anything displeasing to God...ever. Anyways, I think this discussion is important, and it's good to read from folks like you who have a good grasp on the fundamental issues and can break them down in a systematic way so that we can understand them a bit better. So, thank you for that. Grace and peace in Christ. *Soli Deo Gloria*
@@ryangallmeier6647 Thanks for your comments. I tend to think it's better not to use the term "free will" when referring to the fact that Christ frees believers from their bondage to sin because of the connotation it has with the idea of being able to choose between believing in Christ or not believing in Him. Believers can no more choose to not believe in Christ as unbelievers can choose to believe in Him. So whilst acknowledging that believers are freed from the control of Satan so that they are free to serve God, I think of this in terms of being a slave of God rather than being in possession of free will - Romans 6:22. With respect to confessional Lutherans yes I agree that what they believe is completely inconsistent and illogical. They believe that only those who are elected and predestined by God to be saved will be saved, (which means that those who aren't chosen by God to be saved will be damned), but they won't acknowledge that those who are damned are damned because God chose knowingly not to select them to be saved but to be damned. It's as if God could make a selection of those He willed to save from the mass of fallen humanity which didn't involve Him in choosing not to save the others. It follows that if God elects to save some, not all, that those He doesn't elect to save are willed by Him to be damned. It can't be any other way yet Lutherans deny this.
@@ryangallmeier6647 After rereading your reply I see I've somewhat misunderstood your point. I was addressing the idea of whether as Christians we can be said to possess free will now since Christ has freed us from bondage to sin and control by Satan, whereas you were referring to the saints in glory. According to your definition Christians don't have free will in this world since we still give assent to faulty propositions, in that we often make faulty judgements of people and situations, and although we don't sin wilfully and premeditatively against God's commandments we still sin venially. I don't regard myself as Reformed by the way. I don't agree with limited atonement. I believe that the Scriptures teach that Christ died for the sins of the entire world. Also I also hold that the Scriptures teach baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper. So I regard myself as Lutheran. Confessional Lutherans who follow the Formula of Concord and believe in single predestination though won't regard me as a Lutheran. But that means nothing to me. I know that the Scriptures teach double predestination, and that this was Luther's position, so in reality it's confessional Lutherans who aren't authentically Lutheran.
@@Edward-ng8oo Thanks for your response, question(s), and honesty that you are a Confessional Lutheran. We often joke in Reformed circles that regarding the efficacious nature of the Grace of God in salvation, the total depravity of man [fallen in sin], the bondage of the will vs. the freedom of the will, and double predestination...Luther belongs to us (the Reformed) more than he belongs to most Lutherans...again, it's just a little (loving) jab toward our Lutheran friends. But, getting to your question/statement: "According to your definition Christians don't have free will in this world since we still give assent to faulty propositions, in that we often make faulty judgements of people and situations, and although we don't sin wilfully and premeditatively against God's commandments we still sin venially." Exactly right! Excellent point! Christians are currently a "mixed bag".
@10:30 mark, Dr. Cooper essentially argues that the "will" is necessary for the establishment of the concept of "responsibility". There is a fundamental flaw in this. Most synergists presuppose that 'free will' is what establishes the concept of responsibility/accountability/liability/culpability/blame and fault (all synonymous terms/concepts). Dr. Cooper, however, asserts at least that the "will" of man must be involved in some way for responsibility to be established. This is just as flawed as the synergistic presupposition that 'free will' is the necessary prerequisite for responsibility. Much of the discussion of responsibility goes on without either side properly defining what responsibility is. Definitions are very important. Responsibility: the obligation to give a response, or render an account, for any and all infractions of some law, imperative, command...etc., imposed by an higher authority. Thus, the ONLY prerequisite which establishes responsibility is LAW! God, of course, is the highest lawgiver. And, since God is completely AUTONOMOUS ("a law unto Himself") He is NEVER "responsible" for anything He says, or does. This does not mean that God doesn't do stuff, or say stuff. Rather, it means that there is no higher authority to whom, or to which God is obligated to give a response, or render an account for what He says and does. Nor is there any law under which God Himself is subject (we are not here talking about Jesus in the incarnation and His earthly walk, of course, since He most certainly was "made subject to the law" in that). Responsibility does not require a "free will" for its establishment. Responsibility only requires a law, or laws/imperatives/commands in order for it to be established. God created Adam and Eve as "responsible" creatures; God gave them a couple explicit commands to follow. This placed them in the realm of responsibility. God's commands did this. Not the nature with which they were created. *Soli Deo Gloria*
@@cheryl9856 Can you get a little more specific? I was definitely trying to point out that many folks have an unbiblical view of the concept of "responsibility". Synergists, for example, because of their devotion to what is in fact a fallacious definition of 'human libertarian free will' (which Luther and the other Reformers argued against) assert that it is the prerequisite which establishes 'responsibility'. I refute this idea, and say that "authoritative commands---be they from God, or among men---are what establish responsibility in the ones subject to the commands". Since the Triune God is the ultimate authority, then all creatures are subject to Him and His Laws. And that the Triune God is responsible to no one. This means also that 'responsibility/accountability/culpability/ liability/blame/fault' can never properly be applied to the Triune God. Hope that helps a little. Let me know if you have more questions. *Soli Deo Gloria*
As far as “concursivity” - would it be accurate to say that because all things happen not autonomously from God, all actions are rooted in Him as primal cause, but the distinction between good and evil actions are between God’s will and God’s allowance?
In short no. Here's his podcast episode on it: open.spotify.com/episode/52KfTB73eMQ9gctXgvGm3L?si=HdYTrFeHS_aziiBW12cN2w If you thought there was a different comment, there was. I just remembered he covered your question like in 2013.
Your example of buying a house is not particularly good. Buying a house is itself a thoroughly mental/spiritual event, with only a few clues in the material that anything substantial even took place, clues that can only be seen by a mind. We are all so thoroughly spiritual creatures that we tend to confuse our spiritual/mental categories for material reality. Material reality is only a chaotic soup (at least physical science tells us this) without minds to categorize things out of the soup.
Your question assumes that Adam and Eve had the free will to decide to not sin. Scripture on the other hand teaches that all things are determined by God, and that before anyone was born, God chose and predestined His elect to be saved through His gift to them of faith in Christ - Ephesians 1:1-11
@@Edward-ng8oo God did not determine that Adam and Eve would sin. They very much had the choice not to sin. If the choice not to sin does not lie in an unfallen human will then we are not saved by Christ's humanity (since Christ took on Adam's nature)
@@cheryl9856 If I'm understanding you correctly you're making the argument that unless Adam in his unfallen state had the option to refrain from sinning it would follow that Christ who took on Adam's nature also wouldn't have the option to not sin. If this is your meaning then I don't agree. Christ was both human and divine being conceived by the Holy Spirit so His ability to be sinless was inborn. Adam on the other hand was simply human. I agree that in one sense that Adam had the ability to not sin in that his nature before the Fall was unaffected by sin, but it had to be that Adam would fall into sin because otherwise if he didn't the whole course of human history would be altered and God's foreknowledge of events would be proved wrong. In particular it would've been unnecessary for Christ to become incarnate as there would be no need for Him to atone for everyone's sins. In Ephesians 1:4 Paul says "Even before the world was made, God had already chosen us to be his through our union with Christ, so that we would be holy and without fault before him." And in 1:11 he says "All things are done according to God's plan and decision; and God chose us to be his own people in union with Christ because of his own purpose, based on what he had decided from the very beginning." (GNT) It follows that God had previously determined that Adam would fall into sin through the agency of Satan because otherwise His plan to save people through Christ couldn't be put into effect. Also everything that happens does so because God has decided how the course of human history will unfold and that's why He has perfect foreknowledge. He determines what happens not us and therefore human free will doesn't in reality exist. Even though it seems to us that we are in charge of our own decisions and we independently make choices, in actual fact since God foreknows beforehand what we will decide, it has to be the case that we will choose to do what He foreknows we will choose, otherwise His foreknowledge would be proved wrong. One may ask how far does God's foreknowledge extend and does it include minute decisions like what to eat etc. and I suppose what I'd say in response is that I don't know. I know that some try to argue that God's foreknowledge is compatible with human free will, but if such free will is understood as libertarian free will, then I don't accept that it's compatible. It's impossible that God can be omniscient if at the same time humans have the ability to make completely free decisions. It has to follow therefore that God determines what happens, not us.
Hi Edward. Christ is a Divine person with a human will, whereas Adam is a human person with a human will. Christ couldn't have sinned, his human will always acted in harmony with his Divine will, but Adam, not being the immutable God, was subject to the possibility of change and he did change. I don't see God's foreknowledge as dependent on events unfolding in a particular way so I am confused by your statement that, "God's foreknowledge of events would be proved wrong". Perhaps Christ would have chosen to still become incarnate in a sinless world, that is something that I simply do not know. My concern here, is Determinism or Fatalism. You use the term, "determine" in reference to God and sin/Satan. I don't believe that Paul, Eph. 1:4 is saying that God fated us to sin, because this makes God responsible for sin. I honestly don't see Paul in Eph. saying anything other than Christ's death and resurrection and our union with him was plan "A". As a Christian, let me ask you this: If God determines everything that we will do, how does he do this? A pantheist would say that God and nature are consubstantial; as God does, so does nature. A Muslim would say that God determines by fiat; what he wills, comes to order, like a servant which obeys his master. Thanks.
Luther was a believer in absolute predestination which he based on the fact that the Scriptures teach that God is omniscient and omnipotent. He argued that God's infallible foreknowledge of all events means that all things must necessarily happen and are therefore predestined to happen by His hidden eternal will. And from the fact that God is omnipotent he argued that God wills and works everything that happens according to His immutable eternal foreknowledge, and therefore we don't have any free will to act any differently to how He has foreknown. For instance he wrote the following in The Bondage of the Will: Here, then, is something fundamentally necessary and salutary for a Christian, to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that he foresees and purposes and does all things by his immutable, eternal and infallible will. Here is a thunderbolt by which free choice is completely prostrated and shattered .... (p.37 Vol 33 Luther’s Works) For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it (as reason itself is forced to admit), then on the testimony of reason itself there can't be any free choice in man or angel or any creature. (p.293 ibid) But why are these things abstruse to us Christians, so that it is irreverent and inquisitive and vain to discuss and come to know them, when heathen poets and even the common people speak of them quite freely? How often does Virgil (for one) remind us of Fate! "By changeless law stand all things fixed". (p.41 ibid) But granted foreknowledge and omnipotence, it follows naturally by an irrefutable logic that we have not been made by ourselves, nor do we live or perform any action by ourselves, but by his omnipotence. And seeing he knew in advance that we should be the sort of people we are, and now makes, moves, and governs us as such, what imaginable thing is there, I ask you, in us which is free to become in any way different from what he has foreknown or is now bringing about? Thus God’s foreknowledge and omnipotence are diametrically opposed to our free choice,” (p.189 ibid) This is highest degree of faith, to believe him merciful when he saves so few and damns so many, and to believe him righteous when by his own will he makes us necessarily damnable, so that he seems, according to Erasmus to delight in the torments of the wretched and to be worthy of hatred rather than of love. (p.62,63 ibid) Admittedly, it gives the greatest possible offense to common sense or natural reason that God by his own sheer will should abandon, harden, and damn men as if he enjoyed the sins and the vast eternal torments of his wretched creatures, when he is preached as a God of such great mercy and goodness, (p.190 ibid) But if God is robbed of the power and wisdom to elect, what will he be but the false idol, chance, at whose nod everything happens at random? And in the end it will come to this, that men are saved and damned without God’s knowledge, since he has not determined by his certain election who are to be saved and who damned, (p.171 ibid) As one can see Luther's belief in absolute predestination includes predestination to damnation as part and parcel of his position on there being no free will. To Luther not only can we not choose to believe the Gospel, but also we don't have the freedom to reject the Gospel, and therefore he didn't accept the confessional Lutheran doctrine that man alone is responsible for his damnation by resisting the Holy Spirit. In TBOTW he teaches particular irresistible grace not universal resistible grace (although he held that the atonement is universal). Luther believed in double predestination, not single predestination as do confessional Lutherans. After studying TBOTW I've been convinced by Luther that he's correctly expounding Scripture on predestination and grace, and therefore that the Formula of Concord is in error.
XI is not contrary to Servo. The very first thought presented in XI (paragraph 4 and on) is the distinction between Foreknowledge and Predestination. If you do a text search of any common Servo translation, you will find that the word 'Predestination' only appears a handful* of times in the entire document, while Foreknowledge, or Prescience, occurs four times as many. It should also be noted that the two terms are not used interchangeably and when Predestination does occur, it is paired with Foreknowledge, as to distinguish the ideas. The Lutheran reformers, as good students of Luther, were aware of this when XI was put together. Luther even offers a (foolish, admittedly) theodicy in Servo, that harmonizes with the Lutheran confessions: This is sure and certain, if we believe that God is omnipotent; as it is also certain that the ungodly man is a creature of God, but one which, being perverted and left to itself without the Spirit of God, cannot will or do good. God's omnipotence makes it impossible for the ungodly man to escape the action upon him of the movement of God; of necessity he is subject to it, and obeys it; but his corruption, his turning of himself from God, makes it impossible for him to be moved and made to act well. God cannot suspend His omnipotence on account of man's perversion, and the ungodly man cannot alter his perversion. As a result he sin and errs incessantly and inevitably until he is set right by the Spirit of God. In all this Satan continues to reign in peace; under this movement of Divine omnipotence he keeps his palace undisturbed. (J.J. Packer V.(iv)) Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Article XI, 6 +7: "The foreknowledge of God (praescientia) foresees and foreknows also that which is evil; however, not in such a manner as though it were God's gracious will that it should happen; but all that the perverse, wicked will of the devil and of men wills and desires to undertake and do, God sees and knows before; and His praescientia, that is, foreknowledge, observes its order also in wicked acts or works, inasmuch as a limit and measure is fixed by God to the evil which God does not will, how far it should go, and how long it should last, when and how He will hinder and punish it; for all of this God the Lord so overrules that it must redound to the glory of the divine name and to the salvation of His elect, and the godless, on that account, must be put to confusion. However, the beginning and cause of evil is not God's foreknowledge (for God does not create and effect [or work] evil, neither does He help or promote it); but the wicked, perverse will of the devil and of men [is the cause of evil], as it is written Hos. 13:9: O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in Me is thy help. Also: Thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness. Ps. 5:4." *Seven times, one in quotation of the Diatribe **One pairing does appear to be synonymous, in the regards to pagan thought about necessity.
@@StoicHippy You've not understood Luther correctly. The position of the Formula is that not everything that God foreknows is willed and predestined by Him to happen, whereas Luther stated the opposite, namely that everything that God foreknows is willed and predestined by Him to happen. For instance I quoted Luther saying: "For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it (as reason itself is forced to admit), then on the testimony of reason itself there can't be any free choice in man or angel or any creature." (p.293 Vol. 33, Luther's Works) Also Luther explained that it's fundamentally necessary for a Christian to understand that God doesn't foreknow the future by chance, but that He foreknows it because everything that happens does so because He has willed it to happen from eternity, and now brings it about in time that it actually happens as He has foreknown it will happen: “Here, then, is something fundamentally necessary and salutary for a Christian, to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that he foresees and purposes and does all things by his immutable, eternal and infallible will.” (p.37 ibid). Likewise He has willed and predestined people to be damned from eternity: This is highest degree of faith, to believe him merciful when he saves so few and damns so many, and to believe him righteous when by his own will he makes us necessarily damnable, so that he seems, according to Erasmus to delight in the torments of the wretched and to be worthy of hatred rather than of love. (p.62,63 ibid) Admittedly, it gives the greatest possible offense to common sense or natural reason that God by his own sheer will should abandon, harden, and damn men as if he enjoyed the sins and the vast eternal torments of his wretched creatures, when he is preached as a God of such great mercy and goodness, (p.190 ibid) But if God is robbed of the power and wisdom to elect, what will he be but the false idol, chance, at whose nod everything happens at random? And in the end it will come to this, that men are saved and damned without God’s knowledge, since he has not determined by his certain election who are to be saved and who damned, (p.171 ibid) Luther is saying in the last quote above that if Erasmus was correct on free will (this is the context) that God would be robbed of His power to elect people to be both saved and damned, which shows that Luther believed that God does elect people to be saved and damned. One can't get much more explicit than that. This of course is in marked contrast to the position of the Formula which denies that God elects anyone to be damned. Also when Luther commented on Romans 9:13: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” he said the following: "God’s love toward men is eternal and immutable, and his hatred is eternal, being prior to the creation of the world, .... and everything takes place by necessity in us, according as he either loves or does not love us from all eternity ...(p.199 ibid). This again contradicts the position of the Formula which rejects the view that everything that happens is determined by whether God has loved or hated a person from eternity. The Formula only accepts that a person's salvation is necessitated by God if He has loved and predestined a person from eternity to be saved, whereas Luther also held that a person's damnation is necessitated by God if he has been hated by Him from eternity. As to the Formula's assertion that God doesn't create and effect [or work] evil, Luther agreed that God didn't create evil, but he certainly didn't agree that God doesn't effect or work evil. You quoted him saying: "God's omnipotence makes it impossible for the ungodly man to escape the action upon him of the movement of God; of necessity he is subject to it, and obeys it; but his corruption, his turning of himself from God, makes it impossible for him to be moved and made to act well." Luther was saying here that God brings to pass whatever happens, even through those who are unbelievers and who behave sinfully. A Scriptural example of this is Joseph's brothers who sent him off to Egypt. God caused them to act sinfully, but of course He did so through the good motive of wanting to feed the people in the coming famine he had decreed would happen. Joseph was God's chosen instrument to feed many people, but it was necessary in order for this to happen that God first cause his brothers to act sinfully by sending Joseph off to Egypt. So here's an example of God working or effecting evil in that his brothers had to be caused to act from evil motives, yet Chemnitz in the Formula denied that God effects or works evil. He got that one wrong for sure. Luther's position was that God works both good and evil. He quoted Erasmus: "What, you say, could be more useless than to publish this paradox to the world, that whatever is done by us is not done by free choice, but by sheer necessity? And Augustine's saying that God works in us good and evil, and rewards his own good works in us and punishes his evil works in us - what is the use of that?" (p.58 ibid) Note that Luther acknowledges that what Erasmus says here about him believing that God works evil in us and that He punishes "his evil works in us" is his position. Luther throughout The Bondage of the Will teaches that everything is necessitated by God's foreknowledge to happen, or in other words that everything is predestined by God to happen. When Luther speaks of everything being necessitated to happen by God what he meant was that everything is predestined by God to happen.
@@reformedcatholic457 Yes I've read it but Luther didn't have a hand in composing it. It was composed by Melanchthon, and of course Melanchthon at some point deviated from Luther's position in The Bondage of the Will and went down the road of synergism. The Augsburg Confession wasn't designed to be a comprehensive document covering all theological topics, but was designed to cover the main areas of theological agreement and disagreement with Roman Catholicism, and so predestination never got dealt with. But in any case by the 1530's Melanchthon probably had significant differences with Luther over predestination so it wouldn't have made any sense for him to bring the subject up in the Confession and risk Luther's disapproval. He carefully worded it so it could be accepted by Luther, and didn't state that the Holy Spirit is always efficacious in the Word and sacraments as later Lutherans under the influence of Chemnitz came to believe. Luther in The Bondage of the Will had defended particular irresistible grace and Melanchthon worded Article 5 so that this was the implied meaning. Article 5 states To obtain such faith God instituted the office of the ministry, that is, provided the Gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit, who works faith, when and where he pleases, in those who hear the Gospel” (Tappert). Article 5 only came to be interpreted as teaching the universal operation of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace at a later date, but you'll notice that it doesn't actually teach this. What Luther understood was the meaning of article 5 was that God through the Word and sacraments sends the Holy Spirit to irresistibly regenerate those who are predestined to be saved.
I'm sorry to always be disagreeing with you Dr. Cooper, and I do enjoy your videos, but I find it unacceptable to think that we can't participate in our own salvation, that it is something that is simply done TO us by God. If the Holy Spirit prompts us toward faith and a desire for God, we have to choose whether or not to participate in that, to follow His prompting. We can choose to follow Him or not, like, for example, the rich young ruler, who chose to follow the prompting which led him to approach Jesus, but also chose not to follow Him beyond that point. If we have freedom to resist God's grace, how is it that we don't have freedom to co-operate with it? It would seem that this idea comes from the Lutheran view of original sin, in which man has fallen into a kind of helpless state of total depravity. In the Orthodox view, man's fall was not as drastic as in the Lutheran view, rather he is still capable of some good thoughts and actions, even in the spiritual realm. Because of this, the Orthodox believe that it is possible for us to participate in our own salvation, which is a form of synergy, a key concept in Orthodox theology. It is necessary for us to receive the gift of faith by the action of the Holy Spirit, but that is not sufficient to save us, since we can lose our faith, in which case our salvation is open to question, at least. Receiving the gift of faith is the beginning of our salvation, but if we don't continually choose to be obedient to God, the process of salvation may be cut short by us. God never abrogates our freedom, either to choose or reject Him.
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. - Martin Luther ( Commentary on Romans, 1515) Would love to dig into the evolution of Contemporary Lutheran Theology and History. I'll look for some resources. Let me know of some if you'd like.
Those weren't actually Luther's exact words you quoted although they summarise what he believed. According to the the link below Luther had written the following: In chapters 9, 10, and 11 [of Romans Paul] teaches of God’s eternal predestination-out of which originally proceeds who shall believe or not, who can or cannot get rid of sin-in order that our salvation may be taken entirely out of our hands and put in the hand of God alone. And this too is utterly necessary. For we are so weak and uncertain that if it depended on us, not even a single person would be saved; the devil would surely overpower us all. But since God is dependable-his predestination cannot fail, and no one can withstand him-we still have hope in the face of sin. beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2018/12/luther-all-things-whatever-arise-from.html Also Luther of course dealt with the subject of predestination extensively in The Bondage of the Will, and I showed in my main comments under this video that Luther strongly defended double predestination and divine determinism against the position that Erasmus took that we have free will.
Road to teformed: So where did peanut butter come from? Me buying a car? And if all really depends on God did God bring forth and produces sin? I think your reasoning is flawed.
@@Bijbelstudies or your comprehension of Protestant Theology friend. God uses means. Our world is full of secondary causes in line compatabilistically with God's Sovereign decree and appointment.
@@TheDroc1990 So the devil and his ways are of Gods decree? And you dare to say from His means? I wouldn't dare to describe those to our Lord and God. No it is clear as broad daylight that we have a free will to descide. But I agree we do need the intervention of the Holy Spirit to be able to understand and subsequentially surrender to God. If we do so is our responsebillity in the end. We respond to the calling either positively or negatively.
Free will is no where in Scripture the way we have been taught in "Sunday School". Free will or self will is mentioned twice in the Bible and neither is good because it explains the character of a reprobate man. It's mentioned fiFreerst in Titus 1:7 and again in 2 Peter 2:10 (KJV). The unregenerate man is a slave to sin and knows nothing else, in a sense he sins freely without any conviction of the Holy Ghost therefore he is a slave to Satan. He uses his will to sin freely yet is bound in chains as a slave and needs liberation yet if it does not come they will end up in Hell. Now! When it comes to the born again believer, though we have been liberated by the Holy Ghost from the chains of sin and Satan we are still slaves. We are bond servants of Jesus Christ, even Paul at the beginning of each letter introduced himself as a bond servant or slave to the Lord. In short those outside of the Faith only embrace "self will" not worried about their sinful life and the offensive nature against God Himself and the regenerated believers are concerned about the will of God and doing those things that He asks us to do. Romans 3:10-12 KJV [10] As it is written, ➡️There is none righteous⬅️, no, not one: [11] There is none that understandeth, there is ➡️none that seeketh after God⬅️. [12] They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is ➡️none that doeth good, no, not one.⬅️ Shows us while man is unconverted he is not free what so ever. He only does those things that come naturally to him. Free will to sin freely with no remorse or worry about Hell fire. Ephesians 2:1-5 KJV [1] And ➡️you hath he quickened⬅️ , who were ➡️dead in trespasses and sins⬅️; [2] Wherein in time past ye walked according to the ➡️course of this world⬅️, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now ➡️worketh in the children of disobedience⬅️: [3] Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the ➡️desires of the flesh and of the mind⬅️; and were ➡️by nature the children of wrath, even as others⬅️. [4] But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, [5] Even when we were ➡️dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)⬅️ This shows the conversion from going to God's will by His grace due to the actions of the Holy Ghost. Titus 1:7 KJV [7] For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; ➡️not selfwilled⬅️, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 2 Peter 2:10 KJV [10] But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they , ➡️selfwilled⬅️, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. The two times free/self will is mentioned.
@Sage of Synergism I accept that on a surface reading of the Scriptures, one can come to the conclusion that we possess free will, and that we have the natural ability to do what we wish, and to believe what we wish. The Gospel is presented with the seeming implication that we have the ability to believe it and save ourselves, and that if we don't believe it we're refusing to do something which we have the capacity to do. However there are numerous verses which show that we don't have free will and that people's salvation and damnation are predetermined by God. For instance: Romans 9:18 ESV (So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills). This teaches that God only has mercy and saves some people, and that He hardens others in unbelief, not as a punishment for having rejected Him through free will, but simply because He doesn't will to have mercy on them and give them the gift of faith. Acts 13:48 ESV (... and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed). This teaches that only those God has chosen to give eternal to are enabled to believe. We can't choose to believe ourselves. Matthew 13:11 ESV (“To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given"). This teaches that God only chooses to give some people, but not all, the knowledge of salvation through Christ. We can't acquire this knowledge through our own decision making. 2 Timothy 2:25-26 NIV (Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth ...). This teaches that repentance is something which only God can grant. We can't choose to repent by simply deciding to. John 10:25-26 NIV (Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep”). This teaches that unless people have been chosen by God to be His sheep they can't believe in Christ. John 6:64-65 NIV (Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them”). This teaches that God needs to enable people to believe in Christ by giving them the Holy Spirit, and that where God doesn't give people the Holy Spirit they are unable to believe. Also God's omniscience means everything is predestined to happen. Since God has complete foreknowledge of all events, the future has already been determined, and free will doesn't exist. It can't be that anyone has the capacity to do anything other than what God foreknows he will do, and therefore free will is an illusion. The idea that God can foreknow with complete certainty what a free agent will decide to do is a logical contradiction. That simply can't be true. The Scriptures teach that God foreknows the future, and that they unfold as He has determined: "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.’" (Isaiah 46:9-10 NIV).
Misquote of Mt 23.37. Matt 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered YOUR CHILDREN together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!
Dr Cooper is so charitable and reasonable. I love theology.
27:43 27:44
And hyper-qualified and nuanced beyond belief.
Missed the live broadcast but throughly enjoyed it later. God's peace be with you.
To show you just how prevalent radical Lutheranism is even in the LCMS, in my philosophy class at one of the Concordias, the professor had us divvy up between those who sided with Ockham and those who sided with Aquinas on God‘s nature and law and I was pretty much the only anti-voluntarist.
That's sad. I'm hoping that we can do something to change that.
Blessings to you and God be praised for your wonderful teaching videos and all the time and energy you have given to the edification of the Just/Sinner!!!
@Sage of Synergism
What exactly do you believe then? I believe in justification through faith alone. I believe that God regards me as righteous because He has given me the gift of faith which justifies me before Him, and that my good works being tinged with sin don't count before God as a means of making me righteous. So I'm both saint and sinner - a sinner having been corrupted by original sin which inclines one towards committing sin in thought word and deed, but which is resisted by Christians although they can't avoid sinning from weakness; and a saint in that God regards me as forgiven through Christ and therefore acceptable in his sight.
So what are you saying you are? Since you regard the idea of being a saint and sinner at the same time to be contradictory that means you must regard yourself as one or the other. So do you regard yourself as a pure sinless saint or an unregenerate and unforgiven sinner?
@Sage of Synergism
You say you're not aware of any sin you're committing, but what about any you've recently committed? In the recent past have you any recollection of having inclinations towards lust, greed, pride, self promotion, envy, anger, coveting etc. One doesn't have to sin outwardly by committing some actual sinful deed to be a sinner in God's eyes. The mere entertaining of a sinful thought like a lustful thought about a real or imaginary woman qualifies as sin in God's eyes.
It's not possible to avoid sinful thoughts, but if a person acts on these thoughts and commits actual sin then he no longer has the Holy Spirit. Christians try and suppress any sinful thoughts they have. If they give free reign to them and this results in actual sin then they're no longer living in faith. (1 Corinthians 10:13 is applicable here)
Deuteronomy 30:11-14 KJV
For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
I understand this passage to mean that Moses commanded the Israelites to obey God's commandments, and that they didn't have the excuse that they needed to go up to heaven to learn them or travel the seas in search of them because he, Moses, had proclaimed God's commandments to them. And if God gave them the ability to keep them then they would be able to keep them.
The idea which you seem to be suggesting that they could keep His commandments through the free exercise of their wills is demonstrably false. If they could actually keep God's commandments, and justify themselves by keeping them, then they wouldn't need God to justify them through faith. Also Paul denies that there are any who are able to keep God's commandments in their unregenerate state before conversion. (And even after conversion the commandments can only be imperfectly kept as we still sin in thought):
What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one." "Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit"; "The poison of asps is under their lips"; "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; Destruction and misery are in their ways; And the way of peace they have not known." “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Romans 3:9-18 NKJV)
I don't agree that open theism is Scriptural. The Scriptures teach that God is omniscient. The NIV study Bible commenting in Genesis 18.21 says "Not a denial of God’s infinite knowledge but a figurative way of stating that he as “Judge” (v. 25) does not act on the basis of mere complaints." The Scriptures often depict God as if He's learning something to which He then responds to, but it doesn't mean God is ignorant of anything. It's anthropomorphizing God to make Him understandable to us finite beings. God is omnipotent and omniscient and everything that happens is foreknown and predestined by Him to happen.
@Sage of Synergism
I quoted Paul saying "For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one …..." and you commented that Romans 3 does not say "unregenerate men are not able to keep God's commandments." True it doesn't specifically say that, but then who is Paul talking about in your eyes? There's only two choices. Either Paul is talking about all men in their unregenerate state before conversion, or he's talking about all those who have been converted to Christ. Does it make any sense to say that Paul was talking about those who are Christians? Is this an accurate description of Christians?:
"Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit"; "The poison of asps is under their lips"; "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; Destruction and misery are in their ways; And the way of peace they have not known."
Do Christians behave as Paul describes in this passage? No they obviously don't. Therefore Paul is plainly talking of all human beings in their unregenerate state. So it follows that no one can keep the commandments unless he has been first regenerated by the Holy Spirit. In order to become a believer in Christ we need to be converted which can only be done by God giving us the gift of faith. We don't have free will to decide to believe in Christ. God must first take the initiative and draw us to Christ and grant us faith. Paul says in John 6:44,64,65:
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them …. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” (NIV)
Paul is clearly saying here that we can't come to Christ and believe in Him through free will. We must be drawn and enabled to believe in Christ by the Father, and if the Father doesn't draw and enable us we can't believe in Christ. Christ says the reason why people don't believe in Him is because they haven't been enabled to believe in Him by the Father, not because they choose not to believe in him through free will. This shows that we must be predestined to be saved in order to be saved, and if we aren't predestined to be saved we will be damned - predestined to be damned that is, since God has determined and foreknown all things from eternity.
You say that Christians can avoid all sin but in that case why do we need to pray as Christ instructed us to pray. The Lord's Prayer includes the petition that God should forgive us our tresspasses. Also John says: "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:8-9 NIV)
You're clearly misinterpreting Scripture. Christians can never be sinless and pure in this life. It's unavoidable that we will sin through weakness, but such sins are forgiven us if we continue in the faith. If you think you're sinless then you're unfortunately deluding yourself.
Deuteronomy 30:14 "But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it" doesn't mean that we have the ability to keep God's commandments through free will. That's a misinterpretation. We can only keep the commandments, and then not perfectly, if we have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. If it was possible to keep them perfectly without sin, then the obvious question is why did Christ need to come and die on the cross? If we can keep God's commandments perfectly so that God is satisfied and accepts us as his children, then why do we need to believe in Christ? The reason of course why faith in Christ is necessary for salvation is because we can't make ourselves righteous by keeping the Law. We need to be counted righteous in God's eyes through faith, not through the works of the Law, because through the Law no one will be counted righteous. Paul says:
"Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it - the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe." (Romans 3:19-22 ESV)
Paul says the Law (the commandments) show us to be sinners. Whereas you're saying we can keep the Law through free will and not be sinners. It sounds like you've been viewing too many videos by that false teacher L F. If you have you need to unlearn what you've heard from him.
By the way I believe that Christ atoned for the sins of the world but I also believe, as Luther did, in double predestination.
@Sage of Synergism
Paul is saying that no one can obey the Law because everyone is under the power of sin, and the Law only shows us to be sinners. Paul in Romans 3:11-18 is mentioning the sins which people taken enmass commit. To single out particular groups and say they don't commit some of those sins which Paul mentions therefore Paul wasn't including everyone when he said all are sinners is a silly argument.
Why do you believe in Christ (assuming you do) if you can keep the Commandments without sinning? The Gospel is that we can't make ourselves righteous through keeping the Commandments because we can at best only keep them outwardly (unless we're converted), and therefore we need to be saved from our sins. If people have the ability to keep the Commandments without sinning why do we need a divine Saviour to shed his blood for our salvation?
Matthew 5:29 "If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell." (ESV).
I understand by this, that it's necessary to remove from one's life those things which lead one into sin. Obviously blind men sin so Christ isn't advocating literally removing one's eye. Christ is emphasizing the seriousness of sin, but He's not suggesting that all sin can be avoided, otherwise He wouldn't have told us to pray continually for forgiveness from the Father in the Lord's Prayer. He's talking of avoiding committing habitual sinful acts, and indulging in interior sinful contemplations which are allowed to grow without being checked. For instance If we don't resist lustful thoughts the next step is that one gets drawn into viewing pornography and then committing fornication and adultery etc. So if it were possible for a person's eye to be the cause of falling into sin we should pluck it out, but then one's eye cannot in reality cause one to sin, since sin comes from one's fallen mind or heart. "For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come-sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly." (Mark 7:21-22 NIV)
John 6:64-65
Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them .”
The reason Christ gives for why people are unbelievers isn't because they chose through free will to refuse to come to Him, but was because the Father didn't enable them to believe in Him. It was because the Father didn't draw them to Christ that they refused to come to Him. They refused to come to Him because they hadn't been predestined to be saved from eternity and drawn and enabled by the Father. That's why they didn't believe. It has nothing to do with any imaginary free will which they decided to exercise by refusing to believe in Him.
John 12:47 “If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world"
I make a distinction between God's revealed will and His hidden will. God as the omnipotent and omniscient ruler of the universe determines everything that happens and foreknows all events because He has willed everything that happens from eternity by His hidden will. However according to His revealed will in Scripture He desires through Christ everyone's salvation. I think of this in terms of an analogy. A Judge for instance could desire to set a convicted criminal free because he sympathises with his plight, but the demands of justice means he must send him to prison. In a similar way God desires everyone's salvation, but the demands of justice (a justice beyond our understanding) means that He must consign some to damnation from eternity. I can't explain why that's necessary for God to do so, but I believe it because that's what the Scriptures teach (Romans 9 etc). How it is that God acts righteously in predestining some to be damned I don't know. But I believe that in the next life He will be seen by Christians to be perfectly just.
I said that I believed in universal atonement which obviously includes the nation of Israel.
@Sage of Synergism
I just wanted to add that one needs to distinguish between venial and mortal sins. Mortal sins such as premeditated sins against one's conscience, like murder and adultery, separate a person from the Holy Spirit and damn a person, and he needs to be reinstated in the faith through repentance in order to be saved. Venial sins on the other hand such as sinful thoughts and impatience which are unpremeditated don't separate us from the Holy Spirit and salvation because God forgives them.
This was insightful and helpful.
I appreciate your channel. Very interesting. Keep it up brother!
If I am to be held accountable for sin that I do, then necessarily i could have freely not sinned, but if i cannot freely choose to not sin then I cannot be held accountable because I cannot freely do otherwise. So if God holds people accountable for sin then he has given us the freedom to not sin therefore I have free will not to sin. Moreover, if I can freely not sin, I can freely do good because I have been given freedom to do either.
This is true, but there is one instance to consider.
Imagine this scenario:
3 men, named Mr. A, Mr. B, and Mr. C
Mr. A wants Mr. C dead, and he's going to use Mr. B to do it. So while Mr. B sleeps, Mr. A skillfully implants a chip into Mr. B's head.
When Mr. B awakes, Mr. A asks him to go and kill Mr. C. Off he goes.
The chip that was planted is a sort of mind control. If Mr. B chooses to spare Mr. C, then a light goes off on the chip, and his will is altered to kill Mr. C.
Now Mr. B arrives at Mr. C's house, walks inside, and shoots him down.
But the chips light never went off. Mr. B never had his will altered.
In this scenario, the killer techniquely had no choice. If he had willed differently, it would have been overridden by Mr. A. However, his will didn't need to be overridden, and he killed Mr. C of his own will, even though there was no choice to the contrary.
@@KevinSmile If Mr. B could have chosen differently then he would have free will. IF he would have chosen differently, then the chip kicks in 'overrides' his free will' and makes him kill Mr. C. So the chip makes MR. B an 'unwilling' participate - in the fullest sense of unwilling. If the chip activates then Mr. A is the murderer and Mr. B has been framed because without the chip Mr B. would not have murdered Mr. C.
I wanna look up your book, but I don't see it on Amazon.
If you could drop a link to the book either in the comment section or video description I'd appreciate it.
Very interesting - thank you very much!
God bless you! 🙏
Luther said free will is nothing. In Bondage of the Will Luther agrees with Calvin on God's Sovereignity.
Stop promoting your calvinist propaganda and distortions
Luther certainly didn't promote double predestination nor limited atonement, the Augsburg confession authored by Luther mentions nothing of those doctrines.
@@reformedcatholic457
You're quite wrong to say that Luther didn't promote double predestination. His Bondage of the Will promotes very strongly the doctrine of double predestination. His whole argument against Erasmus revolved round his insistence that God has predestined all things because God's omniscience and omnipotence mean that everything is determined and necessitated to happen. (See my main comments under this video for proof of this).
Also the Augsburg Confession wasn't authored by Luther. It was composed by Melanchthon. Luther was a fugitive in that he had been condemned as a heretic who could be apprehended on sight, and so he never went to Augsburg and had no direct hand in the composition of the Confession. It was left to Melanchthon to draw it up.
The Augsburg Confession wasn't designed to be a comprehensive document covering all theological topics, but was designed to cover the main areas of theological agreement and disagreement with Roman Catholicism, and so predestination never got dealt with. But in any case by the 1530's Melanchthon probably had significant differences with Luther over predestination so it wouldn't have made any sense for him to bring the subject up in the Confession and risk Luther's disapproval. He carefully worded it so it could be accepted by Luther, and didn't state that the Holy Spirit is always efficacious in the Word and sacraments as later Lutherans under the influence of Chemnitz came to believe. Luther in The Bondage of the Will had defended particular irresistible grace and Melanchthon worded Article 5 so that this was the implied meaning. Article 5 states
To obtain such faith God instituted the office of the ministry, that is, provided the Gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit, who works faith, when and where he pleases, in those who hear the Gospel” (Tappert).
Article 5 only came to be interpreted as teaching the universal operation of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace at a later date, but you'll notice that it doesn't actually teach this. What Luther understood was the meaning of article 5 was that God through the Word and sacraments sends the Holy Spirit to irresistibly regenerate those who are predestined to be saved.
@@reformedcatholic457
With regards to the atonement Luther of course did teach that Christ had atoned for the sins of the whole world and so he rejected limited atonement. But one needs to understand that Luther made a clear distinction between God's secret will of Majesty which from eternity has predestined all that happens in the universe, and his revealed will which through Christ desires everyone's salvation. It was only through His revealed will, which merely expresses His heartfelt wish that all should be saved, that God can be said to not will a person's damnation. However according to His secret will He has predestined some people to be damned. Erasmus had argued that Christ's lament over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37 disproved that God had predestined anyone to be damned, but Luther replied by saying that it was wrong of Erasmus to attempt to dispute with God's secret will in this way, and that God both desired to save everyone through Christ, and had predestined some to be damned from eternity:
"It is God incarnate, moreover, who is speaking here: "I would you would not"-God incarnate, I say, who has been sent into the world for the very purpose of willing, speaking, doing, suffering, and offering to all men everything necessary for salvation. Yet he offends very many, who being either abandoned or hardened by that secret will of the Divine Majesty do not receive him as he wills speaks, does, suffers, and offers, as John says: "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness does not comprehend it" [John 1:5] and again: "He came to his own home, and his own people received him not" [John 1:11]. It is likewise the part of this incarnate God to weep, wail, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, when the will of the Divine Majesty purposely abandons and reprobates some to perish. And it is not for us to ask why he does so, but to stand in awe of God who both can do and wills to do such things." (p.146, Vol. 33, Luther's Works)
@@eduds6 Be quite, luther propagandist. Read scripture, you will see God determines all.
Wonder if he’d like to expand on the topic regarding Determinism and free will, pretty relevant today
Am sichersten und frömmsten wäre es, dieses Wort ganz aufzugeben. Wollen wir das nicht tun, sollten wir es doch nach bestem Wissen so zu verwenden lehren, dass dem Menschen ein freies Willensvermögen nicht im Blick auf eine ihm übergeordnete, sondern nur im Blick auf eine ihm untergeordnete Sache zugestanden werde. Das heißt, dass er wisse, er habe im Blick auf sein Vermögen und seinen Besitz ein Recht, [Dinge] nach seinem freien Willensvrmögen zu gebrauchen, zu tun, zu lassen. Obwohl selbst hier durch das freie Willensvermögen Gottes alles allein dahin gelenkt wird, wohin immer es ihm gefällt. Ansonsten hat der Mensch gegenüber Gott und den Dingen, die sich auf Heil oder Verdammung beziehen, kein freies Willensvermögen
(Engl: Otherwise man has no free capacity of the will towards God and the things concerning salvation and damnation).
Hier ist er vielmehr ein Gefangener, ein Unterworfener und ein Knecht entweder des Willens Gottes oder des Willens Satans.
(Vom unfreien Willensvermögen/On the Bondage of the Will;
Lateinisch-Deutsche Studienausgabe - Martin Luther, S. 297)
Why make it so complex? Can we choose God in our old nature? No, we simply wouldn't, because we have no knowledge of God being in our old nature. But if The Lord knocks on the door either through evangelism, a dream, a vision or by reading The Word then The Holy Spirit can convict us and we are able to answer either positively by surrendering ourselves, or negatively by walking away from it. As of today do not harden your hearts says Scripture. That's really all there is to it. We don't need an our of thelogy for it.
No dealing with Acts 4:27-28 or with Augustine in "De Praedestinatione Sanctorum" saying no one can reject God's grace because he takes away hardness of heart when giving it to us? I'm so thankful for your work most of the time but it's so frustrating when it's about the creature's will, such an important topic for the early Luther.
There are two basic theological positions. The first is that God from eternity has predestined all people to be either saved or damned, and has predetermined who He will irresistibly regenerate and grant faith in Christ to, and who He will not do so. The second position is that God provides the means for everyone to be saved, but it depends on people's libertarian free will as to whether they will believe in Christ in order that they can be saved.
The first position has two variations. Some interpret those verses in Scripture as teaching that God through Christ desires all to be saved as referring to all classes of men, not all people individually. Others (like Luther) interpret these verses as applying to all people individually, whilst also holding that God through His hidden will has predestined some to be damned. Both variations deny that humans have libertarian free will.
The Second position (libertarian free will) interprets those passages which mention predestination as meaning that God predestines what will become of those who He foresees will choose to believe in Christ through their own free will, (this is in contrast to the first position in which God predestines those who will and won't believe in Christ). They understand God's desire to save all as meaning that everyone has been provided with an equal opportunity to be saved, and it's up to men to choose to respond affirmatively to the Gospel in order to be saved.
There's a third group (confessional Lutherans) who reject exclusive adherence to either predestination or free will, and who combine them both. They believe that God determines who will be saved, but man determines who will be damned. This is obviously contradictory, and therefore can't be true, because those whom God doesn't determine will be saved are necessarily destined to be damned, and it has nothing to do with any decisions that humans make.
The first two positions are logical interpretations of Scripture, but I don't accept that the second, that of free will, is faithful to the Scriptures. I'm in agreement with Luther, and hold that the Scriptures teach that God has predestined people to be both saved and damned, but that He also desires everyone to be saved through Christ. However His desiring to save all is an attitude of mind, not a statement of intent.
Lutherans however wrongly believe that since God desires that all should be saved that He tries to give everyone the Holy Spirit and faith through the Gospel. This idea however is obviously in contradiction to His eternal will whereby He elected to save only a certain number of people, and didn't choose to save everyone. If God in eternity had willed to save everyone then He would have elected and predestined everyone to be saved and decreed that they would all receive faith and the Holy Spirit. The fact that He didn't elect to save everyone shows that He doesn't will to save everyone but rather to damn some.
Excellent post, Edward!
I agree that the Confessional Lutheran position has inconsistencies. That's why I'm Reformed and not Lutheran.
I have argued for some time now that the whole issue of "human free will" is often discussed without really looking at the definition most people give to the concept itself.
Rather than simply assuming the definition of "free will" as, 'the power of contrary choice,' or, 'the equal ability to choose between two or more incompatible options under the same circumstances,' if we go to Scripture we will see that the biblical definition of "human free will" is quite different than this.
I have often used Jn. 8:31-38 as a guiding text concerning this issue.
My conclusion has been, and will always remain, this: Jesus gives what we might call a 'two-part' definition of human free will.
A human free will is:
1) a will that never assents to any errant propositions as if they were true; and,
2) a will that never wills to do anything other than that which is good and well-pleasing to God.
This is a human free will, biblically defined.
Assenting to an errant proposition as if it were true is what the fall was all about.
After assenting to the false proposition made by the serpent our first parents engaged in the actual disobedience. The actual disobedience followed from and was the result of assenting to an errant proposition as if it were true.
*Eve said as much when she said, "the serpent deceived me". Deception, of course, is when one believes an errant proposition(s) to be true, when it is in fact fallacious.
Jesus reversed this slavery to lies and sin.
Jesus never assented to errant propositions (doctrine, philosophies, teachings...etc.) as if they were true; rather, He combatted error WITH truth (just like we attempt to do in Apologetics).
Jesus never willed to do anything other than that which was good and well-pleasing to God. He never sinned. He was impeccable.
And so, in Glory, the saints of Christ will have totally "free wills" as well: never will we assent to errors, falsehoods and lies as if they were true; and, we will never will to do anything displeasing to God...ever.
Anyways, I think this discussion is important, and it's good to read from folks like you who have a good grasp on the fundamental issues and can break them down in a systematic way so that we can understand them a bit better.
So, thank you for that.
Grace and peace in Christ.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
@@ryangallmeier6647
Thanks for your comments. I tend to think it's better not to use the term "free will" when referring to the fact that Christ frees believers from their bondage to sin because of the connotation it has with the idea of being able to choose between believing in Christ or not believing in Him. Believers can no more choose to not believe in Christ as unbelievers can choose to believe in Him. So whilst acknowledging that believers are freed from the control of Satan so that they are free to serve God, I think of this in terms of being a slave of God rather than being in possession of free will - Romans 6:22.
With respect to confessional Lutherans yes I agree that what they believe is completely inconsistent and illogical. They believe that only those who are elected and predestined by God to be saved will be saved, (which means that those who aren't chosen by God to be saved will be damned), but they won't acknowledge that those who are damned are damned because God chose knowingly not to select them to be saved but to be damned. It's as if God could make a selection of those He willed to save from the mass of fallen humanity which didn't involve Him in choosing not to save the others. It follows that if God elects to save some, not all, that those He doesn't elect to save are willed by Him to be damned. It can't be any other way yet Lutherans deny this.
@@ryangallmeier6647
After rereading your reply I see I've somewhat misunderstood your point. I was addressing the idea of whether as Christians we can be said to possess free will now since Christ has freed us from bondage to sin and control by Satan, whereas you were referring to the saints in glory.
According to your definition Christians don't have free will in this world since we still give assent to faulty propositions, in that we often make faulty judgements of people and situations, and although we don't sin wilfully and premeditatively against God's commandments we still sin venially.
I don't regard myself as Reformed by the way. I don't agree with limited atonement. I believe that the Scriptures teach that Christ died for the sins of the entire world. Also I also hold that the Scriptures teach baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper. So I regard myself as Lutheran. Confessional Lutherans who follow the Formula of Concord and believe in single predestination though won't regard me as a Lutheran. But that means nothing to me. I know that the Scriptures teach double predestination, and that this was Luther's position, so in reality it's confessional Lutherans who aren't authentically Lutheran.
@@Edward-ng8oo Thanks for your response, question(s), and honesty that you are a Confessional Lutheran.
We often joke in Reformed circles that regarding the efficacious nature of the Grace of God in salvation, the total depravity of man [fallen in sin], the bondage of the will vs. the freedom of the will, and double predestination...Luther belongs to us (the Reformed) more than he belongs to most Lutherans...again, it's just a little (loving) jab toward our Lutheran friends.
But, getting to your question/statement:
"According to your definition Christians don't have free will in this world since we still give assent to faulty propositions, in that we often make faulty judgements of people and situations, and although we don't sin wilfully and premeditatively against God's commandments we still sin venially."
Exactly right! Excellent point!
Christians are currently a "mixed bag".
@10:30 mark, Dr. Cooper essentially argues that the "will" is necessary for the establishment of the concept of "responsibility".
There is a fundamental flaw in this.
Most synergists presuppose that 'free will' is what establishes the concept of responsibility/accountability/liability/culpability/blame and fault (all synonymous terms/concepts).
Dr. Cooper, however, asserts at least that the "will" of man must be involved in some way for responsibility to be established.
This is just as flawed as the synergistic presupposition that 'free will' is the necessary prerequisite for responsibility.
Much of the discussion of responsibility goes on without either side properly defining what responsibility is.
Definitions are very important.
Responsibility: the obligation to give a response, or render an account, for any and all infractions of some law, imperative, command...etc., imposed by an higher authority.
Thus, the ONLY prerequisite which establishes responsibility is LAW!
God, of course, is the highest lawgiver.
And, since God is completely AUTONOMOUS ("a law unto Himself") He is NEVER "responsible" for anything He says, or does.
This does not mean that God doesn't do stuff, or say stuff.
Rather, it means that there is no higher authority to whom, or to which God is obligated to give a response, or render an account for what He says and does.
Nor is there any law under which God Himself is subject (we are not here talking about Jesus in the incarnation and His earthly walk, of course, since He most certainly was "made subject to the law" in that).
Responsibility does not require a "free will" for its establishment.
Responsibility only requires a law, or laws/imperatives/commands in order for it to be established.
God created Adam and Eve as "responsible" creatures; God gave them a couple explicit commands to follow.
This placed them in the realm of responsibility. God's commands did this. Not the nature with which they were created.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
Interesting
@@Adam-ue2ig Thanks, Adam.
Isn't this what Ockham taught, ie the Divine Command theory?
@@cheryl9856 Can you get a little more specific?
I was definitely trying to point out that many folks have an unbiblical view of the concept of "responsibility".
Synergists, for example, because of their devotion to what is in fact a fallacious definition of 'human libertarian free will' (which Luther and the other Reformers argued against) assert that it is the prerequisite which establishes 'responsibility'.
I refute this idea, and say that "authoritative commands---be they from God, or among men---are what establish responsibility in the ones subject to the commands".
Since the Triune God is the ultimate authority, then all creatures are subject to Him and His Laws. And that the Triune God is responsible to no one.
This means also that 'responsibility/accountability/culpability/
liability/blame/fault' can never properly be applied to the Triune God.
Hope that helps a little.
Let me know if you have more questions.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
@@ryangallmeier6647 Authority is not the basis of ethics.
As far as “concursivity” - would it be accurate to say that because all things happen not autonomously from God, all actions are rooted in Him as primal cause, but the distinction between good and evil actions are between God’s will and God’s allowance?
Yes, but there is some discussion as to exactly what it means for God to be the primary cause of something that is merely done by allowance.
It's always a pleasure to hear your thoughts, Dr. Cooper.
What do you think about Molina's middle knowledge as an explanation?
In short no. Here's his podcast episode on it: open.spotify.com/episode/52KfTB73eMQ9gctXgvGm3L?si=HdYTrFeHS_aziiBW12cN2w
If you thought there was a different comment, there was. I just remembered he covered your question like in 2013.
@@jadenmarker8109 Thank you!
@@SLodberg You're welcome!
Your example of buying a house is not particularly good. Buying a house is itself a thoroughly mental/spiritual event, with only a few clues in the material that anything substantial even took place, clues that can only be seen by a mind. We are all so thoroughly spiritual creatures that we tend to confuse our spiritual/mental categories for material reality. Material reality is only a chaotic soup (at least physical science tells us this) without minds to categorize things out of the soup.
Cool!
The obsession and idea of free will,
dont understand that Will is Eternal.
Hello, Dr. Cooper, I have a question. If Adam and Eve did not sin, would Christ still incarnate?
I would simply say that God has not revealed the answer, so I wouldn't speculate.
Your question assumes that Adam and Eve had the free will to decide to not sin. Scripture on the other hand teaches that all things are determined by God, and that before anyone was born, God chose and predestined His elect to be saved through His gift to them of faith in Christ - Ephesians 1:1-11
@@Edward-ng8oo God did not determine that Adam and Eve would sin. They very much had the choice not to sin. If the choice not to sin does not lie in an unfallen human will then we are not saved by Christ's humanity (since Christ took on Adam's nature)
@@cheryl9856 If I'm understanding you correctly you're making the argument that unless Adam in his unfallen state had the option to refrain from sinning it would follow that Christ who took on Adam's nature also wouldn't have the option to not sin. If this is your meaning then I don't agree. Christ was both human and divine being conceived by the Holy Spirit so His ability to be sinless was inborn. Adam on the other hand was simply human.
I agree that in one sense that Adam had the ability to not sin in that his nature before the Fall was unaffected by sin, but it had to be that Adam would fall into sin because otherwise if he didn't the whole course of human history would be altered and God's foreknowledge of events would be proved wrong. In particular it would've been unnecessary for Christ to become incarnate as there would be no need for Him to atone for everyone's sins.
In Ephesians 1:4 Paul says "Even before the world was made, God had already chosen us to be his through our union with Christ, so that we would be holy and without fault before him." And in 1:11 he says "All things are done according to God's plan and decision; and God chose us to be his own people in union with Christ because of his own purpose, based on what he had decided from the very beginning." (GNT)
It follows that God had previously determined that Adam would fall into sin through the agency of Satan because otherwise His plan to save people through Christ couldn't be put into effect. Also everything that happens does so because God has decided how the course of human history will unfold and that's why He has perfect foreknowledge. He determines what happens not us and therefore human free will doesn't in reality exist. Even though it seems to us that we are in charge of our own decisions and we independently make choices, in actual fact since God foreknows beforehand what we will decide, it has to be the case that we will choose to do what He foreknows we will choose, otherwise His foreknowledge would be proved wrong. One may ask how far does God's foreknowledge extend and does it include minute decisions like what to eat etc. and I suppose what I'd say in response is that I don't know.
I know that some try to argue that God's foreknowledge is compatible with human free will, but if such free will is understood as libertarian free will, then I don't accept that it's compatible. It's impossible that God can be omniscient if at the same time humans have the ability to make completely free decisions. It has to follow therefore that God determines what happens, not us.
Hi Edward. Christ is a Divine person with a human will, whereas Adam is a human person with a human will. Christ couldn't have sinned, his human will always acted in harmony with his Divine will, but Adam, not being the immutable God, was subject to the possibility of change and he did change. I don't see God's foreknowledge as dependent on events unfolding in a particular way so I am confused by your statement that, "God's foreknowledge of events would be proved wrong". Perhaps Christ would have chosen to still become incarnate in a sinless world, that is something that I simply do not know. My concern here, is Determinism or Fatalism. You use the term, "determine" in reference to God and sin/Satan. I don't believe that Paul, Eph. 1:4 is saying that God fated us to sin, because this makes God responsible for sin. I honestly don't see Paul in Eph. saying anything other than Christ's death and resurrection and our union with him was plan "A". As a Christian, let me ask you this: If God determines everything that we will do, how does he do this? A pantheist would say that God and nature are consubstantial; as God does, so does nature. A Muslim would say that God determines by fiat; what he wills, comes to order, like a servant which obeys his master. Thanks.
1:02:26 😊🎉😊
Luther was a believer in absolute predestination which he based on the fact that the Scriptures teach that God is omniscient and omnipotent. He argued that God's infallible foreknowledge of all events means that all things must necessarily happen and are therefore predestined to happen by His hidden eternal will. And from the fact that God is omnipotent he argued that God wills and works everything that happens according to His immutable eternal foreknowledge, and therefore we don't have any free will to act any differently to how He has foreknown. For instance he wrote the following in The Bondage of the Will:
Here, then, is something fundamentally necessary and salutary for a Christian, to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that he foresees and purposes and does all things by his immutable, eternal and infallible will. Here is a thunderbolt by which free choice is completely prostrated and shattered .... (p.37 Vol 33 Luther’s Works)
For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it (as reason itself is forced to admit), then on the testimony of reason itself there can't be any free choice in man or angel or any creature. (p.293 ibid)
But why are these things abstruse to us Christians, so that it is irreverent and inquisitive and vain to discuss and come to know them, when heathen poets and even the common people speak of them quite freely? How often does Virgil (for one) remind us of Fate! "By changeless law stand all things fixed". (p.41 ibid)
But granted foreknowledge and omnipotence, it follows naturally by an irrefutable logic that we have not been made by ourselves, nor do we live or perform any action by ourselves, but by his omnipotence. And seeing he knew in advance that we should be the sort of people we are, and now makes, moves, and governs us as such, what imaginable thing is there, I ask you, in us which is free to become in any way different from what he has foreknown or is now bringing about? Thus God’s foreknowledge and omnipotence are diametrically opposed to our free choice,” (p.189 ibid)
This is highest degree of faith, to believe him merciful when he saves so few and damns so many, and to believe him righteous when by his own will he makes us necessarily damnable, so that he seems, according to Erasmus to delight in the torments of the wretched and to be worthy of hatred rather than of love. (p.62,63 ibid)
Admittedly, it gives the greatest possible offense to common sense or natural reason that God by his own sheer will should abandon, harden, and damn men as if he enjoyed the sins and the vast eternal torments of his wretched creatures, when he is preached as a God of such great mercy and goodness, (p.190 ibid)
But if God is robbed of the power and wisdom to elect, what will he be but the false idol, chance, at whose nod everything happens at random? And in the end it will come to this, that men are saved and damned without God’s knowledge, since he has not determined by his certain election who are to be saved and who damned, (p.171 ibid)
As one can see Luther's belief in absolute predestination includes predestination to damnation as part and parcel of his position on there being no free will. To Luther not only can we not choose to believe the Gospel, but also we don't have the freedom to reject the Gospel, and therefore he didn't accept the confessional Lutheran doctrine that man alone is responsible for his damnation by resisting the Holy Spirit. In TBOTW he teaches particular irresistible grace not universal resistible grace (although he held that the atonement is universal). Luther believed in double predestination, not single predestination as do confessional Lutherans.
After studying TBOTW I've been convinced by Luther that he's correctly expounding Scripture on predestination and grace, and therefore that the Formula of Concord is in error.
XI is not contrary to Servo. The very first thought presented in XI (paragraph 4 and on) is the distinction between Foreknowledge and Predestination. If you do a text search of any common Servo translation, you will find that the word 'Predestination' only appears a handful* of times in the entire document, while Foreknowledge, or Prescience, occurs four times as many. It should also be noted that the two terms are not used interchangeably and when Predestination does occur, it is paired with Foreknowledge, as to distinguish the ideas. The Lutheran reformers, as good students of Luther, were aware of this when XI was put together.
Luther even offers a (foolish, admittedly) theodicy in Servo, that harmonizes with the Lutheran confessions:
This is sure and certain, if we believe that God is omnipotent; as it is also certain that the ungodly man is a creature of God, but one which, being perverted and left to itself without the Spirit of God, cannot will or do good. God's omnipotence makes it impossible for the ungodly man to escape the action upon him of the movement of God; of necessity he is subject to it, and obeys it; but his corruption, his turning of himself from God, makes it impossible for him to be moved and made to act well. God cannot suspend His omnipotence on account of man's perversion, and the ungodly man cannot alter his perversion. As a result he sin and errs incessantly and inevitably until he is set right by the Spirit of God. In all this Satan continues to reign in peace; under this movement of Divine omnipotence he keeps his palace undisturbed. (J.J. Packer V.(iv))
Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Article XI, 6 +7:
"The foreknowledge of God (praescientia) foresees and foreknows also that which is evil; however, not in such a manner as though it were God's gracious will that it should happen; but all that the perverse, wicked will of the devil and of men wills and desires to undertake and do, God sees and knows before; and His praescientia, that is, foreknowledge, observes its order also in wicked acts or works, inasmuch as a limit and measure is fixed by God to the evil which God does not will, how far it should go, and how long it should last, when and how He will hinder and punish it; for all of this God the Lord so overrules that it must redound to the glory of the divine name and to the salvation of His elect, and the godless, on that account, must be put to confusion.
However, the beginning and cause of evil is not God's foreknowledge (for God does not create and effect [or work] evil, neither does He help or promote it); but the wicked, perverse will of the devil and of men [is the cause of evil], as it is written Hos. 13:9: O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in Me is thy help. Also: Thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness. Ps. 5:4."
*Seven times, one in quotation of the Diatribe
**One pairing does appear to be synonymous, in the regards to pagan thought about necessity.
The same calvinists in their propaganda
@@StoicHippy
You've not understood Luther correctly. The position of the Formula is that not everything that God foreknows is willed and predestined by Him to happen, whereas Luther stated the opposite, namely that everything that God foreknows is willed and predestined by Him to happen. For instance I quoted Luther saying:
"For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it (as reason itself is forced to admit), then on the testimony of reason itself there can't be any free choice in man or angel or any creature." (p.293 Vol. 33, Luther's Works)
Also Luther explained that it's fundamentally necessary for a Christian to understand that God doesn't foreknow the future by chance, but that He foreknows it because everything that happens does so because He has willed it to happen from eternity, and now brings it about in time that it actually happens as He has foreknown it will happen:
“Here, then, is something fundamentally necessary and salutary for a Christian, to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that he foresees and purposes and does all things by his immutable, eternal and infallible will.” (p.37 ibid).
Likewise He has willed and predestined people to be damned from eternity:
This is highest degree of faith, to believe him merciful when he saves so few and damns so many, and to believe him righteous when by his own will he makes us necessarily damnable, so that he seems, according to Erasmus to delight in the torments of the wretched and to be worthy of hatred rather than of love. (p.62,63 ibid)
Admittedly, it gives the greatest possible offense to common sense or natural reason that God by his own sheer will should abandon, harden, and damn men as if he enjoyed the sins and the vast eternal torments of his wretched creatures, when he is preached as a God of such great mercy and goodness, (p.190 ibid)
But if God is robbed of the power and wisdom to elect, what will he be but the false idol, chance, at whose nod everything happens at random? And in the end it will come to this, that men are saved and damned without God’s knowledge, since he has not determined by his certain election who are to be saved and who damned, (p.171 ibid)
Luther is saying in the last quote above that if Erasmus was correct on free will (this is the context) that God would be robbed of His power to elect people to be both saved and damned, which shows that Luther believed that God does elect people to be saved and damned. One can't get much more explicit than that. This of course is in marked contrast to the position of the Formula which denies that God elects anyone to be damned.
Also when Luther commented on Romans 9:13: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” he said the following: "God’s love toward men is eternal and immutable, and his hatred is eternal, being prior to the creation of the world, .... and everything takes place by necessity in us, according as he either loves or does not love us from all eternity ...(p.199 ibid). This again contradicts the position of the Formula which rejects the view that everything that happens is determined by whether God has loved or hated a person from eternity. The Formula only accepts that a person's salvation is necessitated by God if He has loved and predestined a person from eternity to be saved, whereas Luther also held that a person's damnation is necessitated by God if he has been hated by Him from eternity.
As to the Formula's assertion that God doesn't create and effect [or work] evil, Luther agreed that God didn't create evil, but he certainly didn't agree that God doesn't effect or work evil. You quoted him saying:
"God's omnipotence makes it impossible for the ungodly man to escape the action upon him of the movement of God; of necessity he is subject to it, and obeys it; but his corruption, his turning of himself from God, makes it impossible for him to be moved and made to act well."
Luther was saying here that God brings to pass whatever happens, even through those who are unbelievers and who behave sinfully. A Scriptural example of this is Joseph's brothers who sent him off to Egypt. God caused them to act sinfully, but of course He did so through the good motive of wanting to feed the people in the coming famine he had decreed would happen. Joseph was God's chosen instrument to feed many people, but it was necessary in order for this to happen that God first cause his brothers to act sinfully by sending Joseph off to Egypt. So here's an example of God working or effecting evil in that his brothers had to be caused to act from evil motives, yet Chemnitz in the Formula denied that God effects or works evil. He got that one wrong for sure.
Luther's position was that God works both good and evil. He quoted Erasmus:
"What, you say, could be more useless than to publish this paradox to the world, that whatever is done by us is not done by free choice, but by sheer necessity? And Augustine's saying that God works in us good and evil, and rewards his own good works in us and punishes his evil works in us - what is the use of that?" (p.58 ibid)
Note that Luther acknowledges that what Erasmus says here about him believing that God works evil in us and that He punishes "his evil works in us" is his position. Luther throughout The Bondage of the Will teaches that everything is necessitated by God's foreknowledge to happen, or in other words that everything is predestined by God to happen. When Luther speaks of everything being necessitated to happen by God what he meant was that everything is predestined by God to happen.
@@Edward-ng8oo Have you read the Augsburg confession which Luther helped author along with a few others? No mention of double predestination.
@@reformedcatholic457
Yes I've read it but Luther didn't have a hand in composing it. It was composed by Melanchthon, and of course Melanchthon at some point deviated from Luther's position in The Bondage of the Will and went down the road of synergism.
The Augsburg Confession wasn't designed to be a comprehensive document covering all theological topics, but was designed to cover the main areas of theological agreement and disagreement with Roman Catholicism, and so predestination never got dealt with. But in any case by the 1530's Melanchthon probably had significant differences with Luther over predestination so it wouldn't have made any sense for him to bring the subject up in the Confession and risk Luther's disapproval. He carefully worded it so it could be accepted by Luther, and didn't state that the Holy Spirit is always efficacious in the Word and sacraments as later Lutherans under the influence of Chemnitz came to believe. Luther in The Bondage of the Will had defended particular irresistible grace and Melanchthon worded Article 5 so that this was the implied meaning. Article 5 states
To obtain such faith God instituted the office of the ministry, that is, provided the Gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit, who works faith, when and where he pleases, in those who hear the Gospel” (Tappert).
Article 5 only came to be interpreted as teaching the universal operation of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace at a later date, but you'll notice that it doesn't actually teach this. What Luther understood was the meaning of article 5 was that God through the Word and sacraments sends the Holy Spirit to irresistibly regenerate those who are predestined to be saved.
I'm sorry to always be disagreeing with you Dr. Cooper, and I do enjoy your videos, but I find it unacceptable to think that we can't participate in our own salvation, that it is something that is simply done TO us by God. If the Holy Spirit prompts us toward faith and a desire for God, we have to choose whether or not to participate in that, to follow His prompting. We can choose to follow Him or not, like, for example, the rich young ruler, who chose to follow the prompting which led him to approach Jesus, but also chose not to follow Him beyond that point. If we have freedom to resist God's grace, how is it that we don't have freedom to co-operate with it? It would seem that this idea comes from the Lutheran view of original sin, in which man has fallen into a kind of helpless state of total depravity. In the Orthodox view, man's fall was not as drastic as in the Lutheran view, rather he is still capable of some good thoughts and actions, even in the spiritual realm. Because of this, the Orthodox believe that it is possible for us to participate in our own salvation, which is a form of synergy, a key concept in Orthodox theology.
It is necessary for us to receive the gift of faith by the action of the Holy Spirit, but that is not sufficient to save us, since we can lose our faith, in which case our salvation is open to question, at least. Receiving the gift of faith is the beginning of our salvation, but if we don't continually choose to be obedient to God, the process of salvation may be cut short by us. God never abrogates our freedom, either to choose or reject Him.
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.
- Martin Luther ( Commentary on
Romans, 1515)
Would love to dig into the evolution of Contemporary Lutheran Theology and History. I'll look for some resources. Let me know of some if you'd like.
Those weren't actually Luther's exact words you quoted although they summarise what he believed. According to the the link below Luther had written the following:
In chapters 9, 10, and 11 [of Romans Paul] teaches of God’s eternal predestination-out of which originally proceeds who shall believe or not, who can or cannot get rid of sin-in order that our salvation may be taken entirely out of our hands and put in the hand of God alone. And this too is utterly necessary. For we are so weak and uncertain that if it depended on us, not even a single person would be saved; the devil would surely overpower us all. But since God is dependable-his predestination cannot fail, and no one can withstand him-we still have hope in the face of sin.
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2018/12/luther-all-things-whatever-arise-from.html
Also Luther of course dealt with the subject of predestination extensively in The Bondage of the Will, and I showed in my main comments under this video that Luther strongly defended double predestination and divine determinism against the position that Erasmus took that we have free will.
Road to teformed: So where did peanut butter come from? Me buying a car? And if all really depends on God did God bring forth and produces sin? I think your reasoning is flawed.
@@Bijbelstudies or your comprehension of Protestant Theology friend. God uses means. Our world is full of secondary causes in line compatabilistically with God's Sovereign decree and appointment.
@@TheDroc1990 So the devil and his ways are of Gods decree? And you dare to say from His means? I wouldn't dare to describe those to our Lord and God. No it is clear as broad daylight that we have a free will to descide. But I agree we do need the intervention of the Holy Spirit to be able to understand and subsequentially surrender to God. If we do so is our responsebillity in the end. We respond to the calling either positively or negatively.
@@Bijbelstudies "The devil is Gods devil" - Martin Luther
Free will is no where in Scripture the way we have been taught in "Sunday School". Free will or self will is mentioned twice in the Bible and neither is good because it explains the character of a reprobate man. It's mentioned fiFreerst in Titus 1:7 and again in 2 Peter 2:10 (KJV). The unregenerate man is a slave to sin and knows nothing else, in a sense he sins freely without any conviction of the Holy Ghost therefore he is a slave to Satan. He uses his will to sin freely yet is bound in chains as a slave and needs liberation yet if it does not come they will end up in Hell. Now! When it comes to the born again believer, though we have been liberated by the Holy Ghost from the chains of sin and Satan we are still slaves. We are bond servants of Jesus Christ, even Paul at the beginning of each letter introduced himself as a bond servant or slave to the Lord. In short those outside of the Faith only embrace "self will" not worried about their sinful life and the offensive nature against God Himself and the regenerated believers are concerned about the will of God and doing those things that He asks us to do.
Romans 3:10-12 KJV
[10] As it is written, ➡️There is none righteous⬅️, no, not one: [11] There is none that understandeth, there is ➡️none that seeketh after God⬅️. [12] They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is ➡️none that doeth good, no, not one.⬅️
Shows us while man is unconverted he is not free what so ever. He only does those things that come naturally to him. Free will to sin freely with no remorse or worry about Hell fire.
Ephesians 2:1-5 KJV
[1] And ➡️you hath he quickened⬅️ , who were ➡️dead in trespasses and sins⬅️; [2] Wherein in time past ye walked according to the ➡️course of this world⬅️, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now ➡️worketh in the children of disobedience⬅️: [3] Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the ➡️desires of the flesh and of the mind⬅️; and were ➡️by nature the children of wrath, even as others⬅️. [4] But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, [5] Even when we were ➡️dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)⬅️
This shows the conversion from going to God's will by His grace due to the actions of the Holy Ghost.
Titus 1:7 KJV
[7] For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; ➡️not selfwilled⬅️, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
2 Peter 2:10 KJV
[10] But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they , ➡️selfwilled⬅️, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
The two times free/self will is mentioned.
Hypercalvinists everywhere, christian pharisees who distort the word
eduds6 how so? Please prove your point biblically.
@Sage of Synergism
I accept that on a surface reading of the Scriptures, one can come to the conclusion that we possess free will, and that we have the natural ability to do what we wish, and to believe what we wish. The Gospel is presented with the seeming implication that we have the ability to believe it and save ourselves, and that if we don't believe it we're refusing to do something which we have the capacity to do. However there are numerous verses which show that we don't have free will and that people's salvation and damnation are predetermined by God. For instance:
Romans 9:18 ESV (So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills). This teaches that God only has mercy and saves some people, and that He hardens others in unbelief, not as a punishment for having rejected Him through free will, but simply because He doesn't will to have mercy on them and give them the gift of faith.
Acts 13:48 ESV (... and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed). This teaches that only those God has chosen to give eternal to are enabled to believe. We can't choose to believe ourselves.
Matthew 13:11 ESV (“To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given"). This teaches that God only chooses to give some people, but not all, the knowledge of salvation through Christ. We can't acquire this knowledge through our own decision making.
2 Timothy 2:25-26 NIV (Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth ...). This teaches that repentance is something which only God can grant. We can't choose to repent by simply deciding to.
John 10:25-26 NIV (Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep”). This teaches that unless people have been chosen by God to be His sheep they can't believe in Christ.
John 6:64-65 NIV (Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them”). This teaches that God needs to enable people to believe in Christ by giving them the Holy Spirit, and that where God doesn't give people the Holy Spirit they are unable to believe.
Also God's omniscience means everything is predestined to happen. Since God has complete foreknowledge of all events, the future has already been determined, and free will doesn't exist. It can't be that anyone has the capacity to do anything other than what God foreknows he will do, and therefore free will is an illusion. The idea that God can foreknow with complete certainty what a free agent will decide to do is a logical contradiction. That simply can't be true.
The Scriptures teach that God foreknows the future, and that they unfold as He has determined: "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.’" (Isaiah 46:9-10 NIV).
Misquote of Mt 23.37. Matt 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered YOUR CHILDREN together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!
Psychosomatic union bro
Promote promote - the business of religion.
?