dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?

---

Never heard of the term.

---

Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.

It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.

So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.

---

Calvin yes. Zwingli and Luther doubtful. It is my understanding the idea of predestination is/was part/parcel of Agustine's concept of 'original sin' from birth, leading to concept for infant baptism.

---

If you google Luther and Zwingli and double predestination it is hard to tell what they believed for sure on the issue.

Unconditional election means that only certain people will be of the elect so what happens to the others?

---

Please see "ETA" on my earlier post.

---

What does ETA mean?

---

"ETA" - Edited to Add (subsequent commentary)

---

Thanks.

Do you believe Luther believed in free will?

---

Yes. Free will is a requirement in order for everyone to have and make a choice. God's perfect illustration = two thieves and three crosses on a hill. - - - "Choose wisely"

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?

---

Never heard of the term.

---

Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.

It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.

So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.

---

Calvin yes. Zwingli and Luther doubtful. It is my understanding the idea of predestination is/was part/parcel of Agustine's concept of 'original sin' from birth, leading to concept for infant baptism.

---

If you google Luther and Zwingli and double predestination it is hard to tell what they believed for sure on the issue.

Unconditional election means that only certain people will be of the elect so what happens to the others?

---

Please see "ETA" on my earlier post.

---

What does ETA mean?

---

"ETA" - Edited to Add (subsequent commentary)

---

Thanks.

Do you believe Luther believed in free will?

---

Yes. Free will is a requirement in order for everyone to have and make a choice. God's perfect illustration = two thieves and three crosses on a hill. - - - "Choose wisely"

---

Have you researched what Luther thought about free will?

https://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=171

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?

---

Never heard of the term.

---

Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.

It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.

So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.

---

Calvin yes. Zwingli and Luther doubtful. It is my understanding the idea of predestination is/was part/parcel of Agustine's concept of 'original sin' from birth, leading to concept for infant baptism.

---

If you google Luther and Zwingli and double predestination it is hard to tell what they believed for sure on the issue.

Unconditional election means that only certain people will be of the elect so what happens to the others?

---

Please see "ETA" on my earlier post.

---

What does ETA mean? And I know the present day Lutheran church does not believe in double predestination. And I applaud them for that.

My reading seems to indicate Luther did.

---

Lutheran Confessional documents all reject it. So no it's not a "present day Lutheran" thing.

The last document, which I posted a screenshot of before is from 1577, which rejected it.

What you're doing is going off Reformed blogs that want to claim that Lutheranism doesn't represent Luther. That's not a good place for research. Go to the Confessional documents themselves!

---

No I just googled Luther and double predestination.

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/double_luther.html#:~:text=Luther%20understood%20that%20in%20terms,is%20not%20sovereign%20at%20all.

[url=https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/double_luther.html#:~:text=Luther%20understood%20that%20in%20terms,is%20not%20sovereign%20at%20all.][/url]Many more links saying the same thing.

---

Yes, this is the normal Reformed approach. They look at what was written in the Bondage of the Will, as this writer did, and say "see double predestination." Notice how his supposed magnum opus was not included in the Book of Concord and is not a confessional document. Kind of odd right?

Lets start with the obvious.

1. The Bondage of the Will was never a Confessional or truly doctrinal document. Luther wrote many of those (Smalcald Articles, Large/Small Catechism). It was a response to Erasmus that he didn't want to write.

2. Luther wrote this book in 1525 and Calvin was born in 1509. So the issue itself had arisen because nobody was claiming this. Could Luther have been more careful in what he wrote..yes of course, but that was never his style (for good and bad).

But the key claim is that if you read through what is written, you don't come to the claim of double predestination.

What you realize is that Luther is making the claim that nobody is worthy we are all unworthy of salvation. Our merit means nothing (this was controversial at the time). So why God seemingly saves some and not the others is a mystery that we do not understand, frankly to this day. Why are some saved and others not?

But Luther, even in all that this guy posts, never says that God specifically creates people for damnation.

edit: Adding a word that should have been there!

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?

---

Never heard of the term.

---

Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.

It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.

So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.

---

Calvin yes. Zwingli and Luther doubtful. It is my understanding the idea of predestination is/was part/parcel of Agustine's concept of 'original sin' from birth, leading to concept for infant baptism.

---

If you google Luther and Zwingli and double predestination it is hard to tell what they believed for sure on the issue.

Unconditional election means that only certain people will be of the elect so what happens to the others?

---

Please see "ETA" on my earlier post.

---

What does ETA mean? And I know the present day Lutheran church does not believe in double predestination. And I applaud them for that.

My reading seems to indicate Luther did.

---

Lutheran Confessional documents all reject it. So no it's not a "present day Lutheran" thing.

The last document, which I posted a screenshot of before is from 1577, which rejected it.

What you're doing is going off Reformed blogs that want to claim that Lutheranism doesn't represent Luther. That's not a good place for research. Go to the Confessional documents themselves!

---

No I just googled Luther and double predestination.

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/double_luther.html#:~:text=Luther%20understood%20that%20in%20terms,is%20not%20sovereign%20at%20all.

[url=https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/double_luther.html#:~:text=Luther%20understood%20that%20in%20terms,is%20not%20sovereign%20at%20all.][/url]Many more links saying the same thing.

---

Yes, this is the normal Reformed approach. They look at what was written in the Bondage of the Will, as this writer did, and say "see double predestination." Notice how his supposed magnum opus was not included in the Book of Concord and is not a confessional document. Kind of odd right?

Lets start with the obvious.

1. The Bondage of the Will was never a Confessional or truly doctrinal document. Luther wrote many of those (Smalcald Articles, Large/Small Catechism). It was a response to Erasmus that he didn't want to write.

2. Luther wrote this book in 1525 and Calvin was born in 1509. So the issue itself had arisen because nobody was claiming this. Could Luther have been more careful in what he wrote..yes of course, but that was never his style (for good and bad).

But the key claim is that if you read through what is written, you don't come to the claim of double predestination.

What you realize is that Luther is making the claim that nobody is worthy we are all unworthy of salvation. Our merit means nothing (this was controversial at the time). So why God seemingly saves some and not the others is a mystery that we do not understand, frankly to this day. Why are some saved and others not?

But Luther, even in all that this guy posts, says that God specifically creates people for damnation.

---

And I disagree with that.

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?

---

Never heard of the term.

---

Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.

It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.

So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.

---

Calvin yes. Zwingli and Luther doubtful. It is my understanding the idea of predestination is/was part/parcel of Agustine's concept of 'original sin' from birth, leading to concept for infant baptism.

---

If you google Luther and Zwingli and double predestination it is hard to tell what they believed for sure on the issue.

Unconditional election means that only certain people will be of the elect so what happens to the others?

---

Please see "ETA" on my earlier post.

---

What does ETA mean? And I know the present day Lutheran church does not believe in double predestination. And I applaud them for that.

My reading seems to indicate Luther did.

---

Lutheran Confessional documents all reject it. So no it's not a "present day Lutheran" thing.

The last document, which I posted a screenshot of before is from 1577, which rejected it.

What you're doing is going off Reformed blogs that want to claim that Lutheranism doesn't represent Luther. That's not a good place for research. Go to the Confessional documents themselves!

---

No I just googled Luther and double predestination.

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/double_luther.html#:~:text=Luther%20understood%20that%20in%20terms,is%20not%20sovereign%20at%20all.

[url=https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/double_luther.html#:~:text=Luther%20understood%20that%20in%20terms,is%20not%20sovereign%20at%20all.][/url]Many more links saying the same thing.

---

Yes, this is the normal Reformed approach. They look at what was written in the Bondage of the Will, as this writer did, and say "see double predestination." Notice how his supposed magnum opus was not included in the Book of Concord and is not a confessional document. Kind of odd right?

Lets start with the obvious.

1. The Bondage of the Will was never a Confessional or truly doctrinal document. Luther wrote many of those (Smalcald Articles, Large/Small Catechism). It was a response to Erasmus that he didn't want to write.

2. Luther wrote this book in 1525 and Calvin was born in 1509. So the issue itself had arisen because nobody was claiming this. Could Luther have been more careful in what he wrote..yes of course, but that was never his style (for good and bad).

But the key claim is that if you read through what is written, you don't come to the claim of double predestination.

What you realize is that Luther is making the claim that nobody is worthy we are all unworthy of salvation. Our merit means nothing (this was controversial at the time). So why God seemingly saves some and not the others is a mystery that we do not understand, frankly to this day. Why are some saved and others not?

But Luther, even in all that this guy posts, says that God specifically creates people for damnation.

---

And I disagree with that.

---

Crap...that was a horrible typo. I was trying to get outside to hand out candy and mistyped it.

what it should have said is:

"But Luther, even in all that this guy posts, never says that God specifically creates people for damnation.

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?

---

Never heard of the term.

---

Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.

It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.

So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.

---

Calvin yes. Zwingli and Luther doubtful. It is my understanding the idea of predestination is/was part/parcel of Agustine's concept of 'original sin' from birth, leading to concept for infant baptism.

---

If you google Luther and Zwingli and double predestination it is hard to tell what they believed for sure on the issue.

Unconditional election means that only certain people will be of the elect so what happens to the others?

---

Please see "ETA" on my earlier post.

---

What does ETA mean?

---

"ETA" - Edited to Add (subsequent commentary)

---

Thanks.

Do you believe Luther believed in free will?

---

Yes. Free will is a requirement in order for everyone to have and make a choice. God's perfect illustration = two thieves and three crosses on a hill. - - - "Choose wisely"

---

Have you researched what Luther thought about free will?

https://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=171

---

Can't say that I've researched that specific subject relative to Luther. It seems that IF that were a MAJOR issue in connection to Luther's overall prerogative's, it would be of major contention. Don't recall whether it was among his 95 thesis seeking Roman Catholic modifications.

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?

---

Never heard of the term.

---

Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.

It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.

So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.

---

Calvin yes. Zwingli and Luther doubtful. It is my understanding the idea of predestination is/was part/parcel of Agustine's concept of 'original sin' from birth, leading to concept for infant baptism.

---

If you google Luther and Zwingli and double predestination it is hard to tell what they believed for sure on the issue.

Unconditional election means that only certain people will be of the elect so what happens to the others?

---

Please see "ETA" on my earlier post.

---

What does ETA mean?

---

"ETA" - Edited to Add (subsequent commentary)

---

Thanks.

Do you believe Luther believed in free will?

---

Yes. Free will is a requirement in order for everyone to have and make a choice. God's perfect illustration = two thieves and three crosses on a hill. - - - "Choose wisely"

---

Have you researched what Luther thought about free will?

https://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=171

---

Can't say that I've researched that specific subject relative to Luther. It seems that IF that were a MAJOR issue in connection to Luther's overall prerogative's, it would be of major contention. Don't recall whether it was among his 95 thesis seeking Roman Catholic modifications.

---

He wrote a whole book about how he did not believe in free will called the Bondage of the Will.

Major part of his theology.

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?

---

Never heard of the term.

---

Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.

It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.

So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.

---

Calvin yes. Zwingli and Luther doubtful. It is my understanding the idea of predestination is/was part/parcel of Agustine's concept of 'original sin' from birth, leading to concept for infant baptism.

---

If you google Luther and Zwingli and double predestination it is hard to tell what they believed for sure on the issue.

Unconditional election means that only certain people will be of the elect so what happens to the others?

---

Please see "ETA" on my earlier post.

---

What does ETA mean?

---

"ETA" - Edited to Add (subsequent commentary)

---

Thanks.

Do you believe Luther believed in free will?

---

Yes. Free will is a requirement in order for everyone to have and make a choice. God's perfect illustration = two thieves and three crosses on a hill. - - - "Choose wisely"

---

Have you researched what Luther thought about free will?

https://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=171

---

Can't say that I've researched that specific subject relative to Luther. It seems that IF that were a MAJOR issue in connection to Luther's overall prerogative's, it would be of major contention. Don't recall whether it was among his 95 thesis seeking Roman Catholic modifications.

---

He wrote a whole book about how he did not believe in free will called the Bondage of the Will.

Major part of his theology.

---

Respectfully, this is incredibly incorrect and quite frustrating that you would claim this.

He did not "write a book" but instead a response to a letter written to him by Erasmus.

Further, it was written in 1525. You know what was written after this? Every one of his doctrinal books, including the Augsburg Confession, Large/Small Catechism, and Smalcald Articles.

Do you know what none of them mention? Double Predestination.

Seems kind of odd that a "major part of his theology" did not make it into any of his primary doctrinal documents right?

It also seems odd that none of his closest friends, peers, and students took up this claim and instead when Calvin made his claims, everybody came out against it.

So no...none of what you said is accurate, and after multiple corrections, its kind of shocking you continue to make these claims.

---

Do you think he believed in free will?

And I sincerely hope he did not believe in double predestination as it it not a theology I am comfortable with.

Did you read the link?

This a reformed site.

https://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2017/09/21/luther-on-the-term-free-will/

Have you yet caught on that the entire Reformed position is based on the way they read "The Bondage of the Will?"

Have you noticed they don't turn to his actual doctrinal works that I listed? They rely on a single letter that Luther wrote decades prior to Calvin being a theologian and expressing double predestination as a belief. Odd isn't it.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Have you yet caught on that the entire Reformed position is based on the way they read "The Bondage of the Will?"

Have you noticed they don't turn to his actual doctrinal works that I listed? They rely on a single letter that Luther wrote decades prior to Calvin being a theologian and expressing double predestination as a belief. Odd isn't it.

---

So basically you are saying aluther did not believe in double predestination but the Calvinists tried to make it look like he did?

Terminus Est said:

---

What a great insight into modern Protestantism this thread has become. Started off with a clanger off the rim while trying to dunk on Rome, and then degenerated into sectarian navel gazing. I predict no bans but 11 new denominations by the end of this thread.

---

We are an interesting bunch. My theology is very simple.

God loves me.

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Have you yet caught on that the entire Reformed position is based on the way they read "The Bondage of the Will?"

Have you noticed they don't turn to his actual doctrinal works that I listed? They rely on a single letter that Luther wrote decades prior to Calvin being a theologian and expressing double predestination as a belief. Odd isn't it.

---

So basically you are saying aluther did not believe in double predestination but the Calvinists tried to make it look like he did?

---

Correct.

As I noted, and you've shown, their entire justification for "Luther supporting double predestination" is to try and read that belief into a single book. The Bondage of the Will.

When you look at the actual history of that book, you find a couple things.

1. It was written well before Calvin came into the picture. Calvin is 26 years younger than Luther.
2. It was not a response Luther wanted to write to Erasmus and he delayed in doing it until his wife stepped in.
3. The language is not careful. Even for Luther, the language is aggressive. It's reported that Melanchthon was really pretty upset with Luther because of the language he used. If you ever read it, it's a verbal beatdown.
4. It's not a doctrinal work of Luthers. We know what those were and have sufficient record of them.
5. When double predestination comes up later in his life, Luther or any of his students do not show any support for it.
6. There was certainly more cooperation between Melanchthon and Calvin, that people look to as justification for how close the two sides were. Forgetting that Melanchthon's students chided him for it.

So what you end up with, as you saw, is a bunch of modern Reformed, looking at a single book, and trying to read double predestination into Luther's theology through that book by using similar words, but changing Luther's meaning.

What they don't do is point to the Small/Large Catechism (which was designed to teach the faith to parents and pastors) or the Smalcald Articles (he directly wrote as his Confession) or in any other truly doctrinal statements that lend support. There's a reason for it and it's that they can't point to those and find support.

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?

---

Never heard of the term.

---

Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.

It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.

So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.

---

Calvin yes. Zwingli and Luther doubtful. It is my understanding the idea of predestination is/was part/parcel of Agustine's concept of 'original sin' from birth, leading to concept for infant baptism.

---

If you google Luther and Zwingli and double predestination it is hard to tell what they believed for sure on the issue.

Unconditional election means that only certain people will be of the elect so what happens to the others?

---

Please see "ETA" on my earlier post.

---

What does ETA mean?

---

"ETA" - Edited to Add (subsequent commentary)

---

Thanks.

Do you believe Luther believed in free will?

---

Yes. Free will is a requirement in order for everyone to have and make a choice. God's perfect illustration = two thieves and three crosses on a hill. - - - "Choose wisely"

---

Have you researched what Luther thought about free will?

https://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=171

---

Can't say that I've researched that specific subject relative to Luther. It seems that IF that were a MAJOR issue in connection to Luther's overall prerogative's, it would be of major contention. Don't recall whether it was among his 95 thesis seeking Roman Catholic modifications.

---

He wrote a whole book about how he did not believe in free will called the Bondage of the Will.

Major part of his theology.

---

Respectfully, this is incredibly incorrect and quite frustrating that you would claim this.

He did not "write a book" but instead a response to a letter written to him by Erasmus.

Further, it was written in 1525. You know what was written after this? Every one of his doctrinal books, including the Augsburg Confession, Large/Small Catechism, and Smalcald Articles.

Do you know what none of them mention? Double Predestination.

Seems kind of odd that a "major part of his theology" did not make it into any of his primary doctrinal documents right?

It also seems odd that none of his closest friends, peers, and students took up this claim and instead when Calvin made his claims, everybody came out against it.

So no...none of what you said is accurate, and after multiple corrections, its kind of shocking you continue to make these claims.

---

Interestingly, Luther at that time also still believed in Purgatory and sacramental confession. And his theses were not a true protest but rather ideas about how the Church could reform some of its practices. And he was by far not the first with the Church to raise the flag of reformation and there were certainly things that some in the Church were doing that had not formally been condemned yet formally. Like selling indulgences, which was happening in a couple of places. Luther did also still hold traditions as being important. One of them being the Immaculate Conception.

Simony had been condemned for over 1,000 years before Luther threw a flag.

Terminus Est said:

---

Simony had been condemned for over 1,000 years before Luther threw a flag.

---

How is that a defense? Doesn't that make the Church's continued use of it even worse?

Jabin said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

Simony had been condemned for over 1,000 years before Luther threw a flag.

---

How is that a defense? Doesn't that make the Church's continued use of it even worse?

---

Yes, not a defense. You're also confusing The Church with "scattered clergy"

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?

---

Never heard of the term.

---

Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.

It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.

So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.

---

Calvin yes. Zwingli and Luther doubtful. It is my understanding the idea of predestination is/was part/parcel of Agustine's concept of 'original sin' from birth, leading to concept for infant baptism.

---

If you google Luther and Zwingli and double predestination it is hard to tell what they believed for sure on the issue.

Unconditional election means that only certain people will be of the elect so what happens to the others?

---

Please see "ETA" on my earlier post.

---

What does ETA mean?

---

"ETA" - Edited to Add (subsequent commentary)

---

Thanks.

Do you believe Luther believed in free will?

---

Yes. Free will is a requirement in order for everyone to have and make a choice. God's perfect illustration = two thieves and three crosses on a hill. - - - "Choose wisely"

---

Have you researched what Luther thought about free will?

https://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=171

---

Can't say that I've researched that specific subject relative to Luther. It seems that IF that were a MAJOR issue in connection to Luther's overall prerogative's, it would be of major contention. Don't recall whether it was among his 95 thesis seeking Roman Catholic modifications.

---

He wrote a whole book about how he did not believe in free will called the Bondage of the Will.

Major part of his theology.

---

Respectfully, this is incredibly incorrect and quite frustrating that you would claim this.

He did not "write a book" but instead a response to a letter written to him by Erasmus.

Further, it was written in 1525. You know what was written after this? Every one of his doctrinal books, including the Augsburg Confession, Large/Small Catechism, and Smalcald Articles.

Do you know what none of them mention? Double Predestination.

Seems kind of odd that a "major part of his theology" did not make it into any of his primary doctrinal documents right?

It also seems odd that none of his closest friends, peers, and students took up this claim and instead when Calvin made his claims, everybody came out against it.

So no...none of what you said is accurate, and after multiple corrections, its kind of shocking you continue to make these claims.

---

Interestingly, Luther at that time also still believed in Purgatory and sacramental confession. And his theses were not a true protest but rather ideas about how the Church could reform some of its practices. And he was by far not the first with the Church to raise the flag of reformation and there were certainly things that some in the Church were doing that had not formally been condemned yet formally. Like selling indulgences, which was happening in a couple of places. Luther did also still hold traditions as being important. One of them being the Immaculate Conception.

---

That's why I semi-seriously/semi-jokingly said the 95 theses were a Roman Catholic issue.

Luther was truly Roman Catholic and when you read the 95 Theses, he's not particularly "anti-pope." I've heard it said he believe the pope was just unaware of the abuses people were doing in the name of the pope and hoped by shining a light on it, would correct it.

Even from the writing of these, it would be another ~3 years before Luther is excommunicated, and 13 years before the Augsburg Confession would be presented.

Quote:

---

You're also confusing The Church with "scattered clergy"

---

That's a rewrite of history.

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

You're also confusing The Church with "scattered clergy"

---

That's a rewrite of history.

---

Explain yourself. That's like saying the church promotes drug use because clerics have been caught using drugs. Fallible men do fallible things.

Terminus Est said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

You're also confusing The Church with "scattered clergy"

---

That's a rewrite of history.

---

Explain yourself. That's like saying the church promotes drug use because clerics have been caught using drugs. Fallible men do fallible things.

---

Tetzel's role, and the use of the funds to build St. Peter's Basilica, was a whole lot more than "scattered clergy".

I wonder what Martin Luther would have done if he lived today instead of 500 years ago. Would spamming the Catholic Church's social media with 95 complaint comments have had the same effect?

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

It is fascinating how many folks who claim to be Calvinists do not know about double predestination.

---

It's not their fault; God predestined them not to learn.

---

I laughed.

Love them so much but it is almost like a cult.

I said it before, and will say it again,

Most calvinists would not hold to what Calvin held to (or maybe what his followers really pushed).

Even someone like MacArthur has essentially said that if you have faith, then that means your part of the elect, and you don't have faith, you aren't.

Again, I don't like the logical conclusion they take from that (i.e. that means the reprobate never had a chance).

Don't Calvinists, while talking about the incomprehensible power of God, inevitably end up putting him in a box of their own design?

Why can't predestination and free will both be true? Although we can't understand or explain it, that may be a product of our finite minds. And the Bible describes both. Although it never uses the phrase "free will" (afaik), it does use terms that explicitly mean free will, such as "Choose this day whom you shall serve. . . ." Calvinists attempt to explain away the plain meaning of those words in order to force fit them into their theology.

Jabin said:

---

Don't Calvinists, while talking about the incomprehensible power of God, inevitably end up putting him in a box of their own design?

Why can't predestination and free will both be true? Although we can't understand or explain it, that may be a product of our finite minds. And the Bible describes both. Although it never uses the phrase "free will" (afaik), it does use terms that explicitly mean free will, such as "Choose this day whom you shall serve. . . ." Calvinists attempt to explain away the plain meaning of those words in order to force fit them into their theology.

---

That's what St Thomas claims, that the pre-destination is due to God's perfect knowledge outside of time. It is very easy to know the score of last week's Aggie-USCe game. God knew the score even before the game was played; because he exists outside of time; that didn't take away the agency of the players of the game, any more than me watching a replay of the game does.

Jabin said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

You're also confusing The Church with "scattered clergy"

---

That's a rewrite of history.

---

Explain yourself. That's like saying the church promotes drug use because clerics have been caught using drugs. Fallible men do fallible things.

---

Tetzel's role, and the use of the funds to build St. Peter's Basilica, was a whole lot more than "scattered clergy".

---

Tetzel was an idiot who to this day has been largely exonerated by both Martin Luther himself and modern historians. 90% of what is claimed of him is false, as he was a convenient scapegoat for Luther to point at in justifying his attack against the Church, although later he would write to Tetzel and say "sorry man you really weren't the bad guy" as Tetzel was dying.

If Tetzel was guilty of anything it was poor scholarship and he was smacked down by Cardinal Cajetan who said the Priests who teach guided by their own minds and not the teachings of the Church cease to to be representatives of the Church.

He's been turned into some sort of roguish lothario by the modern media but is nothing more than a gullible simpleton who attracted the attention of a poop loving lightning addled German monk.

"Tetzel was an idiot"

You know little of the man to pass such judgement.

"Luther was a Calvinist" was not a take I expected to read when I opened this thread.

"506 years of not ringing coffers"

Can you provide some proof that Tetzel actually said, "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul out of purgatory springs"?

PabloSerna said:

---

"506 years of not ringing coffers"

Can you provide some proof that Tetzel actually said, "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul out of purgatory springs"?

---

New Advent work for you?

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14539a.htm

"As much cannot be said about his teaching regarding indulgences for the dead. The couplet attributed to him

As soon as the gold in the casket rings
The rescued soul to heaven springs,

like that attributed to Luther,

Who loves not wine and wife and song
Remains a fool his life long;

though verbally spurious, can in both instances be in substance unfailingly traced to the writings of their respective authors. By Tetzel they are substantially acknowledged in his Frankfort theses"