Election According To The Missouri Synod

[Calvinator]

37. But as earnestly as we maintain that there is an election of grace, or a predestination to salvation, so decidedly do we teach, on the other hand, that there is no election of wrath, or predestination to damnation.Scripture plainly reveals the truth that the love of God for the world of lost sinners is universal, that is, that it embraces alt men without exception, that Christ has fully reconciled all men unto God, and that God earnestly desires to bring all men to faith, to preserve them therein, and thus to save them, as Scripture testifies, 1 Tim. 2:4: "God will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." No man is lost because God has predestined him to eternal damnation. --Eternal election is a cause why the elect are brought to faith in time, Acts 13:48; but election is not a cause why men remain unbelievers when they hear the Word of God. The reason assigned by Scripture for this sad fact is that these men judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life, putting the Word of God from them and obstinately resisting the Holy Ghost, whose earnest will it is to bring also them to repentance and faith by means of the Word, Act 13:46; 7:51; Matt. 23:37.

This thing says that God has an election of grace, but it also says that God loves all men and desires the salvation of all men universally. This is a contradiction and just plain stupid.

or

wildboar, are all men universally predestined to salvation?

[Saint Nicholas]

Here is a a link to a typical Lutheran perspective on this. This teaching is exactly what I have heard on Lutheran radio here at St. Louis througout the last 21 years, which represents the positions taught at Concordia seminary and the LCMS. The presentation on this one does not vary from teacher to teacher; the same verbage is used no matter who is representing it--the Lutherans have certainly got their story together and they all stick with the same one!

http://threehierarchies.blogspot.com...inism-and.html

Good analysis Robert. After reading the web page I can see where the Lutheran position tries to take the middle ground and sit on the fence. However their position in my opinion is full of contradictions and defaces the very essence and soveriegnty of God.

[Whammer]

Good analysis Robert. After reading the web page I can see where the Lutheran position tries to take the middle ground and sit on the fence. However their position in my opinion is full of contradictions a defaces the very essence and soveriegnty of God.

These men that sit on the fence also attempt to make it out to be "an honorable thing".....they throw phrases at us like "we don't pretend to know the mind of God fully".....with the not-so-subtle false accusation that we make such a claim.
The book of concord.......a book of contradictions in my opinion also.

[wildboar]

This thing says that God has an election of grace, but it also says that God loves all men and desires the salvation of all men universally. This is a contradiction and just plain stupid.

It is not a contradiction because it is talking about two different but related things. If a ball is red but has black polka dots that is not a contradiction. Just because you can't understand something doesn't make it stupid.

wildboar, are all men universally predestined to salvation?

No.

Good analysis Robert. After reading the web page I can see where the Lutheran position tries to take the middle ground and sit on the fence. However their position in my opinion is full of contradictions and defaces the very essence and soveriegnty of God.

It is not attempting to take some sort of middle ground because the Lutheran system existed prior to the confessional Arminian and Calvinistic systems did. Both Arminianism and Calvinism tried to ignore certain texts to support their system.

[Robert R. Higby]

Well, what we have here are different fundamental views of the plan of salvation. Anyone who can't see that needs to look again and again.

On these points Lutherans and believers in sovereign grace will NEVER agree. They have never agreed historically. I am quite certain that God purposed to keep Luther in the darkness of the great apostasy regarding notions of perseverance and assurance fueled by eating Jesus at the altar & that faith might be lost by mortal sin if one failed to eat the physical body and blood of Jesus passionately and often. Why did God purpose to do this? We may never know FULLY in this life but an obvious partial answer is that the Lord generally did not purpose to restore the apostolic gospel through only one man, lest the flesh would give too much credence to a single person.

I can only praise God for the men of Dort who forever exalted the truth of the gospel on the SALVATION SIDE of God's eternal and unchanging purposes and plan, in opposition to the doctrines of devils promoted down through the centuries in the great apostasy. Those doctrines certainly included the views of assurance and sacrament taught by the 'church fathers', Augustine, and Aquinas which were merely continued by Luther

[wildboar]

On these points Lutherans and believers in sovereign grace will NEVER agree.

I believe in God's sovereign grace and so do other Lutherans. The disagreement is between confessional Lutherans and confessional Calvinists.

& that faith might be lost by mortal sin if one failed to eat the physical body and blood of Jesus passionately and often.

Please provide citations for your accusations. The question remains as to why would someone want to neglect celebration that was so central to the worship of the early church (even more central than preaching). Why wouldn't a Christian want to receive God's good gifts?

Those doctrines certainly included the views of assurance and sacrament taught by the 'church fathers', Augustine, and Aquinas which were merely continued by Luther

Since Augustine seems to have actually taught a more Calvinistic view of the Lord's Supper although holding the belief that in some instances the sacrifice was propitiatory, Aquinas held to transubstantation, and Luther denied all of these teachings it is beyond all logic how anyone could claim that Luther merely continued the teachings of these men who had strong disagreements with one another and with Luther.

This thing says that God has an election of grace, but it also says that God loves all men and desires the salvation of all men universally. This is a contradiction and just plain stupid.

I already responded once to this but I just wanted to make another observation. I've noticed especially on the internet that those who hold to one form of Calvinism or another are very concerned about the doctrines of election and predestination but talk little if at all about Christology and the Trinity. The situation was the exact opposite in the early church of course. I think that if Christology and Trinitarianism were not swept under the rug we would see alot more anti-Trinitarian Calvinists running about. This in fact did happen immediately after the Reformation. There were some that were labeled as hyper-Calvinists who denied the Deity of Christ and I think it was completely in line with their system of thinking. Just think of the statements people could make:

"Jesus is fully God and Jesus is fully man. This is a contradiction and just plain stupid."

"God is one and God is three. This is a contradiction and just plain stupid."

In evangelicalism people try to explain the Trinity but end up defending modalism. In Reformed theology since Calvin there has been at least some squirmishness with Nicea. We see the fruits of that in the writings of Gordon Clark. While earlier in his career he claimed that a person could not deny the Nicene creed and still be a Christian, towards the very end of his life he denies Chalcedon and claims that they were teaching nonsense. He embraces Nestorianism but says that Nestorious didn't know what he was talking about. Gordon Clark claimed that only Gordon Clark knew true Christology.

If you're going to believe the following you should at least carry out logically and consistently:

This thing says that God has an election of grace, but it also says that God loves all men and desires the salvation of all men universally. This is a contradiction and just plain stupid

So abandon Trinitarianism in favor of modalism and deny the true human nature of Christ. Wouldn't it make more sense to say that the Son was just pretending to be human than to think that the incarnation could really be possible?

[Saint Nicholas]

Charles,...In view of the LCMS statement on election, how do you reconcile your profile positions below with that statement?

Are some men elected to salvation? Yes


Are some men elected to damnation? Yes


The LCMS states "there is no election of wrath, or predestination to damnation".


Is salvation by works? No


Do men have free will? No


Charles...Would not the statement as pertaining to the "universal will of grace" infer that men have a will that is free from God to reject the Gospel. Since men can reject the effectual grace of God?


Is salvation offered to all who hear the Gospel? Yes

God wants all men to be saved? Yes

Charles,..What power in the heavens and earth can ever stop God from getting what he wants and desires? If God wanted all men to be saved they would be saved. Unless of course men are greater than God.

Jesus died for all men? Yes

Charles,...in Matthew 1:21 the scripture says "He will save His people from their sins" Are all men without exception His people?

God loves all men? Yes


Charles,.. If God loves all men without exception and died for them, what power in men can be greater than God to overthrow the effectual grace of God? If men can overpower the effectual grace of God, then how can the LCMS and yourself dare to call that grace effectual? would it not be better to say that God's grace was in-effectual?

God predestines all things, including sin? Yes


Charles,..How can God predestine ALL things, and yet not predestine All things at the same time? Remember, the confession states that God does not predestine men to wrath, or damnation?




God wanted Adam to fall into sin? No

Charles,..If God did not want Adam to fall into sin, then I guess the creature has more power and authority to fulfill his wants and desires, over and against the wants and desires of the ALL POWERFULL creator!

God has how many wills? Two (God has a will of "desire" and a decretive will)

Charles,....is God a schizophrenic? A God with conflicting emotions, and a split personality?


God hates the elect at some point in time? Yes

God loves the reprobate? Yes

God's will is mutable? No

Charles,..I agree that God's will is not mutable. However which one of His two wills is not mutable. His will of desire? or His decretive will? or perhaps both? How can God love His sheep from eternity, write their names in the Lambs book of life from eternity, love them and die for them, and still at some point hate them? Does a God-Man love and hate the ones he died for at the same time? and does God love those who are not His people and spill His sinless blood for them also? Does not the scripture say to not cast your pearls among the swine. Yet Christ would cast and spill His precious blood for the reprobate?

Baptism is required for salvation? Yes

Charles,..What gives here? you state that God ordinarily regenerates and saves through literal water, but not all the time neccessarily. How then can water baptism be required if God can save without it? Below is one of your quotes

quote wildboar "I said conversion, you said regeneration and then faith which are related but different. Faith is given in water baptism but it is not the only time that faith can or is given. The thief on the cross was given faith without ever receiving baptism. Regeneration is ordinarily tied to baptism and we find God promising to regenerate people through baptism. But God does not say that he does not regenerate apart from it and we find the thief on the cross and many of the Old Testament saints who never received water baptism."

For the cause of truth in Christ Jesus
Nicholas

[wildboar]

Charles,...In view of the LCMS statement on election, how do you reconcile your profile positions below with that statement?

Are some men elected to salvation? Yes


Are some men elected to damnation? Yes

I changed my answer to the damnation question in my profile, I must have missed it when I revised my profile. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Charles...Would not the statement as pertaining to the "universal will of grace" infer that men have a will that is free from God to reject the Gospel. Since men can reject the effectual grace of God?

The term "free-will" means alot of different things to alot different people and needs definition. I don't know why some fall away. Does man have a "free-will" in the questionairre I understood to mean "Is an unregenerate man able to choose God?"

Charles,..If God did not want Adam to fall into sin, then I guess the creature has more power and authority to fulfill his wants and desires, over and against the wants and desires of the ALL POWERFULL creator!

The Bible is full of phrase where God says things like "I desire mercy and not sacrifice" and yet he repeatedly receives sacrifice rather than mercy. Does that mean that God is lying? Do we really need to modify what God says to fit our system?

And I will pose the same question to you. How does your method of logic in regard to election work in regards to the Trinity? I will try to answer more of your questions later.

[wildboar]

God predestines all things, including sin? Yes


Charles,..How can God predestine ALL things, and yet not predestine All things at the same time? Remember, the confession states that God does not predestine men to wrath, or damnation?

Perhaps I will have to revise that answer as well. There were many questions in the survey in which I was not in full agreement with any of the answers. I did know what my position was so it would have been dishones to choose "I don't know." God predestines all things but sin is not a thing.

Charles,....is God a schizophrenic? A God with conflicting emotions, and a split personality?

Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis that involves auditory hallucinations, delusions and disorganized thinking. I haven't suggested that God has any of these things so I'm guessing that you are really saying that the God I worship has a split-personality or multiple personality disorder (schizophrenia is often confused in popular culture with multiple personality disorder but they are quite different things). The legitimacy of the diagnosis for anyone is outside of the scope of this debate so I won't bother with it. But it does in some way bring us back to contemplation of the Trinity. Wouldn't the Triune God Himself be diagnosed by modern psychology of having a multiple personality disorder?

I can hardly understand the just the surface of God's love. That God who has complete love and joy within His own Triune communion would want to display His love toward a sinful being like me--and love me so much that He would send His only-begotten Son to suffer and die for me defies any logical argument I can come up with. I'm not saying it is illogical but it doesn't make sense to me. I believe that the historic creeds provide some good guidelines for how we should understand the Trinity, but I can't completely comprehend the inner workings of it all. Can you? How do you arrive at a belief in the Trinity and still hold to this particular use of logic that you insist on?

Charles,..What gives here? you state that God ordinarily regenerates and saves through literal water, but not all the time neccessarily. How then can water baptism be required if God can save without it? Below is one of your quotes

God saves through water baptism which is more than literal water. It is water joined with the Word accompanied by the Holy Spirit. Baptism is not so much a requirement as a wonderful gift. If a Christian has no desire to wash his sins away then how could such a person be considered a Christian? God does work apart from the preaching of the Word, the administration of baptism, and the preaching of the Word but these are the particular ways God has promised to work.

As to the relationship between the decretive will and the will of desire, I guess I'm expected to throw out half my Bible by throwing one or the other out.

Hosea 6:4-7 O Ephraim, what shall I do to you? O Judah, what shall I do to you? For your faithfulness is like a morning cloud, And like the early dew it goes away. 5 Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets, I have slain them by the words of My mouth; And your judgments are like light that goes forth. 6 For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. 7 "But like men they transgressed the covenant; There they dealt treacherously with Me.

God's decretive will and God's will of desire are theological distinctions. God's will of decree and God's will of desire work harmoniously together and could rightly be called a single will if we were able to understand them correctly.

But I'll keep returning to the Trinity, since I believe it should be the center of all theology. How does that work in your system?

[Robert R. Higby]

It is our belief that any teaching of universal atonement of any kind makes nonsense of the work of the Trinity. It logically divorces the work of the Holy Spirit from that of the Father and Son. As we have seen, Luther himself stated that the Holy Spirit might give faith to someone conditionally and revocably.

We just PLAIN DISAGREE on this. It is not complicated. Is there anyone reading here who does not understand the difference in the two opposing views of the plan of salvation taught by confessional Lutheranism vs. Dort, respectively? I don't think so.

I think Nicholas is saying that the plan of salvation taught by confessional Lutheranism is a false gospel continuing aspects of the strong delusion of the great apostasy. On that point I agree 100%. If anyone is presently saved who is within such a system (or a hundred others like it), the true gospel is treasured in the soul independent of the lies.

[Saint Nicholas]

I think Nicholas is saying that the plan of salvation taught by confessional Lutheranism is a false gospel continuing aspects of the strong delusion of the great apostasy. On that point I agree 100%. If anyone is presently saved who is within such a system (or a hundred others like it), the true gospel is treasured in the soul independent of the lies.

Yes Robert, you are correct! It is a false Gospel.

[Saint Nicholas]

But I'll keep returning to the Trinity, since I believe it should be the center of all theology. How does that work in your system?

Charles,...I will answer this one question, however the Trinity is not the topic of this thread. You are at liberty to start a topic on the Trinity in another thread. Let's not sidetrack this thread!

The unitary will of the trinity can never be in conflict. NEVER! For there is one God. Now how does this relate to the topic on hand? It relates like this.

John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one (the one is whom the father gave, in context) who comes to Me I will by no means cast out."

The Father gives the Son a pre-determined and definite amount of people. The Son dies for them. The Holy Spirit regenerates them. Of course I could expand on each of the functions of the God-head but for the sake of brevity I will keep it short.

vs 38 "For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent Me."

Again you will notice the unitary will of God.

vs 39 "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day."

So according to this passage of scripture, The one's whom the Father gave to the Son, not only are secured from being lost (fall away from salvation into damnation) but are gauranteed to be ressurrected unto eternal life.

vs. 40 "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day"

Again the unitary will of the Father and the Son displayed. Now what about the Holy Spirit?

Romans 8:9-11 "But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. (10) And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. (11) But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you."

The Holy Spirit gives life to the ones the Father has given to Christ, and only those will be regenerated.

1 Cor 12:13 "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body- whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free- and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

It is Spirit baptism (regeneration) that saves. Not literal water. How can Christ's death on the cross be efficacious for all men without exception and these same men that have been given the "universal will of Grace" be lost. When Jesus said He would lose none?

It is the confessional Lutherans who disect the work of the Trinity and put the Godhead at odds with one another, counfounding the unitary will and purpose of God.

Nicholas

[wildboar]

St. Nicholas:

I also believe in eternal unconditional election and I believe that the Trinity is in complete harmony with itself as do confessional Lutherans.

Every part of theology is related to the other parts in some way. So we can't use some particular method of reasoning in regards to election and ignore it in regards to the Trinity. As of yet, I don't see anyone showing how you can say something like Calvinator did when he said:

This thing says that God has an election of grace, but it also says that God loves all men and desires the salvation of all men universally. This is a contradiction and just plain stupid.

without also saying "God is one and God is three this is a contradiction and just plain stupid."

My point does not have so much to do with the Trinity although I think it would be awesome if we could have a thread that discussed the Trinity in depth. My point has to do with our use of reason. I'm using reason as I make all these arguments so I'm obviously not opposed to all reason. But I do think that whereas Roman Catholics have exalted tradition above Scripture, perhaps Calvinists have exalted reason above Scripture. Tradition and reason are both wonderful things in their proper place but Scripture must be held above both.

[Robert R. Higby]

But I do think that whereas Roman Catholics have exalted tradition above Scripture, perhaps Calvinists have exalted reason above Scripture.

You have GOT to be kidding me! That's all I have to say 'bout that (a hundred times over and over!).

[Saint Nicholas]

In response to the answer given by Charles, to Calvinator’s question (see below), I would like to comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvinator
wildboar, are all men universally predestined to salvation?

Wildboar: NO

I believe Calvinator’s question above was not properly phrased. Also, Charles' answer is completely correct as to the question asked.

I myself also do not believe that ALL men are predestined to salvation.

Now I have some questions for Charles to answer in view of the LCMS teachings.


1) Are SOME MEN predestined to salvation?

If yes. Then we must deal with the rest of those who are not part of the SOME MEN. We will call them the OTHER MEN.

2) Are the OTHER MEN that are not predestined to salvation then predestined to damnation?

If no, we must then conclude that these OTHER MEN are not predestined by God for either Salvation (the election of Grace) or Damnation (the universal will of Grace).

So where does this lead us. This formula of the LCMS would seemingly conclude that God purposes two distinct plans of Salvation. One by the God’s determination and will in the case of SOME MEN. And the other by man’s determination and will as in the case of the OTHER MEN, since Christ’s atonement and salvific works were on behalf of both parties.

Also I may add, according to the LCMS the efficacy of Christ’s atonement is exhibited to both parties. In the case of SOME MEN, God alone insures the efficacy, and in the case of the OTHER MEN, man alone cooperating with Grace insures the efficacy by an act of free will. They can now choose and elect themselves to salvation since they were never a part of the Election of Grace, but rather only in the Universal will of Grace.

Now I am not proposing the Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian, or Arminian view of free will in the above mention of free will, but rather the Augustinian view of free will.

After both parties experience the New Birth through the sacrament of Water Baptism, the stain and corruption of Original Sin is removed and thus the will is now restored and made free once again. This restored free will has now been made able to co-operate with Grace by the gift of faith.

Now if Charles were to deny and argue against the logical inference of TWO plans of salvation in favor of one, then he must retreat to the view that this one plan of salvation is now then ADMINISTERED and thus insured by TWO distinct parties, namely God (the election of Grace) and man (the universal will of grace), since neither party is predestined to damnation, and either party can have a hope of salvation.

Nicholas.

[Robert R. Higby]

Nicholas: Also I may add, according to the LCMS the efficacy of Christ’s atonement is exhibited to both parties. In the case of SOME MEN, God alone insures the efficacy, and in the case of the OTHER MEN, man alone cooperating with Grace insures the efficacy by an act of free will. They can now choose and elect themselves to salvation since they were never a part of the Election of Grace, but rather only in the Universal will of Grace.

Interestingly, this was also the position taken by F. F. Bruce in some of his writings: part of the redeemed are saved in the absolute sovereign grace fashion (to guarantee a certain number), others are saved with free-will as a factor, and of course--none of us who believe may know which of the two groups we fit into!

But as to the LCMS I have never heard this--they stick instead with the paradox of dual election (one universal, the other particular but mysterious) and don't try to reconcile the contradiction in this.

[wildboar]

1) Are SOME MEN predestined to salvation?

If yes. Then we must deal with the rest of those who are not part of the SOME MEN. We will call them the OTHER MEN.

Yes.

2) Are the OTHER MEN that are not predestined to salvation then predestined to damnation?

If no, we must then conclude that these OTHER MEN are not predestined by God for either Salvation (the election of Grace) or Damnation (the universal will of Grace).

The Bible tells us they are damned by their own sin. The wages of sin is death, etc.

So where does this lead us. This formula of the LCMS would seemingly conclude that God purposes two distinct plans of Salvation. One by the God’s determination and will in the case of SOME MEN. And the other by man’s determination and will as in the case of the OTHER MEN, since Christ’s atonement and salvific works were on behalf of both parties.

Also I may add, according to the LCMS the efficacy of Christ’s atonement is exhibited to both parties. In the case of SOME MEN, God alone insures the efficacy, and in the case of the OTHER MEN, man alone cooperating with Grace insures the efficacy by an act of free will. They can now choose and elect themselves to salvation since they were never a part of the Election of Grace, but rather only in the Universal will of Grace.

Now I am not proposing the Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian, or Arminian view of free will in the above mention of free will, but rather the Augustinian view of free will.

After both parties experience the New Birth through the sacrament of Water Baptism, the stain and corruption of Original Sin is removed and thus the will is now restored and made free once again. This restored free will has now been made able to co-operate with Grace by the gift of faith.

Now if Charles were to deny and argue against the logical inference of TWO plans of salvation in favor of one, then he must retreat to the view that this one plan of salvation is now then ADMINISTERED and thus insured by TWO distinct parties, namely God (the election of Grace) and man (the universal will of grace), since neither party is predestined to damnation, and either party can have a hope of salvation.

It does not lead us to any such place. Here are some Lutheran theologians on the subject that may help you understand the position somewhat better:

Apology of the Book of Concord (Chemnitz, Selnecker, Kirchner): "Nor does the Christian Book of Concord deny that there is in God reprobation, or that God casts some away. Hence the Book of Concord does not go counter to the dictum of Luther, in his treatise De Servo Arbitrio against Erasmus, that this is the acme of faith, to believe that this same God who saves so few persons is nevertheless the most gracious God, and to be careful not to ascribe to God the real cause of such casting away and condemnation of men, which is the purport of the teaching of our adversaries, and to hold that, when this question is mooted, all men must put their finger on their lips, and, first, say with the Apostle Paul (Rom. 11): Propter incredulitatem defracti sunt; and, Rom. 6: ‘The wages of sin is death.’ In the second place, when this question is raised, why our Lord God does not convert all men by His Holy Spirit, and make them believers, which He could easily do, we must again say with the Apostle: Quam incomprehensibilia sunt judica ejus et impervestigabiles viae ejus! But we must by no means charge God with having willfully and really caused the casting away and damnation of those who do not repent. However, if they urge this point, viz.: If you accept the choosing of the elect, you must also accept this other fact, viz., that in God Himself there is from eternity a cause why men are cast away, even regardless of their sin, etc., we reply that we are in no wise minded to make God the cause of reprobation (which really has its origin, not in God, but in sin), nor shall we ascribe to God the real cause of the damnation of the wicked, but we shall take our stand on the saying of the Prophet Hosea, chap. 13, where God says: ‘O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help.’ Nor shall we try – as we heard Luther saying above – to search out our heavenly Father as far as He is a hidden God and has not revealed Himself. For, though we try, the matter exceeds our ability, and we cannot comprehend it; the more we engage in such questioning, the further we get away from God, and the more we begin to doubt His gracious will regarding ourselves. Thus, the Book of Concord does not deny either that God does not operate in all men alike; for in all ages there have been many whom He did not call publicly through the office of the ministry. But our adversaries shall never succeed in convincing us that for this reason we must conclude, as they do, that God is the real cause of the casting away of these people, and that in His bare counsel He has decreed to reprobate and cast them away eternally, even regardless of sin. For when we approach this depth of the mysteries of God, it is sufficient if with the Apostle Paul in Rom. 11 we say: ‘His judgments are unsearchable,’ and, I Cor. 15: ‘Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.’ All that is beyond this will be revealed to us by our Savior Christ Himself in the life everlasting.” (Apol. of the Book of Conc. Dresden, 1584, fol. 206 f.)
[Nicolaus] Selnecker: Though God could make willing all who are unwilling, yet He does not do this; and He has the most righteous and wise reasons why He does not do this, which reasons it does not behoove us to search out. We rather owe Him most cordial thanks because by the preaching of the Gospel He has called us to the communion of the life everlasting, and has enlightened our hearts by faith.” (In omnes Epp. D. Pauli apost. Commentar. Leipzig, 1595, fol. 213.)
Timotheus Kirchner: “Since faith in Christ, now, is a special gift of God, why does He not bestow it on all? We reply: We should reserve the discussion of this question until life eternal, and should meanwhile rest satisfied that God will not have us seek out His secret judgments (Rom. 11): ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments!’” (Enchiridion, p. 143.)

[Saint Nicholas]

Quote Wildboar: It does not lead us to any such place. Here are some Lutheran theologians on the subject that may help you understand the position somewhat better:


Quote:
Apology of the Book of Concord (Chemnitz, Selnecker, Kirchner): "Nor does the Christian Book of Concord deny that there is in God reprobation, or that God casts some away. Hence the Book of Concord does not go counter to the dictum of Luther, in his treatise De Servo Arbitrio against Erasmus, that this is the acme of faith, to believe that this same God who saves so few persons is nevertheless the most gracious God, and to be careful not to ascribe to God the real cause of such casting away and condemnation of men, which is the purport of the teaching of our adversaries, and to hold that, when this question is mooted, all men must put their finger on their lips, and, first, say with the Apostle Paul (Rom. 11): Propter incredulitatem defracti sunt; and, Rom. 6: ‘The wages of sin is death.’ In the second place, when this question is raised, why our Lord God does not convert all men by His Holy Spirit, and make them believers, which He could easily do, we must again say with the Apostle: Quam incomprehensibilia sunt judica ejus et impervestigabiles viae ejus! But we must by no means charge God with having willfully and really caused the casting away and damnation of those who do not repent. However, if they urge this point, viz.: If you accept the choosing of the elect, you must also accept this other fact, viz., that in God Himself there is from eternity a cause why men are cast away, even regardless of their sin, etc., we reply that we are in no wise minded to make God the cause of reprobation (which really has its origin, not in God, but in sin), nor shall we ascribe to God the real cause of the damnation of the wicked, but we shall take our stand on the saying of the Prophet Hosea, chap. 13, where God says: ‘O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help.’ Nor shall we try – as we heard Luther saying above – to search out our heavenly Father as far as He is a hidden God and has not revealed Himself. For, though we try, the matter exceeds our ability, and we cannot comprehend it; the more we engage in such questioning, the further we get away from God, and the more we begin to doubt His gracious will regarding ourselves. Thus, the Book of Concord does not deny either that God does not operate in all men alike; for in all ages there have been many whom He did not call publicly through the office of the ministry. But our adversaries shall never succeed in convincing us that for this reason we must conclude, as they do, that God is the real cause of the casting away of these people, and that in His bare counsel He has decreed to reprobate and cast them away eternally, even regardless of sin. For when we approach this depth of the mysteries of God, it is sufficient if with the Apostle Paul in Rom. 11 we say: ‘His judgments are unsearchable,’ and, I Cor. 15: ‘Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.’ All that is beyond this will be revealed to us by our Savior Christ Himself in the life everlasting.” (Apol. of the Book of Conc. Dresden, 1584, fol. 206 f.)
[Nicolaus] Selnecker: Though God could make willing all who are unwilling, yet He does not do this; and He has the most righteous and wise reasons why He does not do this, which reasons it does not behoove us to search out. We rather owe Him most cordial thanks because by the preaching of the Gospel He has called us to the communion of the life everlasting, and has enlightened our hearts by faith.” (In omnes Epp. D. Pauli apost. Commentar. Leipzig, 1595, fol. 213.)
Timotheus Kirchner: “Since faith in Christ, now, is a special gift of God, why does He not bestow it on all? We reply: We should reserve the discussion of this question until life eternal, and should meanwhile rest satisfied that God will not have us seek out His secret judgments (Rom. 11): ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments!’” (Enchiridion, p. 143.)

Charles, How were my comments and conclusions of the LCMS teaching of Election any different from the above statement?

As long as most professed christians hold to a presupposition that God is not the "Author" of sin, then we will be forever confused and drowned in "mystery" and "contradiction".

However these conclusions of the LCMS must still be addressed.

Charles...Since the OTHER MEN have not been predestined by God to Salvation (heaven) nor Damnation (hell), is it not the reasonable and logical conclusion to say that the clay (men) have the power of self-determination to decide their own fate, since God (the potter) has not decided (molded) their fate (either way) for them. Someone has to determine (mold the clay) the destiny of an individual (a vessell of honour or dishonour). If not God, in the case of OTHER MEN, then it must be man. Unless of course you further retreat to the position that the OTHER MEN END UP IN HEAVEN OR HELL BY ACCIDENT AND PURE CHANCE.

Now I know you do not believe that, so you are left with no other alternative except to say that the OTHER MEN have an ability to determine the outcome and destination of their souls, since God did not predestine them in any way at all.

So what gives here Charles?! Does the creature have the power, authority, will, & self-determination, to determine the course of his own destiny? A simple YES or NO response is all I ask Charles. Please, no more than that.


Nicholas

[Saint Nicholas]

Nicholas: Also I may add, according to the LCMS the efficacy of Christ’s atonement is exhibited to both parties. In the case of SOME MEN, God alone insures the efficacy, and in the case of the OTHER MEN, man alone cooperating with Grace insures the efficacy by an act of free will. They can now choose and elect themselves to salvation since they were never a part of the Election of Grace, but rather only in the Universal will of Grace.

Interestingly, this was also the position taken by F. F. Bruce in some of his writings: part of the redeemed are saved in the absolute sovereign grace fashion (to guarantee a certain number), others are saved with free-will as a factor, and of course--none of us who believe may know which of the two groups we fit into!

But as to the LCMS I have never heard this--they stick instead with the paradox of dual election (one universal, the other particular but mysterious) and don't try to reconcile the contradiction in this.

Robert.... I am not stating that the LCMS directly asserts what I have stated above, but rather this is what can be inferred as to their undestanding. Is there any other way to understand their contradictions?

Nicholas

[Robert R. Higby]

Nick: Robert.... I am not stating that the LCMS directly asserts what I have stated above, but rather this is what can be inferred as to their undestanding. Is there any other way to understand their contradictions?


I don't think there is any way to understand the contradictions; we both agree on that. Like most synthesis positions, the teachers of such views forbid us from trying to understand the paradox--we are supposedly bound by God to IGNORE the contradictions.

I guess what I was saying is that I have not heard a Lutheran teacher attempt to resolve the issue along the lines that you were discussing--although other theologians have certainly tried to do this.


WB: The Bible tells us they are damned by their own sin. The wages of sin is death, etc.

Irrelevant. Sin for which Christ has made atonement cannot possibly damn anyone; it does not exist in God's estimation. I am damned by my own sin and the wages of my sin is death; yet Christ by His work has made these facts immaterial to my eternal destiny!