Thy Will Be Done

Martin Luther provides a devotional challenge applicable to Calvinists today:

With reference to the elect we might distinguish between three classes.  First, there are those who are satisfied with God’s will, as it is, and do not murmur against God, but rather believe that they are elected.  They do not want to be damned.  Secondly, there are those who submit to God’s will and are satisfied with it in their hearts.  At least they desire to be satisfied, if God does not wish to save, but reject them.  Thirdly, there are those who really are ready to be condemned if God should will this.  These are cleansed most of all of their own will and carnal wisdom.  (Martin Luther.  Commentary on Romans.  Kregel Publishing. 1976 p 132)
Would you be satisfied with God not electing you?  Should you be?  One the one hand, I can see a certain selflessness in what Luther calling for.  Whatever may happen to me, Thy will be Done!  But being reprobate entails your being an unrepentant sinner and perishing for your sins.  God hates sin and has no pleasure in the death of the wicked.  So there’s also a lawlessness to what Luther suggests here.  This tension stems for the “two wills of God” and the practical reality of having to back one of God's wills at the expense of the other.

Comments

Pumice said…
Maybe it is a lack of context but just about every quote I read from Luther and Calvin makes me thank God for Arminius and Wesley.

Grace and peace.
October 29, 2011 at 11:31 AM
Godismyjudge said…
They were fairly open about their views on predestination. I find it refreshing; today most C's use softer lingo or skip over their harsher views.

But Luther & Calvin were not all bad. Had to throw that in, cause it's reformation day.

God be with you,
Dan
October 31, 2011 at 11:17 AM
Toilet of God said…
Taking a shot at the Reformers. Nice one. They need more humility and thoughtful exegesis.
November 18, 2011 at 1:05 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more