Indeed, Luther is great.  But you must remember that at the core of this
work is NOT the Sovereignty of God, but that man can in and of himself do
nothing for his own Salvation.  Here is where you and I would agree and
others would disagree with us:  There is no innate ability within a man
whereby without the intervention of God that a man can "accept" Christ. 
However, man does have the ability to reject God, as such is his natural
state.  We believe scripture clearly teaches that Grace is not
"irresistible."

Erasmus was attempting to say man had an ability to choose on his
own---apart from God.  Therefore, this "choice" was a "work" and thereby
proving that salvation was "grace plus works."  Luther was all about
"GRACE ALONE" so he was demonstrating how man (being completely dead in
tresspasses and sins) could take no such action.  God have to intervene 
:)

Now, having said that, Crypto-Calvinism has been clearly condemned along
with the false doctrine of double-predestination as being a latter
invention or else it would have been directly addressed in the "Formula." 
Because it was from a latter date, later Lutherans addressed it.

For Lutherans, if man is saved, it is all the Work of a Gracious God, but
if he is lost, it is by his own rejection.  This is the teaching of
scripture (as we believe) and we do not try by finite human reason alone
to reconcile it.  Instead, we focus on Grace, the Word, and the Sacraments
and trust God for the rest. :)

Blessings,
Randy


> Luther on God's Sovereignty:
>
> From Bondage of the Will,
>
> "THIS, therefore, is also essentially necessary and wholesome for
> Christians
> to know: *That God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees,
> purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and
> infallible will. *By this thunderbolt, "Free-will" is thrown prostrate,
> and
> utterly dashed to pieces. Those, therefore, who would assert "Free-will,"
> must either deny this thunderbolt, or pretend not to see it, or push it
> from
> them. But, however, before I establish this point by any arguments of my
> own, and by the authority of Scripture, I will first set it forth in your
> words"
>
> Another quote:
>
> "Are you not then the person, friend Erasmus, who just now asserted, that
> God is by nature just, and by nature most merciful? If this be true, does
> it
> not follow that He is *immutably *just and merciful? That, as His nature
> is
> not changed to all eternity, so neither His justice nor His mercy ? And
> what
> is said concerning His justice and His mercy, must be said also concerning
> His knowledge, His wisdom, His goodness, His will, and His other
> Attributes.
> If therefore these things are asserted religiously, piously, and
> wholesomely
> concerning God, as you say yourself, what has come to you, that, contrary
> to
> your own self, you now assert, that it is irreligious, curious, and vain,
> to
> say, that God foreknows of necessity? You openly declare that the
> immutable
> *will *of God is to be known, but you forbid the knowledge of His
> immutable
> *prescience. *Do you believe that He foreknows against His will, or that
> He
> wills in ignorance? If then, He foreknows, willing, His will is eternal
> and
> immovable, because His nature is so: and, if He wills, foreknowing, His
> knowledge is eternal and immovable, because His nature is so."
>
> I could list others... but Luther is great to read.
>
> Derick
>
> To subscribe, send a message to: pastorsforum-join@...
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to: pastorsforum-unsubscribe@...
>