Re: The snake's sense
JR and all interested parties.
In post 7654 you said:
I suspect K would have thought that predestination in Luther's terms
is the reason why those in Denmark often thought they were Christians
because they were Danish. If you're baptized you're part of the elect
and you're in -- and there's nothing you can do about it.
Complacency. Yes, I agree Luther would have found this offensive, but
how many people in K's Denmark do you think did substantial reading in
Luther? They let their ministers take care of this -- Luther, for
most of them, was found in the catechism and then filtered to them
through sermons one day a week.
I'm not certain what you mean to say here but I will try to frame the problem as I see it and we can go from there.
You see Luther as advocating predestination and therefore not providing any way for people to act ethically or out of love. The people of K's time were following Luther and K was trying to get them to see that Luther had misled them. If I have mischaracterized your view please correct me.
Here is the way I see it. Luther had two parts to his telos (chief end of man) and he called these 'two forms of rightousness':
1. God gives us his righteousness as a gift and it is not earned by us in the least.
2. As a result of number one, we love our neighbor and do the loving thing.
In the Church and society of K's time, number one was accepted but number two had been forgotten, dropped out, etc. K was trying to get Christendom to see that they were following only half of what Luther had taught to be their telos.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "James Rovira" <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
> That's interesting, Don, and I appreciate your response, especially
> since it's a direct response to what I actually wrote and not a
> I think we read Luther differently, though. From what I recall of
> Luther's On the Bondage of the Will, some people are predestined by
> God for damnation and some for salvation, all people predestined by
> God to their respective ends from the beginning of time. There is no
> real choice in the matter for us human beings at any time, so as a
> result, Luther believes free will is a thing that exists in name only.
> In K, however, at one point we do choose to sin -- because it is a
> choice, we are not predestined. And we continue to choose -- choice
> is always available to us, even when we are in bondage. Because we
> choose our bondage we become free the moment we think we are free
> (freedom is something we have when we think it -- see CA). The final
> step of freedom is only taken by faith, but movement toward absolute
> freedom and the attainment of increasing freedom exists (potentially)
> all along the way. The person who steps out of bondage does so by
> choice. The bondage consists only of thinking there is no choice but
> I suspect K would have thought that predestination in Luther's terms
> is the reason why those in Denmark often thought they were Christians
> because they were Danish. If you're baptized you're part of the elect
> and you're in -- and there's nothing you can do about it.
> Complacency. Yes, I agree Luther would have found this offensive, but
> how many people in K's Denmark do you think did substantial reading in
> Luther? They let their ministers take care of this -- Luther, for
> most of them, was found in the catechism and then filtered to them
> through sermons one day a week.
> Anyway, in this reading of Luther K was hardly an orthodox Lutheran.
> If I'm mistaken about Luther's notions of predestination in On the
> Bondage of the Will, let me know.
> Jim R
- Thanks for the response, Don. I've read a great deal of Reformation
theology (as well as Anglican and neo-Orthodox) but I don't consider
myself a Reformation Christian. I like Eastern Orthodox theology
because it seems to unite the experiential and the theological, but I
haven't read any in quite some time and would probably never attend an