I am (self)-studying the theology of Luther and the idea of predestination found in him and Calvin. I began by reading Luther’s translation of Theologia Germanica, a book that colored his later views. I loved the book but there are certain contradictions which I wanted to discuss with you. I’ll losely quote the Bible, not out of disrespect but because I believe that you will know right away the passages I refer to.
The question is Freewill.
The writer of TG is adamant that our creaturely powers are nothing, cannot help us to achieve a union with God. This follows Christian dogma of salvation by Faith. It agrees also with the writings of Paul especially Romans. In fact, I believe that the negation of freewill by Luther and Others was a great justice to the spirit of St Paul. The doctrine of predestination is plainly explained in the comparasion made with the story of Jacob and Esau. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that Paul is off the mark, but his views are considered those of God, so let’s go on.
His point is that no works can lead to a right relation with God. No righteousness can come from cricumscision, for example. As TG puts it, deeds are not contrary to God and do please him, but deeds cannot lead to salvation.
In Paul’s view the twins fate was separated before they had done any good or wrong in the world. It was not because Esau had done bad things that God had elected him to serve his brother and it was not because Jacob had been righteous that he was made lord over his brother. This was simply the sovereign election of the Lord. Again, I believe that Paul is wrong about this, however no christian is prepared to think this through.
Paul’s audience did though. They ask, if that is the case, why does God still blame them, judges them? Who can after all resist God’s will? In other words where is the sin? What is sin? How can one be responsible when one is incapacitated?
Define sin as you want but my own is that sin is rebellion, that sin is disobedience. Martin Buber even defines and separates the “wicked” from the “sinners”, and though I am aware of the incompleatness of my definition, it is here made because I believe that any definition of sin will include the aspect of rebellion and disobedience.
Now, working from that definition the problem is clear. Disobedience makes sense only where obedience is possible; where the fact that one is a sinner is due to the person choosing unwisely. Latter in Romans, but not that much latter, Paul quotes God again as upset for having waited a day for this stiff necked people. Now why is God waiting?
If He has made His election in the womb for whom is he waiting: Jacob or Esau? If the first, then how can Jacob resist His Grace/Love? If the second then why is God waiting on one he hated before he was even born?
That is the problem.
I believe that earlier hebrew writers took for granted the ability of man to choose right or wrong and that his obedience could make a difference in this life. After the exile and later during Rome’s occupation, such optimism was abandoned and a darker view came about in which the actions of man did not and could not compel the Deity. The question was-- Why do bad things happen to Israel, God’s chosen people, His servant? Because it must happen in God’s mysterious plans which no one may define. Who knows His ways?! Moses did, for example, but that was the days of positive conquest not of negative defeat and these defeats failed to re-inforce the assumptions of the ancients about the nature of God. The tensions grew until finally it split the old religion into camps.
It could be investigated, as Mark Smith did, about whether such unity ever existed. Perhaps there never was but there was no christianity either. Regardless of the diversity of cults within it, judaism or the religion of the hebrews remained a single religion with a core literature. But we move away from the point.
Sin makes sense only where freedom of the will is taken for granted. Moral liability is present where an action done was unnecessary. When an action was undetermined. If we take Pauls hard determinism at the womb, we may not offend the will or omnipotence of God but we render sin meaningless, God callous and His justice suspect.
In our justice system a person may be found innocent due to insanity. Insanity makes impossible free action. The person is morally unaccountable. How then can you have Judgement Day? The only one moraly liable would be God!
If we are indeed little better than pottery then we must look again at the worth of man. Man does not merit Heaven, but neither Hell. He enter one or the other based on the election made by God before the moral action of the creature.
So here we are, and my post is comming to an end which I hope becomes the beginning to a discussion of what can be defined as sin, if such concept can even exist. To eliminate these inconsistencies, I have looked at the history of a people and not at the dogma of a faith. But whatever your method does, it seems impossible to me that the inconsistency can be repelled without renouncing certain attributes or certain revelations.
