Finitum capax? Some tricky theology

[CSMR]

Lutherans I hear believe "finitum capax infiniti" against Calvin's "finitum non capax infinitum". And infinitum capax finiti crops up in Reformed theology.
Can anyone help me here?
I don't understand how one can say "finitum capax infiniti". By grace through faith I suppose we can say that the finite bears the infinite. Can we say that the finite is capable of the infinite? Having been borne/grapsed by the infinite the finite bears the infinite, but surely without being capable of the infinite?

This has to do with communion bread and wine apparently. I have tended to think here that Lutherans are right when they say the body is really present in the bread, and Calvinists also when they say it is the body of Christ to the faithful.

However "finitum capax infiniti" would seem to have broader implications: if it is true, are we capable of faith and wouldn't that make faith a work?

[BigNorsk]

when taking the Latin phrases it is very possible to take what the few English words mean and apply them in a way that was never intended.

For instance, many think that sola Scriptura, means nothing but Scripture, that would more properly be solo Scriptura, and you can see many churches today teaching solo Scriptura all the while thinking they are faithful to the meaning of the phrase.

"Finitum capax infiniti" really strikes to the heart of the differences between Calvinism and Lutherans concerning Communion. Lutherans say that Christ is united with the elements in a real way. Calvinists would say "finitum non capax infinit", that it is impossible for the finite to contain the infinite. They deny that Christ is bodily present in Communion, they would say he is only present in a spiritual way.

Now if you take the Calvinistic phrase to it's logical conclusion, something that Calvin was always trying to do, it would mean that Christ's human body could not contain his divine nature. At least not in a real way. Well, if Calvin would have taught that, he probably would have gotten a warm reception at a burning stake. Yet he would say that it is impossible for the finite to contain the infinite. I have no idea how he could get around that except just to ignore it.

Seems less than satisfactory to me.

Now "finitum capax infiniti" concerning the elements in Communion certainly does take faith. So what else is new? Is Calvinism an attempt to eliminate faith? Lutherans recognize that faith is indeed necessary.

Is faith a work, I suppose you could say so in a sense, but really to say so is mostly a confusion of the term, for faith is not a work in the same sense that we talk of works. But the Bible tells us to do things like strive and persist and so on concerning our faith so there is effort or if you want work but faith is different than works and we shouldn't confuse them.

Marv

[KEPLER]

CSMR,

Welcome back to TCCL--

Yes, indeed, tricky theology. Let's ground it in history first, eh? Lutheran theology starts to differentiate itself from scholastic (RC) theology in 1518 with the Heidelberg Disputation. In the HD, Luther attacked theology that was based on Aristotle. In practical terms, the first doctrine that this had a direct effect on was transsubstantiation, the explanation for which was rooted in Aristotleian physics cum Thomas' Summa Theologica.

But the attack had further effects as well. Finitum non capax infiniti is a maxim taken from Book 3 of Aristotle's Physics. So, you can probably guess what happened to it? Since the doctrine of transubstantiation is based in Aristotle, it is also limited by Aristotle, so in order not to violate the maxim, the bread and wine have to "disappear". The accidents (outward appearance) of bread and wine are not said to "contain" anything, so they are irrelevant insofar as the maxim goes. But the physics say that the finite substance of bread and wine cannot "contain" Christ, as the divine nature is infinte. So substance changes from bread and wine into Christ, and thus (voila!) there is no violation of the physics.

In a nutshell, the Lutherans said "Phooey!" to the whole system, saying it was irrelevant.

However, in the meantime Luther began thinking in terms of the "illocal" presence of Christ's body. There is a FANTASTIC article on this in the current issue of a Lutheran journal of theology called LOGIA. HIs thinking is based in exegesis of Isaiah 66 and basically it asserts that because God is both:1) Present everywhere, but also
2) Only to be found where He wills it.
Because of the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, we can say with utmost certainty that the same is true of Christ. Can we describe how it is true? No. But we can know with certainty, because of the testimony of Scripture, that it is true.

We say that it is true of Christ because, as Colossians 2:9 says, the fulness of deity dwells in him bodily. We contend that this verse is an explicit condemnation of Aristotle's maxim (i.e., the "vain philosphy" Paul mentioned). As I said, however this works, we can't explain it (although as I have speculated elsewhere, if I had to try, I would use quantum mechanics rather than Aristotle!).

As to how this relates to the Lord's Supper, I will let Richard Mayes speak form his excellent article:
Jesus’ body is everywhere according to his participation in the divine essence. Yet this omnipresence does not spiritually aid sinners, for Christ has not located himself in creation to give eternal life. Omnipresence is not the same thing as the sacramental presence. Instead, omnipresence in Luther’s thought must be seen as the context in which the sacramental presence can occur. Because Jesus’ body is everywhere in creation by the incarnate Son’s participation In the Father s essence, the consecration in the Supper need not summon the body of Jesus out of a far distant location. There is no descent from a spatial area in the atmosphere to earth when pastors celebrate the sacrament. Instead, Christ’s body itself is already present though unable to be discovered or received, and the consecrating word manifests this body that was already present, to be given in forgiveness to sinners. LOGIA, XIV, 4, pg. 35.

[CSMR]

Thanks BigNorsk and Kepler, I've certainly learned some new and surprising things here. Somehow I thought finitum non capax was very far from Catholicism with its natural grace, and yet to be the reason for transubstantiation, and yet they don't hold that Christ was transubstantiated from man to God. Very strange.
when taking the Latin phrases it is very possible to take what the few English words mean and apply them in a way that was never intended.
Yes, my dictionary says for capax:
able to grasp, capable, fit for
For instance, many think that sola Scriptura, means nothing but Scripture, that would more properly be solo Scriptura
OOh no! That's not proper at all!
They deny that Christ is bodily present in Communion, they would say he is only present in a spiritual way.
Hmm. But what is present to us spiritually (in the physical bread) is the body of Christ? There seems like a fine distinction here that I will have to work out.
Now if you take the Calvinistic phrase to it's logical conclusion, something that Calvin was always trying to do, it would mean that Christ's human body could not contain his divine nature. At least not in a real way. Well, if Calvin would have taught that, he probably would have gotten a warm reception at a burning stake. Yet he would say that it is impossible for the finite to contain the infinite.
Lol.
Well it's a paradox whether you're a Lutheran or a Calvinist, isn't it?
Man/God
Bread/Body
Sinner/Righteous

The difference is that with finitum capax, you have a paradox that the bread is able to bear the body, but no extra paradox that it should be the body:
whereas with finitum non capax you have no paradox in the bread's being non capax of the body, but a paradox that it should be. Does that make sense? I think this has to do with what KEPLER is saying about illocal presence?

[KEPLER]

Fellow TCCL members,

One of our Reformed friends PMed me and asked me the following question, to which I promised a reply in this thread. Anyone may join in, of course; bear in mind lots of Reformed will likely be reading this...

If you contend that the elements of the Supper contain Christ's true flesh and blood, is He there in His entirity or does He equally distribute the substance of His flesh and blood to those who are conducting the Supper at any given time? If He is there in His entirity, how can His finite body be, in its entirity, in more than one place at a time?
This is an honest request for clarification, not an attack on your Eucharistic views.

In order to answer this, I have to pose a larger question, which is: "Apart from the Lord's Supper, where is Jesus Christ to be found?"

The Reformed answer is: at the Right Hand of God.
The orthodox Lutheran answer to this is: at the Right Hand of God.

Which begs the question, "Where is the Right Hand of God?"

The Reformed answer is: in the Third heaven. (See pp. 242 ff. of the Williard translation of Ursinus' Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.)
The orthodox Lutheran answer to this is: Everywhere. And nowhere.

In Lutheran theology, the Right Hand of God is NOT a place (locus), it is a power (virus).

The Lutheran thought on the omnipresence of the person of Christ is based in statements made about the nature of God the Father. In Isaiah 40, God the Father is said to "hold the heavens in his palm and the earth in his hand." In Isaiah 66, we read: “Heaven is my throne and the earth my footstool. What is this house that you will build to me? And what is this place of my rest? Did not my hand make all these things?” Now, if we were Dispensationalists, this would make a very amusing picture, since to take it literally means to have God sitting on a throne, with the earth in his hand under his buttocks, yet also under his feet...??? For the heavens, which are in his palm, are also his throne...The earth, which is in his hand, is also his footstool...???

Luther followed the early Church Fathers in his interpretation here (esp St. Hilary, who was probably the most important contributor to the Nicene Creed after Athanasius). Throne, footstool, hand, palm are not descriptions of material extension (to use the Aristotelian expression). That is, they are NOT describing things which take up space. They are describing states of relations. God is both everywhere in the world, and yet also not circumscribed by anything in the world. St. Hilary said,

This is in order that we might not imagine that the throne and the footstool are an extension of a bodily form as in the position of one who is seated, since that which is his throne and footstool the omnipotent infinity itself grasps with its hand and once more embraces, but that in all these beginnings of created things God might be recognized as in them and outside of them, reaching beyond them and being found within them, that is, poured about everything and permeating everything…. Thus, he himself with his whole being contains all things that are within him and outside of Him.

UP NEXT: communicatio idiomatum, or, "What does the statement above have to do with Jesus?"

I'll leave it at that for today, more later. But I want to add one thing, addressed to the person who asked the question at the top of this post: You also asserted (in another thread) that "God had established the laws of non-contradiction". Am I quoting you correctly?

As a Lutheran, I am forced to ask, "Oh? Where?" I cannot presume to speak for God. SO, if I am going to say that "God has done X," I am obligated to back that up with Scripture. Now (as a former Calvinist myself) I am intimately aware of how the reasoning works here: God can't contradict himself; God can't make a rock so big he can't move it; etc etc. I submit, however, that this rationale belongs to the Kingdom of the Left. (If you don't know what that means, just say so, I'll provide a link.) But basically, Lutherans see the world (and I know the Reformed use these categories, too) as both the Kingdom of Creation (the left; the sword) and the Kingdom of Redemption (the right; the Gospel). Ideas of reasoning born in the Kingdom of the left MIGHT be useful for theology, but if a proposition from the Kingdom of the Left comes into conflict with Revelation from the Kingdom of the Right, the Left hand ALWAYS gives way to the Right hand. The "law of non-contradiction", therefore, doesn't carry much weight in the structure of Lutheran theology.

Pax Christi tibi,

Kepler

[SPALATIN]

Luther said it best at the Marburg Colloquy: "Hoc est corpus meum. . ." This is my Body. If Christ says that it is his body and blood why should we believe anything different. Those in the reformed camp can't conceptualize this because they want to limit God's power to only what they can understand. Reformed thinking is illogical if one considers God's power and not his position.

[KEPLER]

I'm bumping this thread, because the topic has come up again...

I was going to add more, but nobody seemed interested, so I stopped.

[FreezBee]

I'm bumping this thread, because the topic has come up again...

I was going to add more, but nobody seemed interested, so I stopped.

Oh, I for one am very interested :wave:

Especially in this:

As a Lutheran, I am forced to ask, "Oh? Where?" I cannot presume to speak for God. SO, if I am going to say that "God has done X," I am obligated to back that up with Scripture. Now (as a former Calvinist myself) I am intimately aware of how the reasoning works here: God can't contradict himself; God can't make a rock so big he can't move it; etc etc. I submit, however, that this rationale belongs to the Kingdom of the Left. (If you don't know what that means, just say so, I'll provide a link.) But basically, Lutherans see the world (and I know the Reformed use these categories, too) as both the Kingdom of Creation (the left; the sword) and the Kingdom of Redemption (the right; the Gospel). Ideas of reasoning born in the Kingdom of the left MIGHT be useful for theology, but if a proposition from the Kingdom of the Left comes into conflict with Revelation from the Kingdom of the Right, the Left hand ALWAYS gives way to the Right hand. The "law of non-contradiction", therefore, doesn't carry much weight in the structure of Lutheran theology.


I have to admit that I have very little knowledge of Lutheran theology, and therefore I am very interested in these matters, so you have at least one interested listener :)

I do know of the two kingdoms (I have read Confession Augustana), but I am not too clear about their interacrion, so this is good stuff :thumbsup:

Now, if God is everywhere (and nowhere), is God not, wherever he is, bound by his own laws for, where he is? I would say that the "law of non-contradiction", while formulated by humans is still a law that applies to this world, that as being created by God is subject to the laws of God, therefore I conjecture, that the "law of non-contradiction" is a law of God. What have I misunderstood here?


- FreezBee

[RedneckAnglican]

Oh, I for one am very interested :wave:

I also am interested, but I admit my knowledge of latin is seriously lacking here...

is there a good on-line dictionary site?...

[FreezBee]

is there a good on-line dictionary site?...

Well, there is on here:

http://www.nd.edu/~archives/latgramm.htm

But I can't judge how good it is :)


- FreezBee

[KEPLER]

Oh, I for one am very interested :wave:

Especially in this:



I have to admit that I have very little knowledge of Lutheran theology, and therefore I am very interested in these matters, so you have at least one interested listener :)

I do know of the two kingdoms (I have read Confession Augustana), but I am not too clear about their interacrion, so this is good stuff :thumbsup:

Now, if God is everywhere (and nowhere), is God not, wherever he is, bound by his own laws for, where he is? I would say that the "law of non-contradiction", while formulated by humans is still a law that applies to this world, that as being created by God is subject to the laws of God, therefore I conjecture, that the "law of non-contradiction" is a law of God. What have I misunderstood here?


- FreezBee

It's not that the law of non-contradiction doesn't apply. It's just that when the law of non-contradiction and Scripture collide, Scripture always wins. For example, the Lutheran confessions explicitly affirm predestination to salvation, but they explicitly deny predestination to damnation.

On the face of it, this is a contradiction, but we refuse to "solve" the puzzle, because Scripture does not solve the puzzle. Our confessions imply affirm what the Scriptures say.

Kepler

[FreezBee]

It's not that the law of non-contradiction doesn't apply. It's just that when the law of non-contradiction and Scripture collide, Scripture always wins. For example, the Lutheran confessions explicitly affirm predestination to salvation, but they explicitly deny predestination to damnation.

On the face of it, this is a contradiction, but we refuse to "solve" the puzzle, because Scripture does not solve the puzzle. Our confessions imply affirm what the Scriptures say.


Ok, interesting :thumbsup:

My master's thesis was about non-monotonic logic, and this is actually an example of that.



In monotonic logic the following rule applies:if A implies B, then A and C implies B


In other words, in monotonic logic, if a conclusion is true once, it is true always. Therefore monotonic logic can only deal with definite statements.


Non-monotonic logic can work with indefinite statements. With predestination to salvation, but not predestination to damnation, you can choose any conclusion that does not contradict whatever else is considered true, and that you for the one or the other reason might find preferable - for instance as many saved as possible or as many damned as possible.

What you seem to imply is that any statement derivable from scripture is true, and any statement not derivable from scripture is left undecided theologically (though the statement may have a definite truth value, but there is no way to derive that sola scriptura).

Is this correct understood?


- FreezBee

[KEPLER]

Ok, interesting :thumbsup:

My master's thesis was about non-monotonic logic, and this is actually an example of that.



In monotonic logic the following rule applies:if A implies B, then A and C implies B


In other words, in monotonic logic, if a conclusion is true once, it is true always. Therefore monotonic logic can only deal with definite statements.


Non-monotonic logic can work with indefinite statements. With predestination to salvation, but not predestination to damnation, you can choose any conclusion that does not contradict whatever else is considered true, and that you for the one or the other reason might find preferable - for instance as many saved as possible or as many damned as possible.
Fascinating stuff, actually. When I lived in Holland (I was working at Leiden University) my roommate was a student of Goran Sundholm, and this sounds like some of the stuff he was working on... Which was more specifically how artifical intellgience programming was to make distinctions between statements which appeared to be both true, and yet also appeared to conflict.

What you seem to imply is that any statement derivable from scripture is true, and any statement not derivable from scripture is left undecided theologically (though the statement may have a definite truth value, but there is no way to derive that sola scriptura).

Is this correct understood?


- FreezBee


At ay rate, as for that part in bold above...I guess I might allow for a step further than that, and say that, insoafar as a statement does not conflict with Scripture, we are free to argue for its truth.

Or put it this way: not all arguments are theological arguments. In such arguments, we are not to look (or perhaps it's better to say, we have no need to look) for theological answers.

Kepler

[FreezBee]

Fascinating stuff, actually. When I lived in Holland (I was working at Leiden University) my roommate was a student of Goran Sundholm, and this sounds like some of the stuff he was working on... Which was more specifically how artifical intellgience programming was to make distinctions between statements which appeared to be both true, and yet also appeared to conflict.

Yes, my master's thesis was in computer science, and non-monotonic logic is a topic there in decision making systems. In the real world monotonic logic cannot be used, because we as humans do not have infinite knowledge, so occasionally we have to make educated guesses to get anywhere at all, and this is the proble, addressed by non-monotonic logic. I know that from computer science it has crept into psychology and other areas.

At ay rate, as for that part in bold above...I guess I might allow for a step further than that, and say that, insoafar as a statement does not conflict with Scripture, we are free to argue for its truth.

Yes, that's a consequence - where Scripture is silent, we are free to speak for ourselves :)

Or put it this way: not all arguments are theological arguments. In such arguments, we are not to look (or perhaps it's better to say, we have no need to look) for theological answers.

Again I agree, we cannot demand Scripture to give an answer to each and every question that might arise during life. In the temporal world, there is occasionally no substitute for hard work, faith alone doesn't quite cut it there :)

Thank you for your reply :wave:


- FreezBee

[BBAS 64]

It's not that the law of non-contradiction doesn't apply. It's just that when the law of non-contradiction and Scripture collide, Scripture always wins. For example, the Lutheran confessions explicitly affirm predestination to salvation, but they explicitly deny predestination to damnation.

On the face of it, this is a contradiction, but we refuse to "solve" the puzzle, because Scripture does not solve the puzzle. Our confessions imply affirm what the Scriptures say.

Kepler

Good Day, Kepler

I wanted to subscribe, so that I could follow up as time allowed.

"predestination to salvation, but they explicitly deny predestination to damnation."

This is not a contradiction and does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

The law says that "a" is "a", and at the same time in the same relationship "not a".

The Scripture never violates this law in and of if self. It is not a question of "wining" it is that it never happens. If an out side formulation "seems" to create a violation of this law, then the problem becomes that of the formula that Scripture is made to "operate" under not Scripture it self.

Peace to u,

Bill

[ContraMundum]

However "finitum capax infiniti" would seem to have broader implications: if it is true, are we capable of faith and wouldn't that make faith a work?

The traditional Lutheran position is that faith is not a work of ours, but God's work in us, and that unlike the Calvinist position that states that regeneration is given before faith (as opposed to Arminius' idea that faith occurs before regeneration) the Lutheran position is on an entirely different tack: that is, that faith is the means of regeneration. In other words, Calvin says that regeneration is the means of faith, Arminius says that faith preceeds and thus receives regeneration, and Lutherans say that faith is the means of regeneration.

This sounds like hair-splitting, but only in the Lutheran system can faith be truly said to be the work of God 100%. Even the Calvinist system ultimately says that regeneration causes the reaction of faith in us, although many Calvinists will go at lengths to dispute that.

[KEPLER]

Good Day, Kepler

I wanted to subscribe, so that I could follow up as time allowed.

"predestination to salvation, but they explicitly deny predestination to damnation."

This is not a contradiction and does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

The law says that "a" is "a", and at the same time in the same relationship "not a".

The Scripture never violates this law in and of if self. It is not a question of "wining" it is that it never happens. If an out side formulation "seems" to create a violation of this law, then the problem becomes that of the formula that Scripture is made to "operate" under not Scripture it self.

Peace to u,

Bill

Bill, please let me elaborate more completely.

The Lutheran Confessions affirm predestination to salvation. On this point, the Lutherans and Reformed are both "monergistic" and we agree. However, traditional Augustinianism also affirms the negative implication. Which is to say, "If God elects some to predestination, then those he has not elected are ipso facto damned because of God's non-election." That is the logical conclusion, ne'st pas?

The Lutherans deny this conclusion, because Scripture denies this conclusion. Let us take the other side of the coin.

The Luthean Confessions affirm that those who are damned are damned because of a totally free exercise of their own wills against the genuine calling of God. On this point, the Lutherans and the Reformed disagree. Following this point to its logical conclusion leads thus: "If we are free to deny God, then we are also free to choose God."

Again, the Lutherans deny this conclusion, because Scripture denies this conclusion.

So, on the obverse side of the coin, Lutherans affirm predestination. On the reverse side of the coin, Lutherans affirm free will. We take this position becasue it is what Scripture teaches. We don't apply "external" laws of logic to "solve" the problem.

We do not try to figure why one person is saved while another person is damned. That is not information that God has ever given to us. Any theology, any denomination that tries to solve this problem subordinates Scripture to man-made philosophy and is ergo heterodox.

A statement from the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod in 1932 makes this clear:
12. On the basis of these clear statements of the Holy Scriptures we reject every kind of synergism, that is, the doctrine that conversion is wrought not by the grace and power of God alone, but in part also by the co-operation of man himself, by man's right conduct, his right attitude, his right self-determination, his lesser guilt or less evil conduct as compared with others, his refraining from willful resistance, or anything else whereby man's conversion and salvation is taken out of the gracious hands of God and made to depend on what man does or leaves undone. For this refraining from willful resistance or from any kind of resistance is also solely a work of grace, which "changes unwilling into willing men," Ezek. 36:26; Phil. 2:13. We reject also the doctrine that man is able to decide for conversion through "powers imparted by grace," since this doctrine presupposes that before conversion man still possesses spiritual powers by which he can make the right use of such "powers imparted by grace."

13. On the other hand, we reject also the Calvinistic perversion of the doctrine of conversion, that is, the doctrine that God does not desire to convert and save all hearers of the Word, but only a portion of them. Many hearers of the Word indeed remain unconverted and are not saved, not because God does not earnestly desire their conversion and salvation, but solely because they stubbornly resist the gracious operation of the Holy Ghost, as Scripture teaches, Acts 7:51; Matt. 23:37; Acts 13:46.

14. As to the question why not all men are converted and saved, seeing that God's grace is universal and all men are equally and utterly corrupt, we confess that we cannot answer it. From Scripture we know only this: A man owes his conversion and salvation, not to any lesser guilt or better conduct on his part, but solely to the grace of God. But any man's non-conversion is due to himself alone; it is the result of his obstinate resistance against the converting operation of the Holy Ghost. Hos. 13:9.



Cheers,

Kepler

[FreezBee]

"predestination to salvation, but they explicitly deny predestination to damnation."

This is not a contradiction and does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

The law says that "a" is "a", and at the same time in the same relationship "not a".

Not to answer on behalf of KEPLER, which I of course is not entitled to, but KEPLER wrote: "On the face of it, this is a contradiction, ....". The contradiction is "on the face of it", it's a surface contradiction. If we operate with definite truth values, then every person id predestined to either salvation or damnation, nobody ends up in a limbo. However we only accept predestination to salvation, not predestination to damnation - thereby leaving an undecidable number of people in an undecidable state. Yet we claim it is decided (they will end up either saved or damned).

That it, the contradiction is that we say that

you are either saved or damned
you can be predestined to be saved
you cannot be predestined to be damned
Therefore, for those that are not predestined to be saved, you can say as well that they are saved as that they are damned damned, that is, they are both saved and damned, but that's a contradiction. The Calvinists make it decidable: if you are not predestined to salvation, you are predestined to damnation. We Lutherans leave it undecided.

Hope this helps more than it confuses :)


- FreezBee

[ILoveYeshua]

> but they explicitly deny predestination to damnation.

yet Jesus said:

Joh 9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

So if LCMS is solo-scriptura, its no mystery or contradiction there, there are people predestined to damnation.

Romans 9:21-23
(21) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
(22) What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
(23) And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Even Paul knew that predestination unto damnation was a probability.

[BigNorsk]

> but they explicitly deny predestination to damnation.

yet Jesus said:

Joh 9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

So if LCMS is solo-scriptura, its no mystery or contradiction there, there are people predestined to damnation.

Romans 9:21-23
(21) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
(22) What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
(23) And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Even Paul knew that predestination unto damnation was a probability.


Well the John 9:39 seems much more to be talking about the nation of Israel vs the Gentiles than any predestination to condemnation.

I would say to note that the second passage says he made the vessel of honor beforehand but not that he made the vessel of dishonor beforehand.

It is like this passage:

Romans 8:28-30 NET
(28) And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose,
(29) because those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
(30) And those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified.

It talks of the predestination of the saved but not really of the nonsaved.

So Lutherans embrace the overwhelming Biblical support that those who are saved are predestined for salvation.

But we also accept that the preponderance of the evidence is that God died for the sins of the world, not just those predestined for salvation. It is not that there is no passage that couldn't be taken as teaching the predestination of the condemned, but scripture must agree with scripture and the weight goes that God wants all to be saved, that he died for all their sins, but that many reject him and so are condemned. Not, God predestines them to condemnation.

Marv

[CSMR]

The Luthean Confessions affirm that those who are damned are damned because of a totally free exercise of their own wills against the genuine calling of God. On this point, the Lutherans and the Reformed disagree.
Is this a point of disagreement? This is certianly the position Luther held. Do reformed people deny it? If I could continue Luther's thinking, a man can be called "free" in that he is not subject to external compulsion to do evil, though he is subject to his own evil will and so can be called enslaved to Satan.

I think it more useful to call a person enslaved than free, not because it is wrong to call him free in the very limited sense above, but because we are not set about by heretics who think that evil is an external constraint on us, whereas we are by people who think we are free to do god or evil.
We do not try to figure why one person is saved while another person is damned. That is not information that God has ever given to us. Any theology, any denomination that tries to solve this problem subordinates Scripture to man-made philosophy and is ergo heterodox.
This is not to say that there is no "hidden power of God" which "decides" when to save and when to hold a person's sin against him, as Luther believed. It is only not to enquire into such a power.