It is not possible to embrace the doctrine of predestination without accepting the fact that we were once enemies of God. It is not only just admitting that we were weak, sinful and immoral.
Therefore, the doctrine of predestination requires a level of humility that is unmatched by any opposing doctrine.
Not surprisingly, the same fella who had problem with predestination responded to my paste on Facebook negatively.
He later added his own quote on some online article. I could tell he had since our first debate gone through a struggling period to pick bones from the classic reformers.
After a quick browse, I immediately recognize the shallowness. As blind leading the blind...my dear friend's conclusion: Luther believes neither (Predestination & Arminianism) is 'completely' right. I could easily replied: This accusation isn't 'completely' right either. Just to point out the failed logic.
Of course, I have looked into this certain quotes of Luther as claimed by the article, which is from a 3 volume book "What Luther Says" compiled by Ewald Plass. I would be curious to look into the source of such quotes. Assuming there will be citations. But since this is not that crucial, so I would wait until my interlibrary loan notification. I know it is obvious that the author of such article is emotionally disturbed and wish to twist certain reformed thoughts to his side. Regardless of his well organized attempt, it would appear that he failed to see how strongly Martin Luther had argued strongly for predestination in his book On the Bondage of the Will against Erasmus' On Free Will. Reminds me of Wesley's and Whitefield's debate. So, these works are definitely a good keep.
With this evidence alone, it is therefore obvious to me that Don Matzat is playing a pick-choose and twist game with Luther's quotes. I could only hope someone like David is not too affected by a blind guide.
Last but not least, this is also due to last semicentennial movement of Christianity of the carnal christian theology - that somehow Jesus' parable of the sower was a description of different kinds/levels of elects, instead of pointing to just one kind of the elects. An error indeed.