When I get a chance, I'll look carefully at the actual article, but as I pointed out the question revolves around the compatabilistic/incompatibilistic positions. There are fixed positions which follow from these assumptions. If one believes in compatibilitistic free will, one will believe that the free will of man has no place in salvation, that salvation is a unilateral action on the part of God, that God elects certain individuals to be saved, just as Luther explains in "The Bondage of Will." What Luther writes is entirely logic. Luther had no problem with logic.

OTOH, if one holds to the incompatibilistic position, one will hold that free will is essential in salvation, and that God does not unilaterally elect selected individuals to be saved (leaving out others). The two positions are well defined, and impossible to reconcile.

There's simply no way that Ellen White can agree with Luther, because she believes in incompatibilistic free well, while Luther doesn't. The evidence for this is clear for anyone familiar with the concepts and what Luther and Ellen White wrote. Both are entirely consistent in their positions.

To highlight these differences, if you look at Ellen White's writings, you will see that she emphasizes the role of man's free will in salvation. OTOH Luther emphatically denies this, as strongly as possible (cf. "The Bondage of the Will").

Similarly, if you look at Ellen White's writings, you will see that she never attributes the salvation of the individual to a unilateral action on the part of God. OTOH, Luther emphatically does.

Similarly, Ellen White never says that God predestined individuals to be saved. She consistently emphasized that a person's salvation depends upon the action of their will. Luther, OTOH, emphatically states that God predestines inviduals.

In conclusion, both Luther's (and the Reformers in general, who agree with Luther regarding incompibilistc free will, a holdover from Augustine) and Ellen White's positions follow logically from their assumptions.

The question comes down to this: Does man have compatibilistic free will or incompatibilistic free will?

When I get a chance, I'll go into the difference between these two positions, as these are technical terms, which are helpful in distinguishing between the two positions.

Compatibilism has to do with whether free will and determinism are compatible. According to this point of view, we have free will in the sense that we can do what we want to do.

Incombatibilism, (aslo called libertarianism) says that free will and determinism are incompatible (i.e., they can't both be true). Man is truly free in the highest sense of the word. That is, he not only can choose to do something he is disposed to do, but can choose to do something he is not disposed to do.

Edwards (defending the compatibilistic view) wrote, "The mind will always choose that which it most desires," so our greatest desire in any given circumstance compels us to choose, forces our choice, of that which we most desire."

According to Edwards, there is a reason for every choice we make! We are always free to choose whatever we desire. We are not free to choose what we do not desire. We cannot go against our greatest desire in any situation. Whatever we choose will be based on our greatest desire, our motive for choice.

Libertarian free will denies these assertions, and affirms that we can choose to do things we do not most highly desire.

In the compatibilistic framework, there is always a reason for everything one chooses to do, and this is important to uphold the deternimistic framework. In the deterministic framework, all actions we will undertake has already been determined -- we just don't know what they are. We are not free to do something other than that which has been determined. Our freedom is not real, in a libertarian sense, but we perceive that we are free because we never act contrary to what we desire. A key point is that our desires are not determined by ourselves, but are determined by forces outside of ourselves. So our destiny is not determined by the exercise of our free will, but to the contrary, by other forces.

Ellen White was strongly libertarian in her outlook. For example:

What you need to understand is the true force of the will. This is the governing power in the nature of man, the power of decision, or of choice. Everything depends on the right action of the will. The power of choice God has given to men; it is theirs to exercise. (SC 47)

If we look at the key areas of determinism, we see that Ellen White was consistently against these ideas. For example, she expressed the idea that God undertook a risk in sending Christ, which is impossible from determistic standpoint.

Another typical statement of Ellen White's:

No one is compelled to serve God. The full results of a man's choice rest upon himself, for he chooses of his own free will. (13 MR 219)

This is the libertarian perspective. There is strong emphasis throughout her work on the part that man's choice plays in our salvation.

Ellen White strikes a better balance than Luther. I'll grant you that. However, she was not in any camp. There are more than two ways of looking at this issue. The scriptures give evidence of that. And we need to be careful not to put words in Luther's mouth that he never spoke. The same with Ellen White and the Bible.

What about Article 18 of the Confession? Where is it unscriptural?

On a related topic, why, if sin is always a choice, is there not a single man or woman or child who has never sinned?

What other way is there of conceiving of free will than as compatibilistic or libertarian? I'll grant you that within the different camps there are differences (e.g. the 5 points of Calvinism, hard core Calvinists hold to all 5, other are "3.5 Calvinists" and so on), but the two camps are clearly divided. For example, Ellen White is a 0 point Calvinist. She doesn't agree with any of the points. Luther would probably be 3.5.

Ellen White is definately in the compatibilistic camp. She never wrote anything deterministic. For example, she wrote this:

The story of Bethlehem is an exhaustless theme. In it is hidden "the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God." Rom. 11:33. We marvel at the Saviour's sacrifice in exchanging the throne of heaven for the manger, and the companionship of adoring angels for the beasts of the stall. Human pride and self-sufficiency stand rebuked in His presence. Yet this was but the beginning of His wonderful condescension. It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.

Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! (DA 49)

This is completely contrary to Luther's entire train of thought, from beginning to end.

I'll look at the confession. Thanks for your patience.

Regarding the Augsberg Confession, it doesn't appear to me that Melanchthon was considering the same question we are. He writes, "They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching "the substance of the act." This is not the same issue we are discussing. So it is not surprising that Ellen White wouldn't write something that would disagree with this since this is dealing with Pelgaianism and not with compatibilistic free will.

The creeds, or confessions, were written in the context of dealing with certain issues. If something was left out, I would not read too much into that. That does not mean that the issue was not considered to be important, just that it wasn't necessarily a pressing issue at the time.

That Luther's view of free will was compatibilistic is undeniable. For example, he wrote:

Since God's foreknowledge is not uncertain, "free-will" is non-existent. It is fundamentally necessary and healthy for Christians to acknowledge that God foreknows nothing uncertainly, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own immutable, eternal and infallible will....

However, with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, he has no "free-will", but is a captive, prisoner and bondslave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.(The Bondage of the Will)

Notice the emphasis that God purposes all things according to His own immutable, eternal and infallible will. This comes from Augustine. Now someone who believes in libertarian free will could affirm the same thing as Luther in regards to God's will, but it would mean something entirely different. Luther, from Augstine, held that nothing happens which is not God's will. (Luther spoke of God's inscrutable will to deal with the problems of injustice that arise when dealing with the question of how there could be evil if all things happen according to God's will). Thus the saved are saved only because God has so willed. Their free will has no part to play in the equation. This was very important to Luther, who was deterministic.

Ellen White, on the other hand, was not deterministic, but strongly libertarian. For example, she spoke of God's undertaking risk, which puts her even further away from a deterministic position than compatibilism requires.

I'll try to illustrate by way of a diagram:

......Compatibilism ...........Libertarianism.......
Calvin.....Luther........................Ellen White

Ellen White is not in the center on this question, but way off to the edge. This is because of her position on risk, which many Arminiainists disagree on. That is, Ellen White wrote that God undertook risk. For example:

(I)nto the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. (DA 49)

Many Arminianists (who all believe in libertarian free will) would disagree with this statement because it asserts that God undertook risk. They would hold that God cannot undertake risk, not because of determinism (i.e. God determines everything that happens, therefore there can be no risk in anything He undertakes; everything happens just as planned) but because of His absolute foreknowledge. Some Arminianists agree with Ellen White that God did undertake a risk. Among theologians, Ellen White's position is definitely a minority position. She is way out on the edge, as illustrated by the diagram.

The "balance" that Ellen White takes regarding free will is to get as far away as possible from Calvin's position.

So you find nowhere that Scripture or Ellen White disagree with the Article 18 on free will. OK that's good. Where do you see in the Article that they are dealing with anything other than *biblical* free will.

Please, let's limit the theospeak. This is a laymen's forum. We owe it to the members to use terms that are familiar to them. Did Christ or any great authors for that matter use terms like the ones in your recent posts? Also, if you attribute something to someone, please be fair and thorough in your research and include balancing statements by the same person.

What about my question on how it is that sin is always by choice and yet everyone has sinned. How is that?

So you find nowhere that Scripture or Ellen White disagree with the Article 18 on free will. OK that's good. Where do you see in the Article that they are dealing with anything other than *biblical* free will.

As I explained, Mark, Melanchthon was dealing with Pelagianism. He said so in the confession. Right here:

They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching "the substance of the act." For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc.

Why would you expect Ellen White to disagree with Luther about Pelagianism?

Please, let's limit the theospeak. This is a laymen's forum.
We owe it to the members to use terms that are familiar to them. Did Christ or any great authors for that matter use terms like the ones in your recent posts?

It's a technical subject, Mark. You brought it up, not me. If you read the works by Edwards and others have hashed these things out, it's far more technical than the little bit I've written here.

I explained what the terms I used meant. If there's something you didn't understand, just ask. I think anyone reading the posts can understand the terms as they were explained.

Also, if you attribute something to someone, please be fair and thorough in your research and include balancing statements by the same person.

What are you talking about here? What did I attribute to whom? What is not balanced?