Luther - and God's Judgment

[joemccarron]

From what I am reading according to Luther, we have no (name removed by moderator)ut in our salvation it is all God. Well then in what sense can God be judging us as opposed to himself when we go to heaven or hell?

Does anyone go to hell according to his view? Then surely it must have been because of something they did or didn’t do and not just something that God did or didn’t do?

I really can’t understand this. If there is really nothing I can do or not do that will gain or cost me salvation, then does he say souls are at stake when discussing catholic abuses?

Any clarifications on this would be greatly appreciated.

What is the Lutheran interpretation of Matthew 25:31-46?

The Sheep and the Goats
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

 

[JonNC]

=joemccarron;7800044]From what I am reading according to Luther, we have no (name removed by moderator)ut in our salvation it is all God. Well then in what sense can God be judging us as opposed to himself when we go to heaven or hell?

Does anyone go to hell according to his view? Then surely it must have been because of something they did or didn’t do and not just something that God did or didn’t do?

I really can’t understand this. If there is really nothing I can do or not do that will gain or cost me salvation, then does he say souls are at stake when discussing catholic abuses?

Any clarifications on this would be greatly appreciated.

What is the Lutheran interpretation of Matthew 25:31-46?

First, Joe, it might hgelp to know what the source of your reading is, but in brief, you are right that salvation is available only by grace. So, in that sense, it is all God. However, Lutherans believe that we have free will, free will to deny grace, reject Christ, and, effectively, choose condemnation.
Justification is accessed by grace through faith in Christ, whose sacrifice made our salvation possible.

May I suggest the Lutheran Confessions as a good source to understanding what Lutheranism teaches?

Does this help?

Jon

 

[joemccarron]

Jon
Thank you for your response.
Some back ground. My wife is a member of the Missouri synod and I often go to church there with her. Everyone in that church has always been very accepting of me even though I am Catholic, and although I have no real intention of converting I do wish to understand their views. Moreover in discussing religion with other Protestants I often hear about this faith alone or the “cross is sufficient” view.

From my view it seems that God could condemn us or not as he sees fit. Yet I do acknowledge that there must be some sort of justice that we do not understand that somehow required Christ’s sacrifice. So yes I understand God’s justice is not what we entirely understand. But if our actions have no bearing on our salvation and it is just a matter of God doing it all for us how can we say we are being judged?
Would Lutherans then agree that our salvation/damnation is due, in part, to our act of accepting or rejecting that grace? You say this, but is this in accord with any Lutheran confession?

I was listening to the i-tunes u Concordia classes. Specifically the classes on confessions and church history. The professor was explaining what he called horizontal relationships and our vertical relationship. The horizontal were our relationships with other people. The vertical was with God. He seemed to say our actions here effect the horizontal but nothing we can do effects the vertical - that was all God.

He seemed to emphasize that everything about our salvation was due to God and nothing due to us. But then the converse would seem necessarily true too. Everything about our damnation is due to God and nothing due to us. (assuming you believe all people are either damned or saved.)

I think he is assuming that his audience is other Lutherans where this view neither needs to be defended or explained.

I’m getting to the point where I am listening to it but keep thinking of passages in the new testament that seem pretty clearly to contradict this view. See Mathew 25 above and some others. Moreover, conceptually I don’t see how this makes any sense. If our salvation is all god and not us then he can’t really be said to be judging us.

I have read Galatians and Romans. Which can be read as support of this view. But as a Catholic I always understood these passages in the context of certain Judaic rituals, not all human behavior. Yes I know Paul says some things that seem to go beyond circumcision and eating pork with gentiles – but the letters often are in that context. And there are these other passages in the bible and even from Paul which make this view very implausible.

 

[Juliebug108]

First, Joe, it might hgelp to know what the source of your reading is, but in brief, you are right that salvation is available only by grace. So, in that sense, it is all God. However, Lutherans believe that we have free will, free will to deny grace, reject Christ, and, effectively, choose condemnation.
Justification is accessed by grace through faith in Christ, whose sacrifice made our salvation possible.

May I suggest the Lutheran Confessions as a good source to understanding what Lutheranism teaches?

Does this help?

Jon

Luther denied free will, as do Lutherans of modern day when it comes to spiritual matters. From the Augsburg Confession:

Of Free Will they teach that man’s will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the Word. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in his Hypognosticon, Book III: We grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether good or evil.

Put another way:

Man is completely without a free will with respect to the “spiritual sphere” (that which concerns salvation). Salvation depends exclusively on the omnipotent divine will of grace. Man does not have freedom to do the good in the spiritual sense.

Martin Luther, from
The Bondage of the Will:

First, God has promised certainly His grace to the humbled: that is, to the self-deploring and despairing. But a man cannot be thoroughly humbled, until he comes to know that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsel, endeavours, will, and works, and absolutely depending on the will, counsel, pleasure, and work of another, that is, of God only.

His position on this matter is incorrect in my opinion. I rather like Fr. William Most’s response to Luther’s idea:

Luther ignored the most basic comparison of the Gospels: God
is our Father. No Father damns most of His children without even
giving them a chance. He wills all to be saved:1 Tim 2:4. If He
refuses grace with no fault on the part of the human, then He could
not say He wills all to be saved. In fact, Paul in Gal 2:20 said: “He
loved me, and gave Himself for me.” Vatican II, On Church in Modern
World #22 said: “Each one of us can say with the Apostle: the Son of
God loved me and gave himself for me.” So He died for each
individual, He created an infinite title or claim to grace for each
individual. Then He could not without reason refuse it to anyone at
all.

The Lutheran position of saying that we have no free will in dealing with our own salvation is contradicted in and of itself with the position that we can choose to cooperate (or not to cooperate) with God’s grace.

 

[joemccarron]

Julie

Thanks for the response as well. What you say seems to mirror very much what I am understanding from the Concordia lectures.

Here is a quote from the defense of the Augsburg confession written by Melanchthon (or did he just write the greeting?):

“73] Therefore, although we concede to free will the liberty and power to perform the outward
works of the Law, yet we do not ascribe to free will these spiritual matters, namely, truly to fear
God, truly to believe God, truly to be confident and hold that God regards us, hears us, forgives
us, etc.”

I would say he is basically saying our faith in in God is not due to anything in our free will.

This can be found on this website:
lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=957

Page 105 of 154 of the pdf.

Again this would demonstrate that horizontal versus vertical relationships. We have free will when dealing with each other but not when dealing with God.

 

[Juliebug108]

Again this would demonstrate that horizontal versus vertical relationships. We have free will when dealing with each other but not when dealing with God.

Yep… we have Free will in civil areas, but no free will in spiritual areas (specifically dealing with our own salvation).

I don’t personally think it makes a bit of sense…but yes, your understanding is correct.

 

[IowaJay]

Luther’s Bondage of the Will is not a part of the Lutheran Confessions - therefore, it is erroneous to say that what Luther says in it is the Lutheran position. The Lutheran position on any matter of faith is found in the Book of Concord. The Formula of Concord is a part of our Confessional heritage, and it teaches that there is a distinction between the baptized and unbaptized with regard to free will - the baptized do have free will in matters of salvation:

“65] From this, then, it follows that as soon as the Holy Ghost, as has been said, through the Word and holy Sacraments, has begun in us this His work of regeneration and renewal, it is certain that through the power of the Holy Ghost we can and should cooperate, although still in great weakness. But this [that we cooperate] does not occur from our carnal natural powers, but from the new powers and gifts which the Holy Ghost has begun in us in conversion, 66] as St. Paul expressly and earnestly exhorts that as workers together with Him we receive not the grace of God in vain, 2 Cor. 6, 1. But this is to be understood in no other way than that the converted man does good to such an extent and so long as God by His Holy Spirit rules, guides, and leads him, and that as soon as God would withdraw His gracious hand from him, he could not for a moment persevere in obedience to God. But if this were understood thus [if any one would take the expression of St. Paul in this sense], that the converted man cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the manner as when two horses together draw a wagon, this could in no way be conceded without prejudice to the divine truth. (2 Cor. 6, 1: Sunergou’te” parakalou’men: We who are servants or coworkers with God beseech you who are God’s husbandry and God’s building, 1 Cor. 3, 9, to imitate our example, that the grace of God may not be among you in vain, 1 Cor. 15, 10, but that ye may be the temple of God, living and dwelling in you, 2 Cor. 6, 16.)

67] Therefore there is a great difference between baptized and unbaptized men. For since, according to the doctrine of St. Paul, Gal. 3, 27, all who have been baptized have put on Christ, and thus are truly regenerate, they have now arbitrium liberatum (a liberated will), that is, as Christ says, they have been made free again, John 8, 36; whence they are able not only to hear the Word, but also to assent to it and accept it, although in great weakness."

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree with you, Iowa. It is a common mistake many Catholic apologists make, assuming all Luther’s writings and private opinions were and are Lutheran doctrine. A lot of posters forget that men like Melancthon and Chemnitz formed Lutheran doctrine in a significant way as well. Luther’s catechism and the confessions are what people should look to for definitive doctrine, not just his memoirs or his writings like Babylonian Captivity, etc…

Luther’s Bondage of the Will is not a part of the Lutheran Confessions - therefore, it is erroneous to say that what Luther says in it is the Lutheran position. The Lutheran position on any matter of faith is found in the Book of Concord. The Formula of Concord is a part of our Confessional heritage, and it teaches that there is a distinction between the baptized and unbaptized with regard to free will - the baptized do have free will in matters of salvation:

“65] From this, then, it follows that as soon as the Holy Ghost, as has been said, through the Word and holy Sacraments, has begun in us this His work of regeneration and renewal, it is certain that through the power of the Holy Ghost we can and should cooperate, although still in great weakness. But this [that we cooperate] does not occur from our carnal natural powers, but from the new powers and gifts which the Holy Ghost has begun in us in conversion, 66] as St. Paul expressly and earnestly exhorts that as workers together with Him we receive not the grace of God in vain, 2 Cor. 6, 1. But this is to be understood in no other way than that the converted man does good to such an extent and so long as God by His Holy Spirit rules, guides, and leads him, and that as soon as God would withdraw His gracious hand from him, he could not for a moment persevere in obedience to God. But if this were understood thus [if any one would take the expression of St. Paul in this sense], that the converted man cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the manner as when two horses together draw a wagon, this could in no way be conceded without prejudice to the divine truth. (2 Cor. 6, 1: Sunergou’te” parakalou’men: We who are servants or coworkers with God beseech you who are God’s husbandry and God’s building, 1 Cor. 3, 9, to imitate our example, that the grace of God may not be among you in vain, 1 Cor. 15, 10, but that ye may be the temple of God, living and dwelling in you, 2 Cor. 6, 16.)

67] Therefore there is a great difference between baptized and unbaptized men. For since, according to the doctrine of St. Paul, Gal. 3, 27, all who have been baptized have put on Christ, and thus are truly regenerate, they have now arbitrium liberatum (a liberated will), that is, as Christ says, they have been made free again, John 8, 36; whence they are able not only to hear the Word, but also to assent to it and accept it, although in great weakness."

 

[Juliebug108]

Luther’s Bondage of the Will is not a part of the Lutheran Confessions - therefore, it is erroneous to say that what Luther says in it is the Lutheran position. The Lutheran position on any matter of faith is found in the Book of Concord. The Formula of Concord is a part of our Confessional heritage, and it teaches that there is a distinction between the baptized and unbaptized with regard to free will - the baptized do have free will in matters of salvation

Luther’s Bondage of the Will and The Augsburg Confessions say pretty much the exact same thing.

Also, you should note that the OP was originally speaking about Luther’s writings, and only asked for the Lutheran perspective of Matthew 25:31-46. Therefore, it is both necessary and appropriate to Discuss Luther’s Bondage of the Will in order to clarify just exactly what Luther believed.

Again, I will quote the Augsburg confession from the BOOK OF CONCORD, as I already have, and I will quote from the Bondage of the Will directly underneath it:

Augsburg:

Of Free Will they teach that man’s will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work things subject to reason.** But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God**, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the Word. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in his Hypognosticon, Book III: We grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether good or evil.

Bondage of the Will:

First, God has promised certainly His grace to the humbled: that is, to the self-deploring and despairing. But a man cannot be thoroughly humbled, until he comes to know that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsel, endeavours, will, and works, and absolutely depending on the will, counsel, pleasure, and work of another, that is, of God only.

They are saying the exact same thing. Therefore, what Luther is saying IS in fact the Lutheran position. You have also exactly pointed out how contradictory this position is with your quote from the Confessions:

Therefore there is a great difference between baptized and unbaptized men. For since, according to the doctrine of St. Paul, Gal. 3, 27, all who have been baptized have put on Christ, and thus are truly regenerate, they have now arbitrium liberatum (a liberated will), that is, as Christ says, they have been made free again, John 8, 36; whence they are able not only to hear the Word, but also to assent to it and accept it, although in great weakness."

First they say that one has no power or will of their own in dealing with their own salvation, and then they turn around and say that you do once God has given you His grace. So, which is it?! Either one has free will in things dealing with their salvation (like cooperating with God), or one does not! You cannot possibly have both. Having free will in spiritual matters is an either/or situation.

 

[Juliebug108]

Ok, let’s look at what the OP is asking here:

From what I am reading** according to Luther**, we have no (name removed by moderator)ut in our salvation it is all God. Well then in what sense can God be judging us as opposed to himself when we go to heaven or hell?

Does anyone go to hell according to his view? Then surely it must have been because of something they did or didn’t do and not just something that God did or didn’t do?

**
What is the Lutheran interpretation of Matthew 25:31-46**?

Clearly asking for Luther’s perspective and the Lutheran interpretation of scripture. Therefore, we should not just be foccussing on Lutheran doctrine, but the writings of LUTHER as well.

I agree with you, Iowa. It is a common mistake many Catholic apologists make, assuming all Luther’s writings and private opinions were and are Lutheran doctrine. A lot of posters forget that men like Melancthon and Chemnitz formed Lutheran doctrine in a significant way as well. Luther’s catechism and the confessions are what people should look to for definitive doctrine, not just his memoirs or his writings like Babylonian Captivity, etc…

Except in this case it is not a mistake at all. Luther’s position and the Lutheran doctrine are IDENTICAL. Again, the OP is not just asking for Lutheran doctrine, but specifically asked about Luther’s position.

 

[IowaJay]

The Bondage of the Will and the Augsburg Confession do not appear to addressing the post-baptismal, regenerative state. The Formula of Concord does.

 

[Juliebug108]

The Bondage of the Will and the Augsburg Confession do not appear to addressing the post-baptismal, regenerative state. The Formula of Concord does.

Right, and then it completely contradicts itself…post-baptismal, regenerative state says that we have the free will to cooperate with the Holy Spirit…sounds an awful lot like they are saying we have free will in dealing with our own salvation…which the confessions earlier denied that we had. It’s contradictory.

 

[IowaJay]

I’m still not seeing the contradiction as I believe the documents are answering two different questions, but in any event, God bless you on your journey. I think the Joint Declaration on Justification reveals that Catholics and Lutherans have the same basic understanding on such matters and the rest is hairsplitting, so this is not the issue that prevents me from becoming Catholic - the issue for me is ecclesiology moreso than soteriology.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The OP starts off asking Luther’s view but quickly says as the main meat in the post: What is the Lutheran interpretation of Matthew 25:31-46?
So I took it from there. Guess we just looked at different parts of the OP’s post…

Right, and then it completely contradicts itself…post-baptismal, regenerative state says that we have the free will to cooperate with the Holy Spirit…sounds an awful lot like they are saying we have free will in dealing with our own salvation…which the confessions earlier denied that we had. It’s contradictory.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Justification wasn’t so much my problem with Catholicism either…infallibility/universal papal supremacy, indulgences, treasury of merit, extra ecclesiam non salus, some Marian dogmas, etc. have always been my hangup…and what I see to be circular reasoning at times…

I’m still not seeing the contradiction as I believe the documents are answering two different questions, but in any event, God bless you on your journey. I think the Joint Declaration on Justification reveals that Catholics and Lutherans have the same basic understanding on such matters and the rest is hairsplitting, so this is not the issue that prevents me from becoming Catholic - the issue for me is ecclesiology moreso than soteriology.

 

[joemccarron]

Thank you all for responding.

You have already answered what was going to be my next question. What is a Lutheran. I was aware that Luther’s writings were not seen as infallible. So then how would one decide whether someone is a Lutheran or not?

I imagine there is some debate just as there is some debate in many churches. Even the Catholic Church teaches that it may stretch beyond the visible church. So I am not really bringing this up to quibble but really to understand.

It seems that the confessions expressed in the book of concord are pointed to as doctrine. And even if there is not agreement there the particular view of justification expressed there seems to be the cornerstone of Lutheranism. But again there may be disagreement on what the cornerstone is.

I quoted the defense of the Augsburg Confession as part of the book of concord. Is there consensus that it belongs in the Book of Concord? Is there consensus as to whether all the books of Concord represent Lutheran Doctrine?

Here is a quote from the defense of the Augsburg confession written by Melanchthon:

“73] Therefore, although we concede to free will the liberty and power to perform the outward
works of the Law, yet we do not ascribe to free will these spiritual matters, namely, truly to fear
God, truly to believe God, truly to be confident and hold that God regards us, hears us, forgives
us, etc.”

I would say he is basically saying our faith in in God is not due to anything in our free will. Would you agree? If our faith is both necessary and sufficient to save us and it has nothing to do with our free will then wouldn’t it follow our salvation is in no way based on our free will? That is certainly what the Professor from Concordia seemed to say was a fundamental belief of Lutheranism.

But I do see your point, Iowa, in other parts of these confessions we seem to hear more of “cooperation” between both a man and God to bring about salvation.

You say there is no contradiction because you suspect that comments which seem to indicate our will is useless for salvation assumes the will of an unbaptized person. Is there anything that would lead you to that assumption – other than that is how you reconcile an apparent contradiction?

I tend to question that assumption that Melanchthon is talking about unbaptized people. Perhaps I am wrong but this defense of the Augsburg Confession was written in response to Catholic “Adversaries”. If so, the assumption would be that all interested parties were baptized and to go off talking about people who were not baptized would seem out of place.

Here is a quote from the defense of the Augsburg Confession
“8] Afterwards a certain decree was published in which the adversaries boast that they have
refuted our Confession from the Scriptures.
9] You have now, therefore, reader, our Apology, from which you will understand not only what
the adversaries have judged (for we have reported in good faith), but also that they have
condemned several articles contrary to the manifest Scripture of the Holy Ghost so far are they
from overthrowing our propositions by means of the Scriptures.”

If “the adversaries” were unbaptized people then I think your assumption that he is referring to unbaptized people would have more weight.

But in any event: I take it that at least some Lutherans do believe our salvation is not entirely the work of God and does also require our own cooperation through the exercise of our free will. If that is the case then I do think we can meaningfully say God is actually judging us.

BTW: How do Lutherans interpret Mathew 25? It would seem a very hard passage since it seems those who are saved don’t even know why they would be saved, yet they are counted righteous by their works.

 

[josephback]

First, Joe, it might hgelp to know what the source of your reading is, but in brief, you are right that salvation is available only by grace. So, in that sense, it is all God. However, Lutherans believe that we have free will, free will to deny grace, reject Christ, and, effectively, choose condemnation.
Jon

Some modern Lutherans might accept free will, but Martin Luther denied it. In his “Bondage of the Will” he cited understandings on free will as THE reason for his break with Rome.

 

[Juliebug108]

Some modern Lutherans might accept free will, but Martin Luther denied it. In his “Bondage of the Will” he cited understandings on free will as THE reason for his break with Rome.

 

[Juliebug108]

BTW: How do Lutherans interpret Mathew 25? It would seem a very hard passage since it seems those who are saved don’t even know why they would be saved, yet they are counted righteous by their works.

I would also like to know. I am in full agreement with the Catholic Church’s position on faith AND works, and reject the Lutheran “faith alone” position. This is the primary source of scripture that I often use with other Lutherans to have them reconcile this with “faith alone”…I’m interested to see some responses.

 

[JonNC]

Luther’s Bondage of the Will is not a part of the Lutheran Confessions - therefore, it is erroneous to say that what Luther says in it is the Lutheran position. The Lutheran position on any matter of faith is found in the Book of Concord. The Formula of Concord is a part of our Confessional heritage, and it teaches that there is a distinction between the baptized and unbaptized with regard to free will - the baptized do have free will in matters of salvation:

“65] From this, then, it follows that as soon as the Holy Ghost, as has been said, through the Word and holy Sacraments, has begun in us this His work of regeneration and renewal, it is certain that through the power of the Holy Ghost we can and should cooperate, although still in great weakness. But this [that we cooperate] does not occur from our carnal natural powers, but from the new powers and gifts which the Holy Ghost has begun in us in conversion, 66] as St. Paul expressly and earnestly exhorts that as workers together with Him we receive not the grace of God in vain, 2 Cor. 6, 1. But this is to be understood in no other way than that the converted man does good to such an extent and so long as God by His Holy Spirit rules, guides, and leads him, and that as soon as God would withdraw His gracious hand from him, he could not for a moment persevere in obedience to God. But if this were understood thus [if any one would take the expression of St. Paul in this sense], that the converted man cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the manner as when two horses together draw a wagon, this could in no way be conceded without prejudice to the divine truth. (2 Cor. 6, 1: Sunergou’te” parakalou’men: We who are servants or coworkers with God beseech you who are God’s husbandry and God’s building, 1 Cor. 3, 9, to imitate our example, that the grace of God may not be among you in vain, 1 Cor. 15, 10, but that ye may be the temple of God, living and dwelling in you, 2 Cor. 6, 16.)

67] Therefore there is a great difference between baptized and unbaptized men. For since, according to the doctrine of St. Paul, Gal. 3, 27, all who have been baptized have put on Christ, and thus are truly regenerate, they have now arbitrium liberatum (a liberated will), that is, as Christ says, they have been made free again, John 8, 36; whence they are able not only to hear the Word, but also to assent to it and accept it, although in great weakness."

In short, we do not have the ability, of our own will, to come to justification. To believe that we do is pelagianism. This is where Lutherans say, we have no free will. But once regenerate, by the power of the Holy Spirit, by God’s desire that we be saved, we then have free will - to reject His grace and our salvation.
I’m at a loss, as well, to see the contradiction. And as you say, this does not seem to be a contradiction from Catholic teaching either, at least not when one reads the JDDJ.

In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.[11]

16.All people are called by God to salvation in Christ. Through Christ alone are we justified, when we receive this salvation in faith. Faith is itself God’s gift through the Holy Spirit who works through word and sacrament in the community of believers and who, at the same time, leads believers into that renewal of life which God will bring to completion in eternal life.

Jon