The Bondage Of The Will

[JM]

Hi folks.

Did Luther ever retract his work Bondage of the Will? I have been listening to a series of lectures on church history and the professor said Luther remained a hardcore predestinarian all his life, never retracting his work. The professor went on to say, and he acknowledges that Lutherans would disagree with him, that Melanchthon softened the Lutheran stance. Can it be demonstrated from Luther's works that he denied his teaching on predestination as taught in Bondage of the Will?

Thank you.

jm

 

[Resha Caner]

I think he continued to maintain his position on the will. There is a letter from 1537 where he indicates that.

However, I'm not sure the "predestination" you speak of is what Luther meant. It's not the Calvinist version, which Lutherans would call "double predestination".

Further, it needs to be clear that Lutherans don't view Luther as some indisputable church father. He was flawed just like everyone else, and so it doesn't matter whether he changed his opinion or not. What matters is the truth of the Word.

 

[Tangible]

"Lutheran" doesn't necessarily mean that we agree with everything Luther ever wrote. "Lutheran" means that we fully subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions in their original form, of which Luther was only one contributor.

And as Resha says, Luther's predestination and Calvin's predestination are not the same, as Lutheran monergism and Calvinist monergism are not the same.

 

[JM]

If Luther and Calvin disagreed on double predestination...can you show me where? After I read Luther's work I see a lot of Luther in Calvin's doctrine. It's just systematized much better.

Luther taught double predestination...others agree with me.

Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination by Brian G. Mattson

Martin Luther Clearly Taught Double Predestination, Yet Prominent (LCMS) Lutheran Pastor Paul T. McCain Remarkably Denies This

Martin Luther and Is Luther’s Doctrine of Predestination Reformed?

If I'm not mistake Zwingli did as well.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Tangible]

Others are wrong too.

Stop me if you've heard this one. A Calvinist walks into a Lutheran forum and attempts to convince Lutherans that Luther taught Calvinist doctrine using Calvinist sources and Calvinist theology.

And expects to be taken seriously.

(Sorry, it's not a very funny joke.)

 

[Andres88]

I remember reading the work, but unfortunately, I can't remember much of it anymore.

 

[JM]

Others are wrong too.

Stop me if you've heard this one. A Calvinist walks into a Lutheran forum and attempts to convince Lutherans that Luther taught Calvinist doctrine using Calvinist sources and Calvinist theology.

And expects to be taken seriously.

(Sorry, it's not a very funny joke.)

Seems like you have an issue with accuracy.

A Baptist asks a question in the Lutheran forum and attempts honest dialogue with Lutherans over the differences between Luther's doctrine on predestination and modern Lutheranism (aka Melanchthonism). The Lutheran response to the questions I asked has been what? Nothing of substance. Crack jokes? State they are different and leave it at that?

"Can it be demonstrated from Luther's works that he denied his teaching on predestination as taught in Bondage of the Will?"

"If Luther and Calvin disagreed on double predestination...can you show me where?"

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Seems like you have an issue with accuracy.

A Baptist asks a question in the Lutheran forum and attempts honest dialogue with Lutherans over the differences between Luther's doctrine on predestination and modern Lutheranism (aka Melanchthonism). The Lutheran response to the questions I asked has been what? Nothing of substance. Crack jokes? State they are difference and leave it at that?

"Can it be demonstrated from Luther's works that he denied his teaching on predestination as taught in Bondage of the Will?"

"If Luther and Calvin disagreed on double predestination...can you show me where?"

"Honest Dialogue"...if I had a nickel for every time someone came in here and used that term.

You're not asking questions. You're debating now. And you're being rude about it.

When we talk about what Lutherans believe, we generally use Lutheran sources, cuz...yeah, we're Lutheran.

Try going into the Catholic forum here and using Lutheran sources to argue about what Catholics teach. Trust me, you won't get far.

Refuting Calvinist Claims that Luther Taught Double-Predestination | CyberBrethren - A Lutheran Blog

 

[Resha Caner]

"If Luther and Calvin disagreed on double predestination...can you show me where?"

Luther and Calvin never met, and their correspondence was pretty limited. So, comparing Luther and Calvin largely becomes he-said/she-said. As such, let me ask you 2 questions:

1) Why do you think it matters whether Luther and Calvin differed?

2) Do you understand the difference between predestination and double predestination?

 

[JM]

To my dearest brother and sister Lutherans,

I'm accursed in post 5 and 8 of being dishonest. My questions are ignored and I'm being asked questions instead.

Hardly fruitful.

Since you are not able to answer my questions and I'm not able to debate I'll unsubscribe from the thread and allow you to continue trash talking.

 

[Tangible]

Seems like you have an issue with accuracy.

A Baptist asks a question in the Lutheran forum and attempts honest dialogue with Lutherans over the differences between Luther's doctrine on predestination and modern Lutheranism (aka Melanchthonism). The Lutheran response to the questions I asked has been what? Nothing of substance. Crack jokes? State they are different and leave it at that?

"Can it be demonstrated from Luther's works that he denied his teaching on predestination as taught in Bondage of the Will?"

"If Luther and Calvin disagreed on double predestination...can you show me where?"

I'm not sure who would ever say that "modern Lutheranism" is "aka Melanachthonism." As a matter of fact, it was Melanchthon who attempted to revise and water down the Lutheran Confessions in order to make them more compatible with and palatable for the Reformed.

To say that modern Lutheranism is really Melanachthonism is to say that modern Lutheranism is influenced by later Calvinist doctrine and theology.

 

[LilLamb219]

Hi folks.

Did Luther ever retract his work Bondage of the Will? I have been listening to a series of lectures on church history and the professor said Luther remained a hardcore predestinarian all his life, never retracting his work. The professor went on to say, and he acknowledges that Lutherans would disagree with him, that Melanchthon softened the Lutheran stance. Can it be demonstrated from Luther's works that he denied his teaching on predestination as taught in Bondage of the Will?

Thank you.

jm

Preacherswife gave you the link to your answer:
Refuting Calvinist Claims...

In that link is the very last writing from Luther (found in Luther's Works) on the topic.

There is a thread in the Denomination-Specific Theology forum called Lutheran rejection of double predestination. if you're interested in debating. Not everyone there who is posting is Lutheran so feel free to join in. Just remember the site rules when you do.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Hi folks.

Did Luther ever retract his work Bondage of the Will? I have been listening to a series of lectures on church history and the professor said Luther remained a hardcore predestinarian all his life, never retracting his work. The professor went on to say, and he acknowledges that Lutherans would disagree with him, that Melanchthon softened the Lutheran stance. Can it be demonstrated from Luther's works that he denied his teaching on predestination as taught in Bondage of the Will?

Thank you.

jm

No, Lutheran never retracted his stance, and yes, Melanchthon's account of predestination seems softer.

Lutherans make particular use of The Bondage of the Will as an example of our theology of "God revealed" vs. "God hidden" and "God naked" vs. "God clothed."

The God is who revealed, clothed in Christ, clothed in word, water, wafer, and wine, is all about mercy and salvation. The God who we know as he has chosen to reveal himself can only be said to practice single predestination- the predestination of his elect to salvation.

The God who is hidden is only found in terrifying naked power through the use of reason. The rational mind can only take what we know about God's election of people to salvation and reason that he also predestines people to damnation. That God is naked and terrifying and doesn't want to be found; it isn't as he has revealed himself. As a result, we can never be sure if what we've found there is God. Indeed, the terrifying, powerful, wrathful God of reason- the God also of the Law- is almost indistinguishable from Satan. That is the God who Job encountered, whom Job could not distinguish from Satan.

The result is that Lutherans can only affirm single predestination, because God has only revealed himself that way. Melanchthon therefore teaches that in his capacity as a confessor of the faith; Lutheran therefore shows Erasmus that Erasmus' reason can only lead to double predestination apart from fidelity to the preached Word.

So no, Luther never retracted his statements, but Lutherans haven't ignored it, either. We love The Bondage of the Will. But it fits into a much larger puzzle of theology and cannot be directly compared to Melanchthon's teachings in his Loci Communes.

If you're really curious about Luther and Melanchthon on this issue, I would highly, highly recommend the works of Gerhard Forde, especially Theology is For Proclamation and On Being a Theologian of the Cross.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

If Luther and Calvin disagreed on double predestination...can you show me where? After I read Luther's work I see a lot of Luther in Calvin's doctrine. It's just systematized much better.

Luther taught double predestination...others agree with me.

Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination by Brian G. Mattson

Martin Luther Clearly Taught Double Predestination, Yet Prominent (LCMS) Lutheran Pastor Paul T. McCain Remarkably Denies This

Martin Luther and Is Luther’s Doctrine of Predestination Reformed?

If I'm not mistake Zwingli did as well.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Zwingli's form of double predestination is really more like total determinism based on total compatibilism, because he didn't even believe in original sin.

 

[Resha Caner]

The result is that Lutherans can only affirm single predestination, because God has only revealed himself that way.

I've never heard it explained this way before. That is very interesting.

A facet of Lutheranism I have come to greatly admire is the willingness to say that we only speak to what has been revealed and don't make definitive statements on what hasn't been revealed. I wish other denominations would grasp the beauty of that.

The God who is hidden is only found in terrifying naked power through the use of reason. The rational mind can only take what we know about God's election of people to salvation and reason that he also predestines people to damnation. That God is naked and terrifying and doesn't want to be found; it isn't as he has revealed himself. As a result, we can never be sure if what we've found there is God. Indeed, the terrifying, powerful, wrathful God of reason- the God also of the Law- is almost indistinguishable from Satan. That is the God who Job encountered, whom Job could not distinguish from Satan.

With the above said, there are a few curious things about this second part that have always perplexed me (especially the bolded phrase). While I'm personally at peace with the whole predestination thing, I'm not sure I could say I'm 100% aligned with how Lutherans express that through the terms of single & double predestination.

So, a few questions:
1) On what are you basing the bolded phrase? I've never heard that before.

2) There are several terms and phrases in the Bible that could apply to this issue (predestine, foreordain, elect, etc.) but do they always apply to salvation?

This is an issue that often comes up related to works. For example, when the Bible speaks of producing good fruit, people seem to automatically assume producing good fruit is a requirement for salvation, but good fruit actually needs to be separated from salvation.

In a like manner, do these terms sometimes need to be separated from salvation? For example, God could predestine me to be an engineer per the Lutheran idea of vocation and that might be one meaning I could take from Jer 29:11. But that verse doesn't have to be speaking about salvation.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

1. I think just the fact that Job was always looking to God as the actor behind the torment, even though it was Satan the whole time. When we look for God apart from God's revelation, we come upon something quite different form the God whom we know in Jesus Christ. Again, I'd highly recommend Forde.

2. No, I don't think they do. For instance, I don't think God's choosing of Israel has more to do with God's plan to make Israel (and ultimately Jesus) his vehicle for cosmic redemption- a choosing to vocation. But vocation is always the slip side of salvation and part of predestination in at least one sense (Os Guiness has some good stuff on this). So I think you're right on that it doesn't always have to do with salvation, but it clearly does in Romans and Ephesians.

 

[Resha Caner]

So I think you're right on that it doesn't always have to do with salvation, but it clearly does in Romans and Ephesians.

Bible study time. So what does Romans & Ephesians say about predestination?

 

[bach90]

There was a large thread on this at some point, perhaps you could search and find some answers.

But basically, here are the differences spelled out.

Lutheran:
1) All men are sinners and from the moment of conception are doomed to hell because of Original Sin.

2) God elects people through the preaching of His Word and the Means of Grace.

Therefore, God singularly predestines the elect to salvation, but does not damn anyone to hell (we were already there)

Calvinism:
1) God, before all time, not only knew, but actively damned certain people and unconditionally elected others.

2)The elect are called through the "inner call" but the means of Grace are only for the elect, the means of Grace are not a vehicle by which God saves people
(In Calvinism, a member of the elect was saved before his Baptism. Infant Baptism is practiced not to save infants, but to incorporate them into the covenant [without diving into Federal vision because I know that exists]. Further only the elect truly receive the Lord, not corporeally, but spiritually. The reprobate receive bread).

3) God, therefore, damns some and elects others by his own choice.

That's a pretty broad overview of 500 years of theology.

 

[Resha Caner]

2) God elects people through the preaching of His Word and the Means of Grace.

This is a cool statement. Can you support this scripturally?

I know it's been said that God witnesses to people through Word and Sacrament, but I've never seen that tied to the idea of election before.

The more people say here, the more palatable the idea of single predestination is becoming, so keep it coming.

 

[bach90]

This is a cool statement. Can you support this scripturally?

I know it's been said that God witnesses to people through Word and Sacrament, but I've never seen that tied to the idea of election before.

The more people say here, the more palatable the idea of single predestination is becoming, so keep it coming.

Great question, since everything we say should be supported by Scripture.

I suppose I'd answer by saying that there is not a huge difference between saving someone and someone being elected, since, by definition if one is part of the elect one is saved and if one is saved one is part of the elect. I would say especially as a Lutheran, I don't see God pointing to person A saying you're saved and person B you're not. In fact, I would say God doesn't want to deal with us other than through his Word and Sacrament. When we receive Baptism, we can be assured that we are predestined, ann Moreover [those "whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Rom 8:30.

This isn't a knock against Calvinism, I don't even think predestination is its weakest point. The biggest problem I see in Calvinism is the P in TULIP.