Lutheran teachings on election

The Lutheran position is that God elects all to salvation, and that the atonement is effective for everybody. There is no predestination to damnation as in Calvinism. While it's not an official teaching of the ELCA, many people, both in the pews and rostered are universalists. It's a bit different from classical Arminism because there is more of an active cooperation in Arminism, while Lutheranism is a passive acceptance of the saving grace.

Lutherans do not believe in Double predestination. To sum it up simply, if someone is saved it's election and they can't take any credit, not even to say that they didn't resist or something. If someone is damned, they resisted the Holy Spirit and it's their own fault. Yes, this is a paradox. As a former calvinist, I had a hard time grasping this until it became clear that for Lutherans, election is not the center of soteriology. Instead it focuses on Christ, assurance, and the sacraments, with election being a side issue.

Lutherans won't view Arminianism with much difference from Calvinism: for Calvinist the election is preordained before our free-will exists, while for those of Remonstrance the election is based off God's knowledge of your future choices. The "choice" or free-will of the individual supersedes the imputed grace of God, from the viewpoint of most Lutherans. For Lutherans, free-will is generally seen as denial of total depravity, which challenges the Biblical significance of original sin. For most Lutherans, Arminians fail to avoid double-predestination, because all they've done in reality is substituted God's will for their own.

I know Arminianism does profess imputed grace and original sin, but then seem to contradict what they profess by using a marginal level of works righteousness to work-off sins, or the full effect of original sin, over the lifespan of the Christian. Lutherans will believe in total depravity from birth to death, despite our baptisms, but that this depravity isn't accounted against us in judgement where our baptism and confession in God are righteously professed. As depraved individuals, our own will in any capacity is an automatic double-predestination to hell in technical terms; so Lutherans see salvation as 100% imputed grace, while our free-will is generally our greatest enemy.

I like that

FireDragon76 said:

I've never met an Arminian with any theological acumen that believes we pay for our sins through our works. I do believe they take a strong stance against antinomianism, however, especially the Wesleyans/Methodists.

Click to expand...

You got that right. Their commitment to the third use of the Law is admirable.

Roger Olson admits there are problems philosophically reconciling divine foreknowledge and freedom in classical theism. He simply sees an all-loving God as more biblical.

Click to expand...

Philosophy is, sadly, the basis of all Reformation discussion on Divine foreknowledge- hence the mess and the continuing useless debate about it. Scripture is quoted, but the underlying philosophy determines the assumptions. Luther was a staunch hard determinist. The Lutheran Confessions qualify that and smooth it out to avoid excesses not based in scripture. I think that approach is best- holding hard and possibly opposite truths in tension, even if human reason can't fathom it. God elects via monergism, but does not damn for "his good pleasure".

My personal experience with Arminianism has been through an Aunt who pastored an UMC congregation; while other family members are UMC and Pentecostal. My Mom was raised UMC before moving over to Lutheranism.

So, my viewpoint, as likely with many other Lutherans, may not concisely conform to the Synod of Dort?

God has already saved us from ourselves, it's just a mystery as to why some still fall. As for the future of those in Hell, it's not necessary to know if they're going to be redeemed at some point; because salvation into Heaven the 1st time around is the only goal as God witnesses through us.

The Four Books of Sentences is a book of theology written by Peter Lombard in the 12th century, from which Luther achieved his Doctorate in Catholicism. "Love" is the centerpiece of the scholastic-theology of Lombard, and I would be interested in understanding the extent to which Arminian "love" correspond, if at all, to Roman-Catholic "love"?

Luther disliked scholastic-theology and had an Antinomian viewpoint of Rome's love. Rome obviously accused Luther's doctrine of faith as being Antinomian. To this day, we see pointing fingers at one another as to whether Antinomianism is found in Rome's love which produces works or Luther's faith which produces works?

For Romans, works are a necessity to acquire and retain love, and love has strong ties to salvation and election for them. Roman love has a strong free-will component that Lutherans will take issue with, very similarly to that of Arminianism. I don't know to what extent Wesleyan theology or Arminian theology ties in the Roman concept of love, into mainline Arminianism?

Election in Lutheran theology is best demonstrated in Paul's statements in Ephesians 1:3-14. Elected .. “in Christ”; predestined ... “in Christ.” Thus the issue is whether you are “in Christ” (Ephesians 2:4-9). If you are, then you know you have been predestined/elected.

filosofer said:

Election in Lutheran theology is best demonstrated in Paul's statements in Ephesians 1:3-14. Elected .. “in Christ”; predestined ... “in Christ.” Thus the issue is whether you are “in Christ” (Ephesians 2:4-9). If you are, then you know you have been predestined/elected.

Click to expand...

Every school of theology says that too. The beauty of Lutheran theology is that it refuses to say more than what is in the text. It doesn't pretend to solve the logical dilemma.

I kept telling myself: Just leave it alone. Just leave it alone. I guess that didn't work.

ContraMundum said:

The beauty of Lutheran theology is that it refuses to say more than what is in the text.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree.

ContraMundum said:

It doesn't pretend to solve the logical dilemma.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you're technically correct that Luther spoke in those terms. However, I think it would be better to say there is no logical dilemma to solve. Yet I don't fault people who admit they are struggling to understand why that is, and who continue to ask questions.

FireDragon76 said:

That sounds like Karl Barth.

Click to expand...

And the Arminian Robert Shank, I might add.

I'm just wondering how Lutherans evangelize... does the doctrines of election hinder evangelism? I suppose Lutherans can say "Christ died for you", but denying a role of the will in accepting that might cause problems in apologetics. Most Lutherans I know don't seem enthusiastic at all about sharing their faith or beliefs. I believe Lutheranism just assumes Christianity is normative, and the problem is people are wondering about assurance, not the reality of God or Jesus.

Click to expand...

Yeah, in my experience, the Lutheran circles in which I have traveled generally don't evangelize. I think it's more of a cultural thing rather than a doctrinal thing. They will, however, try to "Lutheranize" other Christians without a problem.

Being witnessed too, is proof of election, and God working through others, fulfilling his will. So, evangelism goes hand-in-hand with election. Imputed faith simply means God receives all glory for preordaining the opportunity to witness and evangelize. The will of the flesh tempts us from and discourages us from evangelizing. Faith and divine intervention set us free from our bondage of the will to our fallen flesh.