Are There Any Double-Predestination Lutherans?

[jinc1019]

I'm not advocating for double-predestination, the doctrine that God elects, before the foundation of the world, both people to life in Christ (through faith alone) and those to eternal damnation (unbelief) according to His will.

I am, however, curious if there are any Lutherans/Lutheran church bodies that believe this? Any that officially teach it? I realize this belief would be in violation of some parts of the Book of Concord, but my understanding is not all Lutheran denominations hold to all of the Book of Concord as confessional anyway.

Thanks for your time, as always!

-J

 

[GracetotheHumble]

I believe in predestination so yes I would say my beliefs probably fall under this category. I am somewhat Calvinist in some ways I would say.

 

[Tigger45]

No, I've never heard of an official teaching of double predestination by any Lutheran source. We are predestined to salvation but we have the choice to reject it. That's one of the reasons I like Lutheranism. It embraces biblical paradoxes.

 

[Obedientiarius]

Predestination, as defined in the OP, is contrary to Lutheran soteriology. There are probably individuals within Lutheranism who hold to that view, but it is not a 'Lutheran' view.

 

[jinc1019]

Thanks for all the responses! I appreciate it. I find this interesting, especially since Luther obviously held to a double-predestination view for much of his own life.

 

[filosofer]

Thanks for all the responses! I appreciate it. I find this interesting, especially since Luther obviously held to a double-predestination view for much of his own life.

No, he did not hold to that view most of his life. Just to note that we are not followers of Luther, rather we hold to the confession of faith, only four of the ten writings come from Luther's pen, with his crucial influence on two others (Augsburg Confession and Apology of the Augsburg Confession). You won't find double predestination in any of the confessional writings.

 

[jinc1019]

No, he did not hold to that view most of his life. Just to note that we are not followers of Luther, rather we hold to the confession of faith, only four of the ten writings come from Luther's pen, with his crucial influence on two others (Augsburg Confession and Apology of the Augsburg Confession). You won't find double predestination in any of the confessional writings.

Because of forum rules, I can't "debate," so I won't ... but anyone who reads his writings would see his views clearly changed. That's all I'll say.

Further, I never said the Book of Concord teaches double predestination. I said the opposite of that, in fact! However, that doesn't have anything to do with your point, since Luther didn't actually write much in the Book of Concord.

 

[Tangible]

[Double] Predestination, as defined in the OP, is contrary to Lutheran soteriology. There are probably individuals within Lutheranism who hold to that view, but it is not a 'Lutheran' view.

No, I've never heard of an official teaching of double predestination by any Lutheran source. We are predestined to salvation but we have the choice to reject it. That's one of the reasons I like Lutheranism. It embraces biblical paradoxes.

What they said. In that order.

Scriptural predestination is a doctrine of Gospel, not Law. It is for the encouragement and comfort of the believer.

Double predestination is a confusion of Law and Gospel. It is not a doctrine of comfort, but of terror. It is not encouragement to rest in the finished work of Christ but is a source of confusion that points believers to either their own works and good deeds or to the whim of a capricious God for their assurance of salvation, not to Christ alone.

 

[jinc1019]

What they said. In that order.

Scriptural predestination is a doctrine of Gospel, not Law. It is for the encouragement and comfort of the believer.

Double predestination is a confusion of Law and Gospel. It is not a doctrine of comfort, but of terror. It is not encouragement to rest in the finished work of Christ but is a source of confusion that points believers to either their own works and good deeds or to the whim of a capricious God for their assurance of salvation, not to Christ alone.

Thanks to you and to all those who replied!

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

I am a 5 point Lutheran. I don't believe in "double predestination" but am accused along with all Calvinists of it. It depends on what the meaning of the phrase actually means. Case in point, here "He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives" according to http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination Despite this if you read Jordan Cooper's latest book he will accuse them of just that. Now to me this is basically calling Calvinists complete heretics. It is ethnocentric or just blind hatred. They are either together with us in Christ or not but this yes and no attitude....where to their face we have minor differences and behind their backs they are heretics is so hypocritical. This is probably why there are no public debates between Calvinists and Lutherans because well.... stringent dogma on both sides. One is against Tulip, the other is vehemently against the Sacraments--- so the whole body of Christ suffers consequently, now is that a better result?

 

[Tangible]

I don't understand what a 5 point Lutheran is. Could you please explain?

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

Essentially that the rejection of the the LIP in Tulip is unwarranted and no real serious exegetical argumentation nor public debates have been attempted; Why should I not be allowed to be sacramental while espousing Tulip? I am not simply a Calvinist because they don't believe in the 2 sacraments. How would you define me? Neither? BTW I know already that the top Lutherans who are on social media are very dogmatic and would tell me I'm not Lutheran, yet in my personal life, one of my pastors who is now in his late 60s and retired was quite a reknowned Lutheran and has admitted that he could accept all of the them except L; so it's just ethnocentrism; no serious theological reason.

 

[Tangible]

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Lutheran theologians and scholars would disagree with your assessment of TULIP. Finding one pastor who agrees with you doesn't necessarily make you right. Heck, Lutheran pastors have espoused all kinds of crazy doctrines.

As for ethnocentrism, well, that's just a Western concept.

 

[jinc1019]

Essentially that the rejection of the the LIP in Tulip is unwarranted and no real serious exegetical argumentation nor public debates have been attempted; Why should I not be allowed to be sacramental while espousing Tulip? I am not simply a Calvinist because they don't believe in the 2 sacraments. How would you define me? Neither? BTW I know already that the top Lutherans who are on social media are very dogmatic and would tell me I'm not Lutheran, yet in my personal life, one of my pastors who is now in his late 60s and retired was quite a reknowned Lutheran and has admitted that he could accept all of the them except L; so it's just ethnocentrism; no serious theological reason.

Really interesting stuff. Basically, although I'm not Lutheran, I agree COMPLETELY with your view here. I believe both in the efficacy of the sacraments and I believe (essentially) in TULIP. I don't think I've ever met anyone who takes that view, though. I've long been stuck without a church because theologically, I'm a mix of Lutheranism and Calvinism. Neither is really a perfect fit, and the strict adherence to each side's confessions has kept me out of both denominations. I've considered Anglicanism too, by the way, but I feel very uncomfortable with the rise of Anglo-Catholicism/Arminianism in that branch of Christendom. If you get a chance, PM me. I'd love to hear your thoughts on what you think the best fit for me would be.

 

[jinc1019]

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Lutheran theologians and scholars would disagree with your assessment of TULIP. Finding one pastor who agrees with you doesn't necessarily make you right. Heck, Lutheran pastors have espoused all kinds of crazy doctrines.

As for ethnocentrism, well, that's just a Western concept.

I definitely agree most Lutherans would reject limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance (for the non-elect). However, in the I and P points, Lutherans would do so acknowledging the paradox of taking such a position.

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

Really interesting stuff. Basically, although I'm not Lutheran, I agree COMPLETELY with your view here. I believe both in the efficacy of the sacraments and I believe (essentially) in TULIP. I don't think I've ever met anyone who takes that view, though. I've long been stuck without a church because theologically, I'm a mix of Lutheranism and Calvinism. Neither is really a perfect fit, and the strict adherence to each side's confessions has kept me out of both denominations. I've considered Anglicanism too, by the way, but I feel very uncomfortable with the rise of Anglo-Catholicism/Arminianism in that branch of Christendom. If you get a chance, PM me. I'd love to hear your thoughts on what you think the best fit for me would be.

Awesome! That is very encouraging to hear. Yea I have thought about Anglicanism too but I don't know of any conservative ones. I know there are more of us out there we are just shunned as if we have sinned greatly lol.... or committed adultery. Anyway, I just think it is most logical that the ancient Christians believed in the sacraments, but at the same time, affirmed faith and grace alone. To me the ancients were primarily Christocentric. While the Lutherans claim to be more Christocentric in everything, they undermine justification for example in 2 Peter 2:1 by this idea of "going in and out of election"; this contradicts both the eternal plan of God outside of time in the trinity as well as the whole concept of man having free will in salvation, thus the LIP and in fact undermines the gospel aspect of the Sacraments. But hey Calvinists lack Christocentricity by spiritualizing the Sacraments. So the obviously conclusion to me is a mix of both. I will certainly keep in contact my friend thanks.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Alright folks, that's enough. You're in OUR house, be respectful. You don't come in here and tell us how Lutherans are incorrect in our teachings.

 

[jinc1019]

Alright folks, that's enough. You're in OUR house, be respectful. You don't come in here and tell us how Lutherans are incorrect in our teachings.

Not sure what I said that gave you that impression. I simply said I agreed with his view about predestination. I didn't say anything about Lutherans being wrong.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Not sure what I said that gave you that impression. I simply said I agreed with his view about predestination. I didn't say anything about Lutherans being wrong.

I wasn't specifically talking to any one poster.

 

[KEPLER]

As far as I'm concerned, the doctrine of limited atonement is formal heresy.

Kepler