Does it seem odd to you?

[Reformationist]

I actually have two questions. First, do you, as a Lutheran, agree with this statement made by one of your fellow Lutherans?:

"Lutherans don't believe in Double predestination."

Second, how do you define "double predestination?"

There is actually another question but it will depend on how you answer these. Don't worry. This is not a set up. I'm just trying to understand something about Lutheranism that confuses me.

God bless

 

[ByzantineDixie]

I actually saw Scott's post earlier and your response. I started pulling some reference material from Luther's works to respond but I have some housework I need to finish before I'll be able to get much together.

Scott is correct. We do not believe in double predestination. From one of our doctrine texts.

Double Predestination. John Calvin, who tried to follow Luther’s teaching, missed the context of his understanding of God’s choice of believers to be his own: Calvin separated the doctrine of election from the proper distinction of Law and Gospel. Thus, he taught a doctrine of double predestination. He believed that God has fashioned some human vessels to receive mercy as his children and other human vessels to be destroyed in hell.7 Without a strong doctrine of the means of grace, this approach fails to give some the assurance that they were among the elect.​

God wants all to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4&#65279. He gave Christ to be the expiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2&#65279. A doctrine of double predestination adjusts the logic of the matter, but it fails to deal with the tension involved in the mystery of evil in the presence of a gracious, omnipotent God. It makes it difficult to deal sensitively and properly with the difference between secure and broken sinners. Thus, it not only leaves itself open to offer security to arrogant sinners who count on election to cover their willful sins (as does every proclamation of grace). It leaves itself open to crush despairing sinners who cannot determine whether they are chosen or damned by God’s “horrible decree”—and such sinners generally tend to use the doctrine only to deepen their own despair​

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=8848230#_ftn27 7. John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 920–64.

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=8848230#_ftnref2Kolb, R. (2000, c1993). The Christian faith : A Lutheran exposition (electronic ed.). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.

Now I had better get to work before my husband gets home!

Peace

Rose

 

[Reformationist]

While I'm sure Kolb is more learned than I in the doctines which Luther did teach I fail to understand how what you posted shows that Luther was opposed to Calvin's teaching on God's active predestination (His efficacious work in the hearts of the elect to bring them to saving faith) and God's passive predestination (His active choice to leave some to their hardened nature, thereby securing their position as reprobate).

If you saw my response to Scott's post maybe you could explain how Lutherans, who claim to profess Luther's position on this matter, reconcile the quote of Luther's that I posted:

"This mightily offends our rational nature, that God should, of His own mere unbiased will, leave some men to themselves, harden them, and then condemn them; but He has given abundant demonstration, and does continually, that this is really the case, namely, that the sole cause why some are saved and others perish proceeds from His willing the salvation of the former and the perdition of the latter." - Martin Luther

These are Luther's words, not an exposition of Luther's theological position on the issue of the biblical validity of double predestination by a modern day theologian.

Any idea why there seems to be a conflict between what Luther taught and what Lutherans believe on this issue? Am I just understanding the above statement of Luther's out of context? It seems pretty crystal clear to me that he was advocating the exact same position on predestination that Calvin espoused.

God bless

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Are you able to site the reference for your quote? ...so that I (or the rest of the Lutherans) can understand the context of the source material and the point in time it was written. I did a quick search in Luther's Works but didn't find a match...could be because each translation is a little different. I still keep looking though.

Thanks-----R

 

[Reformationist]

Are you able to site the reference for your quote? ...so that I (or the rest of the Lutherans) can understand the context of the source material and the point in time it was written. I did a quick search in Luther's Works but didn't find a match...could be because each translation is a little different. I still keep looking though.

Thanks-----R

I'll see what I can find. I apologize for not providing that to begin with.

God bless
Don

 

[Reformationist]

Are you able to site the reference for your quote? ...so that I (or the rest of the Lutherans) can understand the context of the source material and the point in time it was written. I did a quick search in Luther's Works but didn't find a match...could be because each translation is a little different. I still keep looking though.

Thanks-----R

It comes from his book, The Bondage Of The Will, page 161 I believe. I do not have a copy of that book but one of you may.

"This mightily offends our rational nature, that God should, of his own mere unbiased will, leave some men to themselves, harden them, and then condemn them; but he has given abundant demonstration, and does continually, that this is really the case, namely, that the sole cause why some are saved and others perish proceeds from his willing the salvation of the former and the perdition of the latter..." (The Bondage of the Will 161).

Please forgive me for removing the link where I found the about reference but I took a closer look at the site and realized there was information that is not in keeping with the nature of this MB. The point was to find out where the quote came from. Hopefully that information is correct.

God bless

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Yes, that helps (too bad my copy doesn't have the same pagination!).

For starters I pulled this off of a site Recht pointed me to a while back, the WELS Q&A.

Luther in his Bondage of the Will (1525) can at times seem as if he taught double predestination. However, it is always necessary to look at the historical circumstances of any particular writing of Luther. His Bondage of the Will was written in response to Erasmus’ Concerning Free Choice in which Erasmus contended that human beings by nature have the ability to do good in God’s eyes and to choose to serve him and believe in him. Luther makes some strong statements to demonstrate Erasmus’ error. If you were to read more of Luther it would become clear that, unlike Calvin, Luther taught that God’s grace is universal (Smalcald Articles III, 4, Large Catechism 2nd Petition, 54, Weimar Ausgabe 52:618). Christ atoned for the sins of all and God has forgiven all (Luther’s Works 40:366-367). Luther does not try to harmonize God’s will to save all and his particular predestination of the elect. The answer to that question belongs to the hidden will of God. Human beings are not to inquire into this nor would it do them any good to try (LW 33:140). Luther was content to let this paradox stand: if a person is saved it is completely to God’s credit; if a person is lost it is completely that person’s own fault. He did not try to find an explanation that would be satisfactory to human reason and human logic.

The full question and answer can be located here.

I'll try to pull up some of these references before I have to call it a night.

Peace

Rose

 

[Reformationist]

Yes, that helps (too bad my copy doesn't have the same pagination!).

It may be helpful to know what context Luther made the statement in rather than just taking WELS Q&A's answer for it.

For starters I pulled this off of a site Recht pointed me to a while back, the WELS Q&A.

Okay. Let's see:

Luther makes some strong statements to demonstrate Erasmus’ error.

I could be mistaken but this sounds like a preemptive attempt to lessens Luther's vehemence by seeming to claim that he overdid it to make a point. I never got that from Luther.

Luther taught that God’s grace is universal (Smalcald Articles III, 4, Large Catechism 2nd Petition, 54, Weimar Ausgabe 52:618). Christ atoned for the sins of all and God has forgiven all (Luther’s Works 40:366-367).

Again, and I could be mistaken, both of these seem to clearly be at odds, at least on the surface, with what Luther taught. God's grace may have very well been universal, in the sense that God's grace, in some measure, is given to all mankind. However, if we wish to be responsible I think it is premature to assume that Luther believed that God's salvitic grace is universal because that mindframe necessarily leads to universalism, something that Luther clearly was against. Additionally, and I'm basing this on my limited exposure to Luther's writings, I highly doubt that Luther ever said God has forgiven all considering it is this very forgiveness that is only found in Christ and since not all are in Christ all cannot be forgiven. I'm am nowhere near Luther's intellectual equal and this facet of the Gospel seems to scream out at every page so I doubt he believed it.

The full question and answer can be located here.

While I appreciate these links I don't suppose you could post actual quotes of Luther rather than a bunch of people's opinion on how they understood Luther, could you? Basically, can you dumb it down for me? Luther said a lot of things and, to be honest, he often seemed to be pretty vehement about many of the same things that Calvin taught, to include God's active passivity in the reprobation of those who eternally perish.

I'll try to pull up some of these references before I have to call it a night.

Peace

Rose

Thanks again for your input Rose.

God bless,
Don

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Here is the Luther Works 33 p 140 referenced above...it speaks to many of your concerns regarding the fact that Christ died to save all. It is important to understand the concept of the Hidden God, to also understand the Lutheran position on the doctrine of election.​

​

Diatribe, however, deceives herself in her ignorance by not making any distinction between God preached and God hidden, that is, between the Word of God and God himself. God does many things that he does not disclose to us in his word; he also wills many things which he does not disclose himself as willing in his word. Thus he does not will the death of a sinner, according to his word; but he wills it according to that inscrutable will of his. It is our business, however, to pay attention to the word and leave that inscrutable will alone, for we must be guided by the word and not by that inscrutable will. After all, who can direct himself by a will completely inscrutable and unknowable? It is enough to know simply that there is a certain inscrutable will in God, and as to what, why, and how far it wills, that is something we have no right whatever to inquire into, hanker after, care about, or meddle with, but only to fear and adore.

It is therefore right to say, “If God does not desire our death, the fact that we perish must be imputed to our own will.” It is right, I mean, if you speak of God as preached; for he wills all men to be saved [I Tim. 2:4], seeing he comes with the word of salvation to all, and the fault is in the will that does not admit him, as he says in Matthew 23[:37]: “How often would I have gathered your children, and you would not!” But why that majesty of his does not remove or change this defect of our will in all men, since it is not in man’s power to do so, or why he imputes this defect to man, when man cannot help having it, we have no right to inquire; and though you may do a lot of inquiring, you will never find out. It is as Paul says in Romans 11[9:20]: “Who are you, to answer back to God?” Let these remarks suffice for that passage of Ezekiel, and let us go on to the rest.​

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=8849628#_ftn1http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=8849628#_ftnref1Luther, M. (1999, c1972). Vol. 33: Luther's works, vol. 33 : Career of the Reformer III (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

If I find anything else before I have to call it a day I'll post otherwise...I'll try again tomorrow evening.-----R

 

[Protoevangel]

"For if you concern yourself with this alone and believe that it has happened for your sake, you will certainly be preserved in this faith.... Look for yourself in Christ alone. . . . Then you will find yourself eternally in him."

"A dispute about predestination should be avoided entirely..."

"But in thinking about predestination, we forget God . . However, in Christ are hid all the treasures (Col. 2:3); outside him all are locked up. Therefore, we should simply refuse to argue about election."

"Such a disputation is so very displeasing to God that he has instituted Baptism, the spoken Word, and the Lord’s Supper to counteract the temptation to engage in it."

"In these, let us persist and constantly say., I am baptized I believe in Jesus. I care nothing about the disputation concerning predestination."

"For this you should know: All such suggestions and disputes about predestination are surely of the devil."


All quotes from "What Luther Says"
Concordia Publishing
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=0042402&netp_id=101519&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW

 

[ByzantineDixie]

DanHead...great quotes! Here is something along the same vain but also emphasizes the hidden will of God.....R

No. 5070: Predestination Cannot Be Searched Out
Between June 11 and 19, 1540​

“I was troubled,” said the doctor [Martin Luther], “by the thought of what God would do with me,87 but at length I repudiated such a thought and threw myself entirely on his revealed will. We can’t do any better than that. The hidden will of God can’t be searched out by man. God hides it on account of that very clever spirit, the devil, in order that he may be deceived. For he learned the revealed will from us, but God keeps the hidden will to himself. We have enough to learn about the humanity of Christ, in whom the Father revealed himself. But we are fools who neglect the revealed Word and the will of the Father in Christ and, instead, investigate mysteries which ought only be worshiped. As a result many break their necks.​

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=8850006#_ftn287 Luther had just mentioned his book The Bondage of the Will (1525) and the circumstances in which he wrote it.

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=8850006#_ftnref2Luther, M. (1999, c1967). Vol. 54: Luther's works, vol. 54 : Table Talk (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

 

[Reformationist]

"For if you concern yourself with this alone and believe that it has happened for your sake, you will certainly be preserved in this faith.... Look for yourself in Christ alone. . . . Then you will find yourself eternally in him."

"A dispute about predestination should be avoided entirely..."

"But in thinking about predestination, we forget God . . However, in Christ are hid all the treasures (Col. 2:3); outside him all are locked up. Therefore, we should simply refuse to argue about election."

"Such a disputation is so very displeasing to God that he has instituted Baptism, the spoken Word, and the Lord’s Supper to counteract the temptation to engage in it."

"In these, let us persist and constantly say., I am baptized I believe in Jesus. I care nothing about the disputation concerning predestination."

"For this you should know: All such suggestions and disputes about predestination are surely of the devil."


All quotes from "What Luther Says"
Concordia Publishing
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=0042402&netp_id=101519&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW

Uh...yeah. Thanks DanHead. I always love it when people say that my sincere questions are of the devil. That always helps.

For the record, I'm not asking if predestination is true. I'm just discussing Luther's position on it. If he didn't have one, or chose to ignore this issue due to our lack of available revelation then so be it.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

DanHead...great quotes! Here is something along the same vain but also emphasizes the hidden will of God.....R

No. 5070: Predestination Cannot Be Searched Out​

Between June 11 and 19, 1540

“I was troubled,” said the doctor [Martin Luther], “by the thought of what God would do with me,87 but at length I repudiated such a thought and threw myself entirely on his revealed will. We can’t do any better than that. The hidden will of God can’t be searched out by man. God hides it on account of that very clever spirit, the devil, in order that he may be deceived. For he learned the revealed will from us, but God keeps the hidden will to himself. We have enough to learn about the humanity of Christ, in whom the Father revealed himself. But we are fools who neglect the revealed Word and the will of the Father in Christ and, instead, investigate mysteries which ought only be worshiped. As a result many break their necks.​

87 Luther had just mentioned his book The Bondage of the Will (1525) and the circumstances in which he wrote it.

Luther, M. (1999, c1967). Vol. 54: Luther's works, vol. 54 : Table Talk (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

I'm getting the sinking feeling that you are all saying that God's revelation on His sovereign acts of predestination are not meant to be understood, rather they should just be accepted as His will? Is that how you all feel about it?

God bless

 

[Protoevangel]

Uh...yeah. Thanks DanHead. I always love it when people say that my sincere questions are of the devil. That always helps.

For the record, I'm not asking if predestination is true. I'm just discussing Luther's position on it. If he didn't have one, or chose to ignore this issue due to our lack of available revelation then so be it.

God bless

Come on Reformationist, I know you're just asking a question about what we believe. You aren't arguing or disputing... No need to take it personally, tt's just that whenever I think about Luther's teaching on predestination, these quotes are those that come to mind first.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Scripture tells use two distinct things...God has predestined some to faith, the elect. And God wants everyone to be saved. Luther did not (and Lutherans do not) yield to human reason to resolve that tension. We can't but God surely can. One can not go far in attempting to understand the Lutheran doctrine of election (which is what Luther taught) without also acknowledging the Hidden God...theodicy, I believe this the correct term.

I presume you'd rather me not but the WELS Q&A site does a far better job of explaining things than I can so here's another snippet from them.

Human reason has problems with the question why some are saved and not others. Human reason has trouble reconciling God's love for the whole world and his universal atonement with the particular predestination of some to salvation. Calvin solves the problem by drawing a conclusion that is logical according to human reason but which contradicts the Scriptures. He correctly says that those who are finally saved have been predestined by God for salvation, but he incorrectly concludes that those who are lost have been predestined by God to damnation. According to the Bible, if we are saved it is all to the credit of our God and his grace (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:10-28, Romans 8:29-30). If we are lost it is all our own fault (John 3:16-18, Romans 6:23a, Romans 1:18-23, Matthew 23:37). These statements might not be satisfying to human reason but they are statements based on what Scripture clearly teaches. Since we dare not draw apparently logical conclusions which the Scriptures do not allow, we take our reason captive to God’s Word (2 Corinthians 10:5) and let God be God. As St. Paul declares, “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Who has ever given to God that God should repay him? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen (Romans 11:33-36).

Sorry, Ref...we are Lutherans...we have learned to revel in our paradoxes and thrive within our tensions!

Rose

 

[Reformationist]

Come on Reformationist, I know you're just asking a question about what we believe. You aren't arguing or disputing... No need to take it personally, tt's just that whenever I think about Luther's teaching on predestination, these quotes are those that come to mind first.

My apologies. I think you misinterpreted my tone. I should have added a smilie to show the joking manner in which I meant it.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Sorry, Ref...we are Lutherans...we have learned to revel in our paradoxes and thrive within our tensions!

Rose

LOL! It's cool. The truth is that the Word of God is not something that anyone can just pick up and understand. Luther was a great one for indepth study of the Gospel and we should make no mistake, it takes a lot of study and a lot of grace. I just think what you're telling me is too complicated. I hate to boil it down as if it's simple. Maybe I'm just one of those people who needs symmetry. I honestly think that one of the main reasons people avoid proclaiming God's active reprobation of anyone is to avoid implicating Him in some act of unrighteousness. Anyway, I appreciate your involvement, even though Lutheranism still confuses me. Well, Luther confused me so I guess that shouldn't come as a shock. The guy was too intelligent for his own good. I've always thought that Luther's respect for Melanchthon's intellectual prowess spoke volumes about how smart Melanchthon really was, even if Luther did vehemently oppose him on certain points of doctrine.

God bless

 

[ByzantineDixie]

That's OK, I like symmetry, too! I understand what you mean about being complicated...its only complicated because our brains naturally want to apply symmetry. Once we discipline them to be "more free" (that sounds like something my French boss would say!) it becomes a little easier. Actually this doctrine is far simpler for me to grasp than our doctrine of Sanctification...I still stumble with that periodically!

Thanks for the dialog, Ref.

'nite

Rose

 

[Reformationist]

According to the Bible, if we are saved it is all to the credit of our God and his grace (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:10-28, Romans 8:29-30). If we are lost it is all our own fault (John 3:16-18, Romans 6:23a, Romans 1:18-23, Matthew 23:37).

Just for the record, this is what Calvin taught. The difference, and that is, I believe, only one of semantics, is that Calvin gave greater acknowledgement to God's sovereign ability to change man's inherent proclivity to rebel and His subsequent active decision to change or not change this defect in man's character. Acknowledging God's sovereign ability to change man's spiritual polarity but His lack of divine intercession in actually changing it is implicitly stating that God has left them to their own depraved inclinations, which is predestining them to the natural end of their carnality.

It seems to be an unnecessary mincing of words to say, as the Lutheran says, that God has the authority and ability to change man's inherently rebellious nature but since He does not then all the blame is on man. Of course the blame is on man. Calvin never contended otherwise. As I said, the issue with Calvin was in recognizing God's active passivity in leaving the reprobate to their carnality. This isn't proclaiming a lack of involvement on God's side. This is proclaiming His sovereign decision to leave them to their depravity. He does this knowing that they will procure for themselves His wrath. He made the decision as to who He would grant the grace of saving faith in eternity past and, by default, also made the decision who would NOT receive that grace. If we acknowledge that it is THAT grace that saves then it stands to reason that a lack of THAT grace effectively ensures a person's rebellion. To acknowledge as much is to acknowledge the biblical validity of double predestination as Calvin taught it.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Actually this doctrine is far simpler for me to grasp than our doctrine of Sanctification...I still stumble with that periodically!

I shudder at the thought...

Thanks for the dialog, Ref.

'nite

Rose

Thank you Rose. Have a good night and I pray that the Lord gives you rest rather than having you go over these discussions in your mind as you're trying to fall asleep. I truly hate it when that happens.

God bless,
Don