Lutheran rejection of double predestination.

ContraMundum · Mar 29, 2014

Hi All....just wanting to follow up on a thread from TC-L.

The argument was brought up that Luther supported double-predestination in his work "On the Bondage of the Will" but that the Lutheran Confessions reject that notion.

I assert that Luther is insisting on not coming down on the side of double predestination- it's really about the position of reason in Luther's theology. He clarifies it further here- which is written afterward. The issue is that the matter needs to be understood also in the light of the universal atonement.

Another poster noted that:

Also Luther didn't change his mind over TBOTW. He regarded that as one of his best productions and he affirmed this in writing as late as 1538 only a few years before his death.

Not everyone thinks the later Luther is better than the earlier, and vice versa. He said some pretty radical things in his later career that no-one would agree with now. The bottom line is that he would never have thought to have penetrated and solved the mystery of election, and thus never dogmatically taught the doctrine of double-predestination of (for example) the Reformed. He simply couldn't go that far in the light of the universal atonement and God's grace.

To help clear the air why the BoC came to make the statement on Election that you think is not agreeable with scripture, have a read of this.

Lastly, here's an article by a strict Confessional Lutheran pastor and former double-predestinarian that nails the matter of how the Reformed come to the error of denying the universal atonement and affirming double-predestination. Note also the same author's paragraph on "Election" in this article.

I think Luther had to qualify what he wrote in TBOTW in order to not mis-lead those who would come to the conclusion that he supported double-predestination. I side with the Formula of Concord.

yeshuaslavejeff · Mar 29, 2014

what does it have to do at all with universal atonement? I never heard a Lutheran in my life agree with u.a., which might not mean much as my memory .... well, ... let's just say might not be 'perfect' .

ContraMundum · Mar 30, 2014

yeshuaslavejeff said:
what does it have to do at all with universal atonement? I never heard a Lutheran in my life agree with u.a., which might not mean much as my memory .... well, ... let's just say might not be 'perfect' .

Hi brother....Universal (unlimited) Atonement is the norm for Lutheran theology. There is a debate in Lutheranism whether or not there is universal objective justification (but seriously, let's not de-rail this!) but that's not what it meant on this topic.

Simply put, I don't think one can reconcile unlimited atonement with double predestination. Nice paper on it here. The Confessions are cited in that Article.

St_Worm2 · Mar 30, 2014

Double or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination

An interesting article from the other side about both sides ..

--David

Edward65 · Mar 30, 2014

ContraMundum said:
Hi All....just wanting to follow up on a thread from TC-L.

The argument was brought up that Luther supported double-predestination in his work "On the Bondage of the Will" but that the Lutheran Confessions reject that notion.

I assert that Luther is insisting on not coming down on the side of double predestination- it's really about the position of reason in Luther's theology. He clarifies it further here- which is written afterward. The issue is that the matter needs to be understood also in the light of the universal atonement.

Another poster noted that:

Not everyone thinks the later Luther is better than the earlier, and vice versa. He said some pretty radical things in his later career that no-one would agree with now. The bottom line is that he would never have thought to have penetrated and solved the mystery of election, and thus never dogmatically taught the doctrine of double-predestination of (for example) the Reformed. He simply couldn't go that far in the light of the universal atonement and God's grace.

To help clear the air why the BoC came to make the statement on Election that you think is not agreeable with scripture, have a read of this.

Lastly, here's an article by a strict Confessional Lutheran pastor and former double-predestinarian that nails the matter of how the Reformed come to the error of denying the universal atonement and affirming double-predestination. Note also the same author's paragraph on "Election" in this article.

I think Luther had to qualify what he wrote in TBOTW in order to not mis-lead those who would come to the conclusion that he supported double-predestination. I side with the Formula of Concord.

Quote from Luthers The Bondage of the Will:

I SHALL here draw this book to a conclusion: prepared if it were necessary to pursue this Discussion still farther. Though I consider that I have now abundantly satisfied the godly man, who wishes to believe the truth without making resistance. For if we believe it to be true, that God fore-knows and fore-ordains all things; that He can be neither deceived nor hindered in His Prescience and Predestination; and that nothing can take place but according to His Will, (which reason herself is compelled to confess) then, even according to the testimony of reason herself, there can be no Free-will in man, in angel, or in any creature! (Sect. CLXVII, Cole)

Ive not had a chance to read the articles you refer to but will try and do so soon. However as you can see from the above quote which forms part of Luthers conclusion to his book, he says that God fore-ordains all things and that nothing can take place unless Hes willed it, so that settles the issue. Luther therefore held that people are damned because God has predestined it to happen according to His will (i.e. has willed not to regenerate them through the Holy Spirit, but willed to leave them in their sinful state inherited from Adam)

Luther of course held to universal atonement, but he didnt see this as a logical contradiction to double predestination. He explained the apparent paradox in terms of God having two wills - through His hidden will He predestined everything that happens, whilst according to His revealed will He desires everyones salvation and sent Christ to atone for everyones sins. (I also agree that this is the teaching of Scripture).

ContraMundum · Mar 30, 2014

Edward65 said:
Quote from Luthers The Bondage of the Will:

I SHALL here draw this book to a conclusion: prepared if it were necessary to pursue this Discussion still farther. Though I consider that I have now abundantly satisfied the godly man, who wishes to believe the truth without making resistance. For if we believe it to be true, that God fore-knows and fore-ordains all things; that He can be neither deceived nor hindered in His Prescience and Predestination; and that nothing can take place but according to His Will, (which reason herself is compelled to confess) then, even according to the testimony of reason herself, there can be no Free-will in man, in angel, or in any creature! (Sect. CLXVII, Cole)

Ive not had a chance to read the articles you refer to but will try and do so soon. However as you can see from the above quote which forms part of Luthers conclusion to his book, he says that God fore-ordains all things and that nothing can take place unless Hes willed it, so that settles the issue.

That would mean you are misunderstanding Luther. Read the articles cited and let him explain himself to you.

Luther therefore held that people are damned because God has predestined it to happen according to His will (i.e. has willed not to regenerate them through the Holy Spirit, but willed to leave them in their sinful state inherited from Adam)

Luther of course held to universal atonement, but he didnt see this as a logical contradiction to double predestination. He explained the apparent paradox in terms of God having two wills - through His hidden will He predestined everything that happens, whilst according to His revealed will He desires everyones salvation and sent Christ to atone for everyones sins. (I also agree that this is the teaching of Scripture).

Almost there..read what I cited.

Edward65 · Mar 31, 2014

ContraMundum said:
That would mean you are misunderstanding Luther. Read the articles cited and let him explain himself to you.

Almost there..read what I cited.

Quote from the American Edition of Luther’s Works 5:43-50; Luther’s Genesis Commentary, commenting on Genesis 29:9):

“I have wanted to teach and transmit this in such a painstaking and accurate way because after my death many will publish my books and will prove from them errors of every kind and their own delusions. Among other things, however, I have written that everything is absolute and unavoidable; but at the same time I have added that one must look at the revealed God, as we sing in the hymn: Er heist Jesu Christ, der HERR Zebaoth, und ist kein ander Gott, “Jesus Christ is the Lord of hosts, and there is no other God”—and also in very many other places. But they will pass over all these places and take only those that deal with the hidden God. Accordingly, you who are listening to me now should remember that I have taught that one should not inquire into the predestination of the hidden God but should be satisfied with what is revealed through the calling and through the ministry of the Word. For then you can be sure about your faith and salvation and say: “I believe in the Son of God, who said (John 3:36): ‘He who believes in the Son has eternal life.’ ” Hence no condemnation or wrath rests on him, but he enjoys the good pleasure of God the Father. But I have publicly stated these same things elsewhere in my books, and now I am also teaching them by word of mouth. Therefore I am excused". (End of quote)

If you notice Luther affirms that God predestines all things when he says ”I have written that everything is absolute and unavoidable”. If everything is absolute and unavoidable then it must happen, and since God is omnipotent as Luther argues in the TBOTW it follows it happens according to God’s will. In other words everything is predestined to happen and God predestines people to heaven and hell. Luther argued in TBOTW (a book which he never rescinded) that God predestines or fore-ordains everything that happens.

The Lutheran interpretation of Luther’s Genesis commentary above that Luther is denying predestination to hell isn’t correct. Luther was only arguing that we can’t know who God has predestined to be saved and damned, and that we can only approach God through Christ.

Lutherans (or rather those who call themselves Lutherans) have a collective mental block in not being able to see that Luther taught predestination to both heaven and hell.

LilLamb219 · Mar 31, 2014

Edward65 said:
Lutherans (or rather those who call themselves Lutherans) have a collective mental block in not being able to see that Luther taught predestination to both heaven and hell.

Lutherans do not see Martin Luther as some sort of pope or god that we follow blindly. In fact, we don't follow him at all. We follow our triune God.

Luther believed many different things during his lifetime. So to use quotes from Luther to try to "prove" that Lutherans should believe in something is useless. Who cares what Luther said? Lutherans care what the bible says because that's where we find God's Word.

Edward65 · Mar 31, 2014

LilLamb219 said:
Lutherans do not see Martin Luther as some sort of pope or god that we follow blindly. In fact, we don't follow him at all. We follow our triune God.

Luther believed many different things during his lifetime. So to use quotes from Luther to try to "prove" that Lutherans should believe in something is useless. Who cares what Luther said? Lutherans care what the bible says because that's where we find God's Word.

I dont see Luther as some sort of pope either and nor have I suggested that I do. The subject I was addressing was the claim made by those who call themselves Lutherans that Luther didnt hold predestination to hell.

Now why do Lutherans feel they need to argue that Luther didnt hold predestination to hell? Well one reason is obviously that it would prove somewhat embarrassing to them if in fact Luther did believe in predestination to hell when they themselves dont, and they call themselves after his name.

Also it was accepted by true Lutherans at the time of the Reformation that Luther had been sent by God to reform the church and whilst of course he wasnt regarded as infallible he was regarded as prophetical in his condemnation of Roman Catholicism. So I think you might want to possibly agree with the view that Luther wasnt just any inconsequential person who can be dismissed in terms of who cares what Luther said. A lot of Christians actually do care what Luther said even if some Lutherans dont.

So whilst it doesnt settle any issue one way or the other simply whether Luther was for or against something, I think what he says is worthy of study and evaluation. And the point is Luther did not reject predestination to hell, and he argued forcefully against Erasmus in support of absolute predestination.

So the next question to ask is were Luthers arguments in favour of predestination to both heaven and hell truly Scriptural in TBOTW, and my conviction is that they are and that Luther proved from Scripture that God predestines people to both heaven and hell.

The idea that since Luther wasnt infallible he can be dismissed as if he had nothing of any value to contribute is frankly insulting to Luther, and one would expect that those who call themselves after his name would think otherwise. One needs to evaluate what Luther argues to see whether what he asserts is in conformity with Scripture. Hes convinced me for instance that Paul in Romans 9 teaches predestination to both heaven and hell, and that therefore it follows that the Formula of Concords teaching on predestination is false.

ContraMundum · Mar 31, 2014

Edward65 said:
I don’t see Luther as some sort of pope either and nor have I suggested that I do. The subject I was addressing was the claim made by those who call themselves Lutherans that Luther didn’t hold predestination to hell.

Luther didn't hold predestination to Hell- he affirmed God's foreknowledge and sovereignty, but understood the paradox that the very plain and pure word of God says clearly in places that the cause of damnation is man's lack of faith. There are serious difficulties with double predestination, as belief in it forces a lot of interpretation on plain passages of the Bible, and Luther's hermeneutic stated that the plain meaning was the right one unless compelling evidence was present to the contrary, and secondly that no text should violate the analogy of faith. Double predestination breaks both of those rules.

I think the problem you have here is that you have a rather unusual take on what makes a Lutheran- it is not, as has been said more than once, belief in Luther's words. There are very good reasons why Lutherans don't follow Luther. One would be that Luther said that was wrong, and a second is that Luther said things that were very wrong and met with opposition amongst his colleagues.

Now why do Lutherans feel they need to argue that Luther didn’t hold predestination to hell? Well one reason is obviously that it would prove somewhat embarrassing to them if in fact Luther did believe in predestination to hell when they themselves don’t, and they call themselves after his name.

You fail to note that the title "Lutheran" was not taken by Lutherans as a badge of "we follow Luther", but rather was coined by the opponents of the Evangelical movement. The original and more correct term for "Lutherans" is "Evangelicals", which was the original term.

Secondly, you are basing your opinion on the force of one book, in which statements were later qualified somewhat.

Thirdly, there are valid, sound and correct reasons to reject double predestination- which we can discuss if you wish.

Also it was accepted by true Lutherans at the time of the Reformation that Luther had been sent by God to reform the church and whilst of course he wasn’t regarded as infallible he was regarded as prophetical in his condemnation of Roman Catholicism. So I think you might want to possibly agree with the view that Luther wasn’t just any inconsequential person who can be dismissed in terms of “who cares what Luther said”. A lot of Christians actually do care what Luther said even if some “Lutherans” don’t.

This is missing the point. Luther said a lot of things. People do care- but they don't check their brain in at the door of the church. Luther is not above Paul, who himself was checked out by the Bereans, an act that scripture considers noble-minded.

So whilst it doesn’t settle any issue one way or the other simply whether Luther was for or against something, I think what he says is worthy of study and evaluation. And the point is Luther did not reject predestination to hell, and he argued forcefully against Erasmus in support of absolute predestination.

Not many will dispute that in one book Luther argued for sovereignty and a large degree of determinism. The point is, as in all theology- was it right? Was it an over-reaction? Why did Luther later retract from it to some degree?

So the next question to ask is were Luther’s arguments in favour of predestination to both heaven and hell truly Scriptural in TBOTW, and my conviction is that they are and that Luther proved from Scripture that God predestines people to both heaven and hell.

On the basis of scripture I would argue that predestination to Hell is a heresy and injurious to God's honour. Every single Lutheran dogmatics book I have agrees with that. (I would further add that it is based on pagan philosophies of God which Augustine- who brought it into the church- hadn't let go of).

The idea that since Luther wasn’t infallible he can be dismissed as if he had nothing of any value to contribute is frankly insulting to Luther, and one would expect that those who call themselves after his name would think otherwise.

Wow, this is so far from Lutheranism as I have experienced it than any comment so far. One of my observations in a certain sector of Lutheranism is that some revere Luther too much.

Secondly, do you really think Luther would be insulted if someone disagreed with him? I don't think he would bat an eyelid. Furthermore Luther was prone to insulting his opponents and even calling for their destruction (and I don't mean symbolically, but actually calling for serious persecution)- are we all meant to respect that?

One of the things with Luther is that he taught his people to go to the Bible, even to correct him. This is why there are Lutheran Confessions- to double check not just Luther but every teacher of that day. To me that is sound and sane.

One needs to evaluate what Luther argues to see whether what he asserts is in conformity with Scripture. He’s convinced me for instance that Paul in Romans 9 teaches predestination to both heaven and hell, and that therefore it follows that the Formula of Concord’s teaching on predestination is false.

Well...all I can say is that Rom 9 doesn't lead me to that conclusion at all, and I think the Formula of Concord is brilliant.

Have you read this?

Edward65 · Mar 31, 2014

ContraMundum said:
Well...all I can say is that Rom 9 doesn't lead me to that conclusion at all, and I think the Formula of Concord is brilliant.

Have you read this?

Yes I have read it in the past. Have you read The Bondage of the Will?

Coming to Romans 9 Paul says:

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will? But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, Why have you made me like this? Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (Romans 9:18-21 ESV)

Lutherans who follow the Formula of Concord assert that God only hardens people in unbelief because they have rejected the Gospel. But this is merely to read their own mistaken theology into what Paul says here because Paul says nothing of the sort, but rather says that God determines whom He will harden purely on the basis of what He has willed to do before they were born. (Romans 9:11)

If the Lutheran understanding was correct then Paul wouldnt introduce people complaining about God continuing to find fault, because no one would be offended if God hardened those who deserved it and continued to find fault with them.

Pauls argument is that God has the right to leave people in their sinful state inherited from Adam and to harden them in it, and that we have no right to question God.

Edward65 · Mar 31, 2014

ContraMundum said:
Luther didn't hold predestination to Hell- he affirmed God's foreknowledge and sovereignty, but understood the paradox that the very plain and pure word of God says clearly in places that the cause of damnation is man's lack of faith. There are serious difficulties with double predestination, as belief in it forces a lot of interpretation on plain passages of the Bible, and Luther's hermeneutic stated that the plain meaning was the right one unless compelling evidence was present to the contrary, and secondly that no text should violate the analogy of faith. Double predestination breaks both of those rules.

I think the problem you have here is that you have a rather unusual take on what makes a Lutheran- it is not, as has been said more than once, belief in Luther's words.

You fail to note that the title "Lutheran" was not taken by Lutherans as a badge of "we follow Luther", but rather was coined by the opponents of the Evangelical movement. The original and more correct term for "Lutherans" is "Evangelicals", which was the original term.

Secondly, you are basing your opinion on the force of one book, in which statements were later qualified somewhat.

Not many will dispute that in one book Luther argued for sovereignty and a large degree of determinism. The point is, as in all theology- was it right? Was it an over-reaction? Why did Luther later retract from it to some degree?

Wow, this is so far from Lutheranism as I have experienced it than any comment so far. One of my observations in a certain sector of Lutheranism is that some revere Luther too much.

Have you read this?

Briefly in reply to your points above, since God is omnipotent and nothing can happen unless He wills it, and He has perfect foreknowledge of all future events, this shows that God predestines everything that happens including who is saved and damned.

Predestination to hell doesnt pose any problems as long as one understands it in the context of Gods hidden will which determines beforehand how things will unfold, and distinguishes it from His revealed will in Christ which desires everyones salvation.

I made it clear in my last but one post that we must evaluate what Luther teaches and not blindly follow him. People keep saying to me that Lutherans dont follow Luther the man which I already know is the case. I havent accused any Lutheran of following Luther the man so I dont know why they should think I think that.

The fact that the term Lutheran was initially a pejorative word hasnt stopped people from identifying themselves as Lutherans and using it in a complimentary manner, so it would potentially embarrass them if it was acknowledged by them that Luther rejected their theology on predestination.

Some who call themselves Lutherans have of course gone too far in eulogising him, but others who identify themselves as Lutherans have gone to the other extreme and wish to distance themselves from him, and like to say things like who cares what Luther thinks. One needs to keep to a middle path.

Luther never retracted anything he wrote in TBOTW but rather affirmed in later life that what hed written in reply to Erasmus was one of the best things hed ever written.

Ive just read the article you refer to again and everything that Luther says I agree with. Theres nothing he says which in any way militates against the truth that he held predestination to hell.

ContraMundum · Apr 1, 2014

Edward65 said:
Yes I have read it in the past. Have you read The Bondage of the Will?

I actually don't believe you have read the source I cited. Could you address it? It does make several points that pretty much need to be addressed.

I read Bondage of the Will and didn't think much of it, as a matter of fact. I'm glad it isn't in the Book of Concord in the way the Catechisms are. It's filled with determinist philosphy, which is then interpreting the Bible texts. I think Luther breaks a couple of his own rules in it. Most translations available are from Reformed authors and it's more important to the Reformed as a work than it is to just about every one else. On my list of favoured works of Luther, it wouldn't feature.

Lutherans who follow the Formula of Concord assert that God only hardens people in unbelief because they have rejected the Gospel. But this is merely to read their own mistaken theology into what Paul says here because Paul says nothing of the sort, but rather says that God determines whom He will harden purely on the basis of what He has willed to do before they were born. (Romans 9:11)

If the Lutheran understanding was correct then Paul wouldn’t introduce people complaining about God continuing to find fault, because no one would be offended if God hardened those who deserved it and continued to find fault with them.

Paul’s argument is that God has the right to leave people in their sinful state inherited from Adam and to harden them in it, and that we have no right to question God.

You're obviously not even reading what I am putting before you- which prompts a serious question from me- am I wasting my time? Merely quoting hard determist interpretations of the Bible, of which I am more than familiar with, does nothing to this conversation. It's not even necessary actually. Everybody knows them.

The fact of the matter is that Luther is gently following the lead of Augustine, and in fact is going a little too far in that book, which theologians of all stripes are prone to do in times of controversy. So I forgive him for being a little too extravagant.

The idea that God has a hidden will and revealed will is quite sound. We have His revealed will, but we do not have His hidden will. His revealed will says nothing about Him choosing to send people to Hell. Nor does it say that He passes them by. No texts exist. Not one. Ever. So, why do some assert what God has never revealed? Simple: darkened, fallen and sinful human reason draws such conclusions. They cannot reconcile texts dealing with God's sovereignty with texts dealing with human free will. So what do they do? They either sacrifice free-will or they sacrifice God's sovereignty. They water down whatever doctrine upsets their theological world-view.

You are free to fall into the traps of human reason. Ironically, your decision to follow your own fallen reasoning is either God's plan for you or your own free will or a mixture of both- depending on your theological point of view. In your (current) view God has determined either you or me to be wrong. Weird, huh?

Worth noting is the pagan notion of determinism which crept in traces into Augustine's theology and certain trace elements were passed onto Luther and Calvin (and also Mohammed). According to some ancient philosophers, God could only know the future if He determined it beforehand. In this way of thinking God mapped out every detail of the future and thus has an infallible knowledge of it and absolute sovereignty over it. Sounds fine and agreeable to what you believe at present, right?

The problem is that the Bible doesn't teach that doctrine. The Bible is essentially a Hebrew (not pagan Greek) book and God revealed His Word to the Hebrews, who in being formed by that revelation didn't share the pagan philosophy that God is constrained in His foresight to time and space. In the Hebraic (Biblical) view, God knows the future because He foresees it (even simultaneously), and His sovereignty in His interaction with it is kept in mystery. We are simply not told how God thinks and how He intervenes, interacts or otherwise chooses to deal with His creation. In other words, we know for sure that God foresees the future, but how much He determines it is not revealed. He is capable of determining everything, but the Bible teaches us about things He leaves (in His sovereign choice and will) to us.

Luther argues for God's absolute sovereignty, but shys away from saying how God exercises it. Some Reformed theologians take it to the next step (borrowing Luther out of context) and tell us all how God exercises His sovereignty. He picks and chooses people to Hell or Heaven for no known reason. The Cross is only for a tiny elect. Everyone else gets picked to go to God's concentration camp for dissidents and there's nothing anyone can do about it. And we thought Hitler was bad!

This is the genius of the Formula of Concord. It affirms what God has definitely said and revealed, and leaves that which is not revealed in the realm of mystery. Furthermore, it reveres and respects that mystery. The pagans, the Reformed and others seek to penetrate that mystery by use of their own reasoning, which in turn hunts out Bible passages (or whatever revelation they may choose) that may support that reasoning and cast their own meanings on those passages. The Formula of Concord is far more faithful and honouring to God and is prepared to remain silent where revelation is silent.

So, here's the bottom line: how do you know you are elect? How do you know that you are the one who proverbally won the heavenly lottery ticket to Heaven? If God didn't pick you all this stressing about theology will mean nothing to you. What's your Gospel?

ContraMundum · Apr 1, 2014

Edward65 said:
Ive just read the article you refer to again and everything that Luther says I agree with. Theres nothing he says which in any way militates against the truth that he held predestination to hell.

Here is where you misunderstand Lutheran (and indeed every major Christian position's) beliefs about the Bible. You can't make the assumption that because God is sovereign that He chooses people to go to Hell. Why? Because there is no text in the Bible that says that. That doctrine is arrived at by way of reason, based on an interpretation of Bible texts, not Divine self-disclosure.

Furthermore, you end up ignoring texts that teach clearly what God's will is. Texts like 1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:9, Ezek. 18:23,33, Ps. 135:14 and dozens others tell us clearly and directly about God's will and His character, which determines His will. Clear, direct texts such as these that would teach about Him choosing people to damnation according to His will don't even exist.

I'll share more later if you wish.

Edward65 · Apr 1, 2014

ContraMundum said:
I actually don't believe you have read the source I cited. Could you address it? It does make several points that pretty much need to be addressed.

I read Bondage of the Will and didn't think much of it, as a matter of fact. I'm glad it isn't in the Book of Concord in the way the Catechisms are. It's filled with determinist philosphy, which is then interpreting the Bible texts. I think Luther breaks a couple of his own rules in it. Most translations available are from Reformed authors and it's more important to the Reformed as a work than it is to just about every one else. On my list of favoured works of Luther, it wouldn't feature.

You're obviously not even reading what I am putting before you- which prompts a serious question from me- am I wasting my time? Merely quoting hard determist interpretations of the Bible, of which I am more than familiar with, does nothing to this conversation. It's not even necessary actually. Everybody knows them.

The fact of the matter is that Luther is gently following the lead of Augustine, and in fact is going a little too far in that book, which theologians of all stripes are prone to do in times of controversy. So I forgive him for being a little too extravagant.

The idea that God has a hidden will and revealed will is quite sound. We have His revealed will, but we do not have His hidden will. His revealed will says nothing about Him choosing to send people to Hell. Nor does it say that He passes them by. No texts exist. Not one. Ever. So, why do some assert what God has never revealed? Simple: darkened, fallen and sinful human reason draws such conclusions. They cannot reconcile texts dealing with God's sovereignty with texts dealing with human free will. So what do they do? They either sacrifice free-will or they sacrifice God's sovereignty. They water down whatever doctrine upsets their theological world-view.

You are free to fall into the traps of human reason. Ironically, your decision to follow your own fallen reasoning is either God's plan for you or your own free will or a mixture of both- depending on your theological point of view. In your (current) view God has determined either you or me to be wrong. Weird, huh?

Worth noting is the pagan notion of determinism which crept in traces into Augustine's theology and certain trace elements were passed onto Luther and Calvin (and also Mohammed). According to some ancient philosophers, God could only know the future if He determined it beforehand. In this way of thinking God mapped out every detail of the future and thus has an infallible knowledge of it and absolute sovereignty over it. Sounds fine and agreeable to what you believe at present, right?

The problem is that the Bible doesn't teach that doctrine. The Bible is essentially a Hebrew (not pagan Greek) book and God revealed His Word to the Hebrews, who in being formed by that revelation didn't share the pagan philosophy that God is constrained in His foresight to time and space. In the Hebraic (Biblical) view, God knows the future because He foresees it (even simultaneously), and His sovereignty in His interaction with it is kept in mystery. We are simply not told how God thinks and how He intervenes, interacts or otherwise chooses to deal with His creation. In other words, we know for sure that God foresees the future, but how much He determines it is not revealed. He is capable of determining everything, but the Bible teaches us about things He leaves (in His sovereign choice and will) to us.

Luther argues for God's absolute sovereignty, but shys away from saying how God exercises it. Some Reformed theologians take it to the next step (borrowing Luther out of context) and tell us all how God exercises His sovereignty. He picks and chooses people to Hell or Heaven for no known reason. The Cross is only for a tiny elect. Everyone else gets picked to go to God's concentration camp for dissidents and there's nothing anyone can do about it. And we thought Hitler was bad!

This is the genius of the Formula of Concord. It affirms what God has definitely said and revealed, and leaves that which is not revealed in the realm of mystery. Furthermore, it reveres and respects that mystery. The pagans, the Reformed and others seek to penetrate that mystery by use of their own reasoning, which in turn hunts out Bible passages (or whatever revelation they may choose) that may support that reasoning and cast their own meanings on those passages. The Formula of Concord is far more faithful and honouring to God and is prepared to remain silent where revelation is silent.

So, here's the bottom line: how do you know you are elect? How do you know that you are the one who proverbally won the heavenly lottery ticket to Heaven? If God didn't pick you all this stressing about theology will mean nothing to you. What's your Gospel?

I have read the article you refer me to namely Refuting Calvinist Claims that Luther Taught Double-Predestination only it does nothing of the sort - it's just Lutheran misinterpretation. I don't see any points I need to address myself to since the author's comments are based on a misunderstanding of Luther.

I agree with Luthers assessment of The Bondage of the Will as being a great book and Im fully convinced its the teaching of Scripture. The Lutheran publishers CPH have also put out a translation which forms part of Luthers Works and Ive compared that with the Henry Cole and Packer & Johnston Reformed translations and dont see any substantive difference between them.

You ask whether youre wasting your time replying to me and probably you are, because since you wont accept the plain meaning of Paul in Romans 9 we havent got much in common and are unlikely to reach any form of agreement. You feel inclined to forgive Luther for what you think is his extravagance of interpretation when I concur with Luther in thinking that what he wrote was the absolute truth.

We dont know who God through His hidden will has predestined to save or damn or what He has determined to happen in the world in the future, although of course we know Christ will return at the end, but Gods predestination shouldnt be confused with His will in Christ through which He comes and offers salvation to everyone. According to his revealed will human beings are to be blamed if theyre damned, but behind all this stands Gods hidden will which determines who will be able to believe and who wont. i.e. only those drawn by the Father to Christ can believe (John 6:44,64-65)

Free will isnt the teaching of Scripture rather determinism is. Isaiah says: The former things I declared of old; they went out from my mouth, and I announced them; then suddenly I did them, and they came to pass. (Isaiah 48:3 ESV), and Have you not heard that I determined it long ago? I planned from days of old what now I bring to pass, (Isaiah 37:26 ESV), and Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose, (Isaiah 46:8-10 ESV). Teaching and believing that we have free will is to fall into the trap of human reason.

The Formula of Concords doctrine on predestination is unbiblical and illogical and Luther would have disowned it - that much is clear from any reading of TBOTW which doesnt read it with with blinkers on. Lutherans who think Luther would have endorsed their views on predestination are living in a fantasy world.

When you ask So, here's the bottom line: how do you know you are elect? How do you know that you are the one who proverbally won the heavenly lottery ticket to Heaven? you seem to be forgetting that the Formula of Concord which you extol teaches predestination to heaven and rejects free will in matters of salvation, so you seem to be getting rather confused.

Also to talk in terms of winning lottery tickets to heaven when the Scriptures make it plain that only the elect will be saved isn't God honouring talk. Christians know they are elected and predestined to be saved because they have faith in Christ. Thats also what Luther says in the article above you referred me to: but concerning God you must maintain with assurance and without any doubt that He is well disposed toward you on account of Christ and that you have been redeemed and sanctified through the precious blood of the Son of God. And in this way you will be sure of your predestination. (From the American Edition of Luthers Works 5:43-50; Luthers Genesis Commentary, commenting on Genesis 29:9)

LilLamb219 · Apr 1, 2014

Edward65 said:
Christians know they are elected and predestined to be saved because they have faith in Christ.

Lutherans know they are elected not because they have faith but because they have a Savior. The one who died for ALL.

Edward65 · Apr 1, 2014

LilLamb219 said:
Lutherans know they are elected not because they have faith but because they have a Savior. The one who died for ALL.

It's obviously true that Christians know they are elected because they have a Saviour in Christ who died for them as you say, but how do they know they have a Saviour except that they believe this and accept it through faith?

Since Christ atoned for the sins of the whole world and not just the sins of the elect (like TULIP Calvinists believe), Christ is the Saviour of everyone, but it's only through faith that one comes to know that Christ is one's Saviour, so one can't divorce Christ from the faith that apprehends Him.

Edward65 · Apr 1, 2014

ContraMundum said:
Could you address it? It does make several points that pretty much need to be addressed.

Ok let me come back to the article “Refuting Calvinist Claims that Luther Taught Double-Predestination”. If you mean that I should address myself to the points that Luther made in the quote that the author of the article gives, I don’t see that Luther says anything that would lead one to suppose he didn’t hold predestination to hell. I don’t understand why the author quotes the passage of Luther's in support of his idea that Luther rejected predestination to hell since the passage doesn’t support that. On the contrary it supports predestination to both heaven and hell because Luther says in his commentary: “I have written that everything is absolute and unavoidable” The author of the article actually proves the exact opposite of what he set out to prove. The passage shows that Luther did hold predestination to hell.

With regards to the author saying that TULIP Calvinists don’t understand that Lutherans don’t base their theology on what Luther wrote (or words to that effect) I’ve never come across any Calvinists (admittedly in my limited interaction with them) that do hold that Lutherans blindly follow Luther. I would think it almost universally accepted by those who claim to be Christians that they only give unqualified approval to the teaching of Christ, and then only to the teaching of Christian leaders in so far as their theology agrees with Christ’s teaching.

The author of the article says that Calvinists take what Luther says in TBOTW in isolation from his other works, but since Luther never retracted or contradicted what he taught in TBOTW in any of his other writings there’s no problem associated with taking TBOTW in isolation from the rest of his writings. What Luther wrote in TBOTW he was convinced was the absolute truth of God and he stuck by that.

I've just come across a something which Luther said which is open to misunderstanding. Luther said:

It pleases me to take from this passage the opportunity to discuss doubt, God, and the will of God; for I hear that here and there among the nobles and persons of importance vicious statements are being spread abroad concerning predestination or God’s foreknowledge. For this is what they say: “If I am predestined, I shall be saved, whether I do good or evil. If I am not predestined, I shall be condemned regardless of my works.”

Luther in saying “if I am not predestined” wasn’t denying that he held predestination to hell but was simply meaning it as referring to predestination to heaven – “if I am not predestined to heaven” was his meaning.

Predestination to heaven and hell is through means. One isn’t predestined regardless of one’s faith or lack of it. Rather if one is predestined to be saved God regenerates one and gives one faith, but if one is predestined to be damned God doesn’t regenerate one, but leaves one in one’s unbelief and sinful state inherited from our first parents.

Luther makes the point several times that we aren't to investigate the hidden God (The One who rules the world according to his omnipotent will) but he wasn't denying that God predestines people to heaven and hell, but only that it is impossible for us to know who God has predestined to heaven and hell. His argument is that if we want to know God, then we should only approach Him through Christ, where He offers salvation, and that if we believe in Christ then this is a sure indication that we're predestined to be saved, as we wouldn't come to Christ otherwise:

"If you listen to Him, are baptized in His name, and love His Word, then you are surely predestined and are certain of your salvation. But if you revile or despise the Word, then you are damned; for he who does not believe is condemned" (Mark 16:16).

LilLamb219 · Apr 1, 2014

Edward65 said:
It's obviously true that Christians know they are elected because they have a Saviour in Christ who died for them as you say, but how do they know they have a Saviour except that they believe this and accept it through faith?

Since Christ atoned for the sins of the whole world and not just the sins of the elect (like TULIP Calvinists believe), Christ is the Saviour of everyone, but it's only through faith that one comes to know that Christ is one's Saviour, so one can't divorce Christ from the faith that apprehends Him.

I'm not denying faith.

What I'm saying is that Lutherans are Christ-oriented. We look to the Savior. Faith is that connection to the Savior but why point to faith when you can point to the One who redeems?

Too many other denominations say that they're saved because of their faith...but Lutherans state the obvious and what should be said, we're saved because of our Savior. When people say they're saved by faith...faith in what is the question? That's why it's better to just be up front about it in the first place.

ContraMundum · Apr 1, 2014

Edward65 said:
You ask whether youre wasting your time replying to me and probably you are, because since you wont accept the plain meaning of Paul in Romans 9 we havent got much in common and are unlikely to reach any form of agreement. You feel inclined to forgive Luther for what you think is his extravagance of interpretation when I concur with Luther in thinking that what he wrote was the absolute truth.

Romans 9 - read plainly without insertions or intepretations is not about individual salvation or election to Hell or Heaven. It is about God's election of nations to do His will. Find me one verse in there that talks about election of individuals to Hell. Paul is obviously beginning his discourse on the role of the nation of Israel here. In order to explain the choice of the Jews over the other nations Paul teaches on God's sovereignty. This is the plainest meaning of all, and the only one that fits into the context of the following two chapters.

Repeat- not one verse in the Bible clearly and indisputably (plainly) teaches that God chooses people to go to Hell. Not one. Why then do you teach and believe it?

But we have several verses that teach clearly that God's will is that all should be saved and that He is love (out of which all His attributes flow) Why do you deny this?

We dont know who God through His hidden will has predestined to save or damn or what He has determined to happen in the world in the future, although of course we know Christ will return at the end, but Gods predestination shouldnt be confused with His will in Christ through which He comes and offers salvation to everyone. According to his revealed will human beings are to be blamed if theyre damned, but behind all this stands Gods hidden will which determines who will be able to believe and who wont. i.e. only those drawn by the Father to Christ can believe (John 6:44,64-65)

This is the real reason why you have a problem with Lutheranism- you've been duped by the Reformed.

It's really not that hard- let me explain.

I think you've missed the entire point here- the use of reason to solve that which is not revealed. This is what Luther absolutely teaches and you won't understand TBOTW without it. So far you have not addressed it at all.

I gave you more than one link to read and digest- you need to get cracking on that or you'll start sounding like a fanatic for a position you haven't fully explored yet.

The Reformed have a truncated view of grace. To them, the means of grace ultimately is the sovereign choice of a God who by His good pleasure sends people to His concentration camp for dissidents- who He made dissident to begin with! So, in effect, because He determines everything He sends people to Hell- an eternity of punishment- for reasons that He created in them to begin with. This of course completely undermines the Biblical doctrine of justice which is an attribute of God.

So, the problem will always be with that theology is that you can never really know if you are elect or not. Even the most devout Christian can ultimately not have been chosen to persevere to the end. IOW, you can live your whole life burying your head in books filled with Reformed catchphrases like "The doctrines of Grace" and what not but never know if you are saved- because you can't know the hidden will of God.

Free will isnt the teaching of Scripture rather determinism is. Isaiah says: The former things I declared of old; they went out from my mouth, and I announced them; then suddenly I did them, and they came to pass. (Isaiah 48:3 ESV), and Have you not heard that I determined it long ago? I planned from days of old what now I bring to pass, (Isaiah 37:26 ESV), and Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose, (Isaiah 46:8-10 ESV). Teaching and believing that we have free will is to fall into the trap of human reason.

You're making a classic Reformed error here- that the choices are "Free-will vs. Determinism". Nope- those are not the only two options. How about affirming both? Your "mentor" Luther did!

Scripture teaches both free-will and determinism, and not once are we given a border that tells us where one ends and the other begins. You just have to live with it! We all agree that salvation must begin and end with God. Man is powerless to choose to believe and have faith without God's grace. But the rest is not so clear. Does God choose what shirt you will wear today? What theology you will believe? God always places choices before humanity. This is the plainest reading of passages like Dt 30:11-19. Notice that when any Christian other than a determinist reads those passages they don't interpret them to say something that they clearly don't. eg. A hard determinist HAS to alter the meaning of the plain words to make his doctrine fly.

You know the different between interpretation and exegesis? Interpretation casts a meaning onto the text. Exegesis draws what's there and lays it out- nothing more.

The Formula of Concords doctrine on predestination is unbiblical and illogical and Luther would have disowned it - that much is clear from any reading of TBOTW which doesnt read it with with blinkers on. Lutherans who think Luther would have endorsed their views on predestination are living in a fantasy world.

Again, Luther is not the rule of faith for any Christian. He was wrong on more than one occassion, and I think you misunderstand him in TBOTW because you have failed to take into account his teaching on human reason. You need to read more than one book to start pontificating on what you think he would have endorsed and what he didn't.

When you ask So, here's the bottom line: how do you know you are elect? How do you know that you are the one who proverbally won the heavenly lottery ticket to Heaven? you seem to be forgetting that the Formula of Concord which you extol teaches predestination to heaven and rejects free will in matters of salvation, so you seem to be getting rather confused.

LOL...nice try. That's not what I asked. How do you know you are chosen to get to Heaven?

Christians know they are elected and predestined to be saved because they have faith in Christ. Thats also what Luther says in the article above you referred me to: but concerning God you must maintain with assurance and without any doubt that He is well disposed toward you on account of Christ and that you have been redeemed and sanctified through the precious blood of the Son of God. And in this way you will be sure of your predestination. (From the American Edition of Luthers Works 5:43-50; Luthers Genesis Commentary, commenting on Genesis 29:9)

Again....you have here a Luther that contradicts your own interpretation of him! How can YOU say that God is "well disposed toward you on account of Christ and that you have been redeemed and sanctified through the precious blood of the Son of God. And in this way you will be sure of your predestination.

Simply put, if you are a hard determinist, you can't know. You can only say that you feel or believe you have faith and you believe in Christ...but because Luther taught that of our own free will we can resist the Holy Spirit and even fall away....are you truly elect?

It seems to me that you are in a bit of a theological quandry. Here's the difference. A person holding Biblical theology, outlined in the Book of Concord and believed by the vast majority of Christians for centuries beforehand, can say that they are saved because they believe the promises of God contained in the Word. A hard determinist can't say that. God may have sent them a delusion, or may take their faith away at some point- or they may have a false faith etc etc.

BTW- you do know the difference between hard determinism and soft determinism etc...right? Otherwise we may already be talking past each other.

Lutheran rejection of double predestination.

Messianic Jewish Christian

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Messianic Jewish Christian

Simul Justus et Peccator

Well-Known Member

Messianic Jewish Christian

Well-Known Member

The Lamb is gone

Well-Known Member

Messianic Jewish Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Messianic Jewish Christian

Messianic Jewish Christian

Well-Known Member

The Lamb is gone

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Lamb is gone

Messianic Jewish Christian

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency