Lutherans, could you please help me with this?

[Lotar]

He would agree with it except for the implications it has upon the P.

 

[Bulldog]

He would agree with it except for the implications it has upon the P.

Ah, I see.

 

[theseed]

Reformationist, I understand your objection, Lutheranism is know for its strong emphasis on doctrinal education.

 

[Breetai]

I think I'm just gonna change my name to Charlie Brown.

I misread one bloody letter....

Unconditional election- God has chosen whom He will, and none have merited election.

The first part seems to imply that God did not choose everyone.. The Lutheran Church teaches that everyone is chosen. Maybe Luther himself did not. Maybe I know more about Lutheran doctrine then I do about Luther's doctrine.
It's the first part that I would be misreading. I see Luther, or at least the Lutheran Church, having no problem after the comma.

 

[Reformationist]

The only treatise Luther really focused on this was in the 'Bondage of the Will' which was in direct response to Erasmus's treatise about freewill which the Church of Rome was using against Luther. The reason Luther was so vehement, as Luther always is, is not because of his belief in the particular possition but because his ability to prove this point takes away from the Roman arsenal.

The only reason that Bondage of the Will was the only time that Luther focused on it was because Erasmus was the only one who addressed that issue. All of the other people with whom Luther debated were focusing on what Luther believed were "extraneous issues" when compared to the doctrine of God's sovereign grace in election:

I give you hearty praise and commendation on this further account - that you alone, in contrast with all others, have attacked the real thing, that is, the essential issue. You have not wearied me with those extraneous issues about the Papacy, purgatory, indulgences and such like - trifles, rather than issues - in respect of which almost all to date have sought my blood (though without success); you, and you alone, have seen the hinge on which all turns, and aimed for the vital spot. - Martin Luther, in a letter to Erasmus of Rotterdam in 1525

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Luther did believe that God would harden people's hearts and close their eyes and ears, but he did not believe that God predestined them to hell.

I'm sure you know Luther's theology better than I do but this statement seems to contradict what you say above:

"All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned."
- Martin Luther

That seems pretty clear that Luther did believe God predestines people to hell.

God bless

 

[ByzantineDixie]

That seems pretty clear that Luther did believe God predestines people to hell.

I thought this was covered exceptionally well in an earlier post by Theo C. Lutherans do not believe that God predestines people to hell. We teach he who is saved is saved by grace alone and he who is lost perishes by his own unbelief. We believe in sola gratia AND gratia universalis.

(Reformationist, I appreciate your doggedness in this. It keeps us Lutherans on our toes and makes us more prepared the next go 'round!)

The question at hand is "What do Lutherans believe about predestination". I am posting support for the above by quoting again from a text on Lutheran doctrine. What it written may be construed as instigating debate. It is not my intention to violate any rules of conduct and initiate debate but it is presented to further clarify and, whether one agrees or disagrees with the doctrine, ultimately settle the matter on what Lutherans believe.

6. HOLY SCRIPTURE TEACHES NO ELECTION TO DAMNATION.
Calvinism argues very seriously that, since God has elected some to eternal life, He also must have elected others to eternal damnation. In other words, there must be an election of wrath (eine Zornwahl) to correspond to the election of grace (“die notwendige Kehrseite,” the necessary reverse side).
The Lutheran denial of an eternal reprobation to damnation (electio aeterna, qua Deus … alios ad interitum praedestinavit) Calvin rebuked with the harshest terms (inscite nimis et pueriliter; plus quam insulse, Inst., III, 23, 1).
So also the followers of Calvin designate the Scriptural position of the Formula of Concord on predestination as “untenable ground” (Hodge, Syst. Theol., II, 325). Shedd entirely ignores the Lutheran position and divides all Christians into Calvinists (denial of universal grace) and Arminians (denial of the sola gratia). In his system of theology there is no room for the Scriptural doctrine of eternal election as the Lutheran Church confesses it (Dogm. Theol., I, 448).

However, Holy Scripture knows of no “reverse side” of God’s eternal election of grace; for while the one (election unto eternal life) is clearly taught in many passages, the other (election unto eternal damnation) is plainly repudiated.

In Acts 13:48 we are indeed told: “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed,” but this passage does not add: “As many as were ordained to eternal damnation believed not.” On the contrary, it cites as the true reason why the others did not believe their wilful and perverse rejection of the proffered grace (v. 46: “Seeing ye put it from you and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles”). The reason why some do not believe is stated clearly by Christ when He says of them: “Ye would not,” Matt. 23:37, 38.

In accord with this verdict of Holy Scripture the Lutheran Church teaches: All who are saved are saved by grace; but all who are lost are lost through their own perverse opposition to the Holy Ghost, Hos. 13:9. Calvinism indeed declares that also to those whom He from eternity has reprobated to damnation God offers a certain kind of grace (common grace), while to His elect He offers “irresistible grace”; but this is only a new error, designed to confirm the error of eternal reprobation. Calvinism thus teaches contradictory wills in God; for by the outward call, extended to the non-elect, He wills their salvation, while according to His eternal decree of reprobation (horribile decretum), by which He reprobated the non-elect to damnation, He does not desire to save them. Scripture, on the contrary, plainly teaches that also those who reject the divine offer of grace are seriously called, Acts 13:38–41; Matt. 23:37, 38: vocatio seria.

Mueller, John Theodore, Christian Dogmatics (Mueller), (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House) 1999, c1934.

and

Hence we must not conclude as the Calvinists do: “Since God does not save all men, He does not desire the salvation of all,” and so try to explore the secret will of God; but we must rather adhere to the revealed will of God, made manifest in Scripture, which bears witness in many clear passages that God “will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth,” 1 Tim. 2:4.

As proof for the “eternal reprobation of the ******” Calvinism cites also Rom. 9:18: “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.” But this passage does not teach an eternal election unto damnation, but merely reveals God in His supreme sovereignty, according to which He is not subject to human criticism.

That these words are not designed to deny universal grace is clear from St. Paul’s express teaching of that doctrine in chap. 10:21 and chap. 11:32. In other words, the same God who has mercy on whom He will “stretched forth His hands all day unto a disobedient and gainsaying people” and “concluded them all in unbelief [that is, declared all men lost in unbelief] that He might have mercy upon all.” Hence the passage (Rom. 9:18) is not directed against the gratia universalis, but against the proud spirit of self-righteousness and work-righteousness in men, Rom. 9:16.

Mueller, John Theodore, Christian Dogmatics (Mueller), (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House) 1999, c1934.

Peace

Rose

 

[theologia crucis]

Rose,

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! I have that book open right now to that exact section, but I don't have time to type it all out!

Also, the hardening of the heart is also covered in Christian Dogmatics, and it is treated under the doctrine of obduration (p. 227).

Luther and the Lutherans are NOT double predestinationists. We never have been.

And I'll say again, for us Lutherans, eternal election is a teaching of COMFORT to the believer, it is NOT an article of faith.

Christ alone is THE object of our faith (which I'm sure Calvinists don't have a problem with!).

 

[Reformationist]

My apolgies Rose. When I read "Lutheran" I assumed that meant what Luther actually believed, not what the Lutheran church taught.

theologia crucis, with all due respect, I think you are wrong about what Luther believed and taught. Luther, long before Bondage of the Will, professed the only kind of predestination that is biblical, double predestination. Let me qualify this by clarifying that double predestination is not the view of equal ultimacy.

God bless,
Don

 

[Breetai]

May I add that Luther did change his views over his life?

I suspect that the Lutheran Church incorperated Luther's final verdict on most subjects(if he ever came to one). Of course, I really don't know. I have a better grasp on Lutheran doctrine then I do on Luther himself.

 

[Breetai]

The OP did ask what the Lutheran stance was. I completely missed that in one of my posts.

 

[Reformationist]

May I add that Luther did change his views over his life?

I suspect that the Lutheran Church incorperated Luther's final verdict on most subjects(if he ever came to one). Of course, I really don't know. I have a better grasp on Lutheran doctrine then I do on Luther himself.

That may very well be true. I think that is a separate matter of debate myself as I don't think he ever did change his stance. Suffice to say that, at least initially, Luther was a staunch supporter of double predestination.

God bless

 

[Breetai]

Well, I DO know that Luther definetely changed his stance on other issues. Why does the Lutheran Church reject double predestination if Luther did not? I would assume that he did. Anyone have anything on this?

 

[ByzantineDixie]

That may very well be true. I think that is a separate matter of debate myself as I don't think he ever did change his stance. Suffice to say that, at least initially, Luther was a staunch supporter of double predestination.

God bless

It would be interesting if someone could capture the evolution in Luther's thought on this matter. I realize you can not do it, Reformationist, because your stance is that it has not evolved. And it may not be important to you because you are not Lutheran...but as a Lutheran this is a curiousity for me that is worthy of a little further study.

If you would though, could you list what you believe are the strongest references to support your case?

I have to admit too that I am more knowledgeable of Lutheran doctrine than of Luther himself. (Hey, I never really was enamoured with the guy until I saw how handsome he was in the movie. ) Perhaps it is time for me to learn more about the man.

Peace

Rose

 

[theologia crucis]

I've got to get to work, but here's something to mull over while I'm gone...

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/v1n8.htm

and

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/scaer2.htm

May God bless and keep you all in Christ Jesus!

 

[Reformationist]

Well, I DO know that Luther definetely changed his stance on other issues. Why does the Lutheran Church reject double predestination if Luther did not? I would assume that he did. Anyone have anything on this?

Check this out. It does a good job of addressing the issue:

Double or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

If you would though, could you list what you believe are the strongest references to support your case?

I have to admit too that I am more knowledgeable of Lutheran doctrine than of Luther himself. (Hey, I never really was enamoured with the guy until I saw how handsome he was in the movie. ) Perhaps it is time for me to learn more about the man.

Peace

Rose

LOL! Tell me what you think of that website.

God bless,
Don

 

[Lotar]

Maybe you guys missed this post, back a couple of pages

Why Does God Not Convert All?
Correctly you say: If God does not desire our death, the fact that we perish must be charged to our own will. This is correct, I say, if you speak of the God who is preached; for He does want all men to be saved, because He comes to all by the Word of salvation, and the will which does not recieve Him is at fault, as He says in Matthew 23 (v. 37): How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not. But why that Majesty does not take away or change this fault of our will in all persons, seeing that it is not in the power of man to do so, or why He lays to the charge of man what man cannot avoid, we are not allowed to investigate; and even though you were to investigate much, yet you would never find out, as Paul says in Rom. 9:20: "Who art thou that repliest against God?"
-Martin Luther, against the free will theory of Erasmus.

Luther seems to have supported both sides throughout his carreer. The thing is though, when he is directly addressing the subject, he would reject it.

The thing to that is also assumed is that because we believe that the lost are lost because of their own free will, that we believe that there is the possibility that they can be saved by their own free will, which we do not believe. Man is so sinful that he could not possibly come to faith without the direct intervention of God.

 

[Reformationist]

Maybe you guys missed this post, back a couple of pages

Luther seems to have supported both sides throughout his carreer. The thing is though, when he is directly addressing the subject, he would reject it.

The thing to that is also assumed is that because we believe that the lost are lost because of their own free will, that we believe that there is the possibility that they can be saved by their own free will, which we do not believe. Man is so sinful that he could not possibly come to faith without the direct intervention of God.

Hey bro. I read this and I must say that, as much as I respect the genius that was Luther, this seems difficult to decipher. It seems, as you imply, that on the one hand Luther is content to blame man and man alone for his failure to come to salvation. To this I would agree. But, of course, considering my view on God's grace in regeneration and salvation I have never looked at it another way. However, we cannot divorce the passive way in which God deals with the reprobate by simply saying that God did not willfully and sovereignly decree their destruction. When one acknowledges that it is the efficacious grace of God that regenerates man and creates in him the faith necessary for salvation we must also acknowledge the flip side to that. That is, if God does not grant the grace of regeneration and saving faith then it was not His desire that that particular person come to salvation. Surely if we, as finite, fallen humans can recognize the inherent predestination of these souls to damnation then God can. If God willfully, and make no mistake, He did willfully withhold His grace of regeneration and salvation, then it was His plan that they be condemned. That is double predestination.

In my opinion, the concept of single predestination is completely incongruous with the biblical teaching of our means of regeneration and saving faith. If we are willing to only accept single predestination as biblical we are forced to make other biblical concessions that do violence to Scripture. First, if God only predestines those who actually come to faith but does not predestine those who remain dead in their trespasses then we imply that man is not really completely incapable of regenerating himself so God did not sign the proverbial "death warrant" by not giving a person that grace. If we profess that man is capable of regenerating himself and coming to a saving knowledge of Christ apart from the grace of God then we align ourselves with the semi-Pelagian who says that grace is sufficient in aiding the person in coming to Christ but it is not necessary. In essence we are saying that God Himself is not the sole causal agent in our saving faith. Additionally, the whole concept is illogical because God surely knows what the sinner needs to be saved and if He withholds that which is necessary and efficient then He is ensuring that they will not come to saving faith.

You see, double predestination is not the view of equal ultimacy. God need not deal with the reprobate in the same, but opposite, manner as the elect to ensure their destruction. The biblical account of God's intercession in the lives of the elect and the reprobate is not equal but opposite. He actively works in the hearts of the elect to create in them a desire to submit to Him. He is not active in the hearts of the reprobate but rather passive in the sense that He leaves them to their unbelief. This passive action of God in the hearts of the reprobate is the flip side to the active intercession in the hearts of the elect and it comprises the second part of predestination.

Thoughts?

God bless

 

[BBAS 64]

Don,

Very thought provoking .....

Bill