Martin Luther on the Five Points of Calvinism

[Humble_Disciple]

Martin Luther was not a Calvinist, but neither was John Calvin. The five points of Calvinism were formulated at the Synod of Dort, in response to the five points of Arminianism. Nonetheless, one can find support for the five points of Calvinism in Martin Luther’s writings, as well as the early Lutheran confessions.

Total Depravity (Total Inability)

29. The best and infallible preparation for grace and the sole disposition toward grace is the eternal election and predestination of God.
30. On the part of man, however, nothing precedes grace except indisposition and even rebellion against grace.
The 97 Theses | Union Resources

Augsburg Confession (1530), Art. 2: “since the fall of Adam, all human beings who are born in the natural way are conceived and born in sin. This means that from birth they are full of evil lust and inclination and cannot by nature possess true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this same innate disease and original sin is truly sin and condemns to God’s eternal wrath all who are not in turn born anew through baptism and the Holy Spirit.”
Was Luther a Calvinist?

Unconditional Election

Is there injustice on God’s part (in predestination)? By no means! The apostle gives no other reason as to why there is not injustice with God than to say: ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy’ (Romans 9:15), which is the same as saying: 'I will have mercy on whom I wish,’ or to him who is predestined to receive mercy. This is a harsh answer for the proud and those who think they know everything, but for the meek and the humble it is sweet and pleasing, because they despair of themselves; and thus God takes them up…
This statement seems hard and cruel, but it is full of sweet comfort, because God has taken upon Himself all our help and salvation, in order that He alone might wholly be the Author of our salvation.
Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luther: Have "Ineffable Joy" if You're Predestination to Hell (Part Two)

Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Art. 11: “Our election to eternal life does not rest upon our righteousness or virtues but solely on Christ’s merit and the gracious will of his Father, who cannot deny himself . . . . Therefore, it is false and incorrect to teach that not only the mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ but also something in us is a cause of God’s election, and for this reason God chose us for eternal life.”
Was Luther a Calvinist?

Limited Atonement (Particular Redemption)

Here’s the famous early affirmation of limited atonement:

Luther, Lectures on Romans (1515-1516), from the scholia at Rom. 15:33 (“Now the God of peace be with you all,” LW 25:375–76): “The second argument [against predestination] is that ‘God desires all men to be saved’ (1 Tim. 2:4). . . . these verses must always be understood as pertaining to the elect only, as the apostle says in 2 Tim. 2:10 ‘everything for the sake of the elect.’ For in an absolute sense Christ did not die for all, because he says: ‘This is my blood which is poured out for you’ and ‘for many’—he does not say: for all—‘for the forgiveness of sins’ (Mark 14:24, Matt. 26:28).”

Here are some later, more definitive statements of Luther:

...It is likewise the part of this incarnate God to weep, wail, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, when the will of the Divine Majesty purposely abandons and reprobates some to perish. And it is not for us to ask why he does so, but to stand in awe of God who both can do and wills to do such things.”
Was Luther a Calvinist?

Irresistible (Enabling, Efficacious) Grace

In Bondage of the Will... “our salvation is not of our own strength or counsel, but depends on the working of God alone.” Further, “man’s will is like a beast standing between two riders. If God rides, it wills and goes where God wills . . . . If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan wills. Nor may it choose to which rider it will run, or which it will seek; but the riders themselves fight to decide who shall have and hold it” (2.8).
Was Luther a Calvinist?

Preservation/Perseverance of the Saints

Even if he wants to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. All other sins—so long as the faith in God’s promise made in baptism returns or remains—all other sins, I say, are immediately blotted out through that same faith, or rather through the truth of God, because He cannot deny Himself.
Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Did Luther Believe Salvation Can Be Lost?

Luther cautioned that we not abuse the doctrine of election, either as a license to sin or as a disincentive to preach the Gospel to all people indiscriminately:

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.” I would be glad to debate in detail against these wicked statements if the uncertain state of my health made it possible for me to do so. For if the statements are true, as they, of course, think, then the incarnation of the Son of God, his suffering and resurrection, and all that he did for the salvation of the world are done away with completely. What will the prophets and all Holy Scripture help? What will the sacraments help? Therefore let us reject all this and tread it underfoot.
Was Luther a Calvinist?

 

[Daniel9v9]

I'm not an expert on Luther, but I can say with some confidence that only two of the Five Points of Calvinism agrees with Luther's understanding.

Although Luther certainly had the ability to write accurately (the Small Catechism is a great example of this), he often wrote somewhat freely, similar to the Early Church Fathers, so sometimes he may overstate his case or he may emphasise certain aspects if the context demands it, and those texts out of contexts can be misunderstood. And like all of us, he also matured in his faith and writings, so his earlier works may not reflect his more developed understanding. For example, the 95 Theses are not really that reflective of Luther or distinctly Lutheran. They're not found in our Confessions.

Total Depravity and Unconditional Election are in line with Luther. However, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and the Perseverance of the Saints are not. We can not find support for these in our Small or Large Catechisms which he wrote, and the Formula of Concord quoted above is actually rather hard against Calvinism.

Basically, the Lutheran understanding is simple: Salvation from beginning to end is from God. Damnation from beginning to end is merited by man. This is received as a holy mystery. So just as we believe, teach, and confess that Jesus is fully man and fully God, we also believe, teach, and confess that Christ died for all, but not all are saved. So the understanding of Luther and of the Lutheran Church does not really fit inside the tension between Calvinism and Arminianism, but both Calvinists and Arminians sometimes identify with or appeal to Luther. But I think to understand Luther and our Confessions, we have to appreciate the means of grace and the clear distinction between Law and Gospel.

God bless +

 

[Humble_Disciple]

However, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and the Perseverance of the Saints are not.

I think that Martin Luther may have made contradictory statements on these doctrines, much like how John Calvin made contradictory statements on limited atonement.

I don't believe that Martin Luther was himself a Calvinist, but his book On the Bondage of the Will is well-loved by Calvinists. When John Calvin first broke from the Roman church, he was called a Lutheran.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Based on reading the Bible, after praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I am no longer a Calvinist:

Jeremiah 18: Romans 9 De-Calvinized
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/jeremiah-18-romans-9-de-calvinized.8217798/
John Calvin: Not a Calvinist
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/jeremiah-18-romans-9-de-calvinized.8217798/
My intent on this forum has not been to convince others that Calvinism is true, but only that they should be more tolerant of Calvinists, especially since some of history's greatest missionaries and evangelists have been Calvinists.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Based on reading the Bible, after praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I am no longer a Calvinist:

Jeremiah 18: Romans 9 De-Calvinized
John Calvin: Not a Calvinist
My intent on this forum has not been to convince others that Calvinism is true, but only that they should be more tolerant of Calvinists, especially since some of history's greatest missionaries and evangelists have been Calvinists.

Well, it's good to not get caught in the Reformed tension of Calvinism vs Arminianism. I grew up in an Arminian (Pentecostal) house, so I can appreciate the freedom of coming out of it and embracing God's Word in simplicity.

One thing that I learnt, studying the Reformation and coming into the Lutheran Church, is that Sola Scriptura, properly speaking, means allowing for holy mysteries — appreciating that both God and His works are to be received by faith. This means not allowing reason, emotions, culture, tradition, councils, theologians, Pope or anything above Scriptures, but everything must be governed by it.

If you're interested in understanding the Lutheran system without having to spend too much time and energy on it, I can recommend two great resources:

Compend of Lutheran Theology by Hutter — This is a condensed systematic theology. It's written in a question and answer form, so it's very easy to follow.
https://goodshepherdrogers.org/files/compendoflutheranhutt.pdf

The Formula of Concord: Epitome — This is a short version of the Solid Declaration that you quoted above.
https://bookofconcord.org/formula-of-concord-epitome/


The peace of Christ to you! +

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Well, it's good to not get caught in the Reformed tension of Calvinism vs Arminianism. I grew up in an Arminian (Pentecostal) house, so I can appreciate the freedom of coming out of it and embracing God's Word in simplicity.

One thing that I learnt, studying the Reformation and coming into the Lutheran Church, is that Sola Scriptura, properly speaking, means allowing for holy mysteries — appreciating that both God and His works are to be received by faith. This means not allowing reason, emotions, culture, tradition, councils, theologians, Pope or anything above Scriptures, but everything must be governed by it.

If you're interested in understanding the Lutheran system without having to spend too much time and energy on it, I can recommend two great resources:

Compend of Lutheran Theology by Hutter — This is a condensed systematic theology. It's written in a question and answer form, so it's very easy to follow.
https://goodshepherdrogers.org/files/compendoflutheranhutt.pdf

The Formula of Concord: Epitome — This is a short version of the Solid Declaration that you quoted above.
https://bookofconcord.org/formula-of-concord-epitome/


The peace of Christ to you! +

The one thing I strongly dislike about Calvinism, at least as it exists today, is it seems to be more motivated by fear of being labeled as Pelagian or of not conforming to group identity than it is by an open-minded and honest obedience to scripture, wherever it might lead.

This can be seen especially today in the criticism Matt Chandler has received for even daring to deviate from the expectations of fellow Calvinists on issues like continuationism and racial injustice.

As far as Lutheranism is concerned, I wouldn't join a church that was ELCA, and I prefer churches that are based on Gospel music than liturgical churches.

 

[Daniel9v9]

The one thing I strongly dislike about Calvinism, at least as it exists today, is it seems to be more motivated by fear of being labeled as Pelagian or of not conforming to group identity than it is by an open-minded and honest obedience to scripture, wherever it might lead.

This can be seen especially today in the criticism Matt Chandler has received for even daring to deviate from the expectations of fellow Calvinists on issues like continuationism and racial injustice.

As far as Lutheranism is concerned, I wouldn't join a church that was ELCA, and I prefer churches that are based on Gospel music than liturgical churches.

Sure, I can understand. I serve in a small Orthodox Lutheran body myself, but I know there are some contemporary LCMS and WELS ministries out there who are Confessional, at least on paper.

Can I ask — why do you prefer contemporary worship over liturgical?

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Can I ask — why do you prefer contemporary worship over liturgical?

I was raised with one side of my family as Eastern Orthodox and the other side as Roman Catholic. It just doesn't energize me to serve the Lord as much as Gospel music does. Are there Lutheran churches that sing Hezekiah Walker, Kirk Franklin and Fred Hammond songs?

 

[Daniel9v9]

I was raised with one side of my family as Eastern Orthodox and the other side as Roman Catholic. It just doesn't energize me to serve the Lord as much as Gospel music does. Are there Lutheran churches that sing Hezekiah Walker, Kirk Franklin and Fred Hammond songs?

Sorry, I can't say I know of any. Perhaps there are some, but I suspect you'll have better luck finding it among our Baptist friends.

Is it the music style that energises you and not the Word of God?

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Sorry, I can't say I know of any. Perhaps there are some, but I suspect you'll have better luck finding it among our Baptist friends.

Is it the music style that energises you and not the Word of God?

We've got some solid preaching too at our Baptist church and scripture study as well.

 

[Mark Quayle]

One thing that I learnt, studying the Reformation and coming into the Lutheran Church, is that Sola Scriptura, properly speaking, means allowing for holy mysteries — appreciating that both God and His works are to be received by faith. This means not allowing reason, emotions, culture, tradition, councils, theologians, Pope or anything above Scriptures, but everything must be governed by it.

Sola Scriptura is right. That does not mean that reason is not to be used in reading it. Read simply, and read simplistically, are two different things. Much error, fear and irrationality comes from trusting in one's own understanding. 'Wise' doesn't come from lack of thought.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Sola Scriptura is right. That does not mean that reason is not to be used in reading it. Read simply, and read simplistically, are two different things. Much error, fear and irrationality comes from trusting in one's own understanding. 'Wise' doesn't come from lack of thought.

Don't get me wrong — reason is a gift from God and there's certainly a place and right use for it. We certainly need reason to properly exegete a text. And if you want to know how we exegete, I've written up a brief list here: Exegesis | THE REJECTED STONE

However, what I'm saying is that we don't want to elevate reason above God's Word. What I mean by this is:

1. When Scriptures talk about the sinful flesh, that does not only imply gross sins, but also our highest intellectual abilities and most noble intentions. Sin distorts everything, including our ability to reason.

2. God's nature and His works are too great for us to comprehend, and while we can know something about Him according to our reason, we rightly receive His promises by faith.

Here's a simple practical example: Jesus is God in flesh; fully man and fully God. Not a demigod; not 50% man, 50% God; not a human body with a divine soul; not man and God glued together. No, the man Jesus Christ is God. This is a holy mystery that is not apprehended by reason, for our reason would say that what is infinite cannot be contained in what is finite, yet the eternal Son was born of a virgin. So this is something we rightly receive by faith, and not by reason.

God's Word contains several holy mysteries which must be received by faith — not in blind faith! — but in humility, appreciating that (1) God is almighty, and (2) that there are many things too great for us to comprehend, and (3), that our ability to reason is bent on sin. So, again, when Scriptures say that Jesus is both man and God, we simply trust in what He has revealed to us and say amen!

So this is all to say that Sola Scriptura means that, yes, there is a place for reason in our faith, but reason must always be governed by God's Word.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Don't get me wrong — reason is a gift from God and there's certainly a place and right use for it. We certainly need reason to properly exegete a text. And if you want to know how we exegete, I've written up a brief list here: Exegesis | THE REJECTED STONE

However, what I'm saying is that we don't want to elevate reason above God's Word. What I mean by this is:

1. When Scriptures talk about the sinful flesh, that does not only imply gross sins, but also our highest intellectual abilities and most noble intentions. Sin distorts everything, including our ability to reason.

2. God's nature and His works are too great for us to comprehend, and while we can know something about Him according to our reason, we rightly receive His promises by faith.

Here's a simple practical example: Jesus is God in flesh; fully man and fully God. Not a demigod; not 50% man, 50% God; not a human body with a divine soul; not man and God glued together. No, the man Jesus Christ is God. This is a holy mystery that is not apprehended by reason, for our reason would say that what is infinite cannot be contained in what is finite, yet the eternal Son was born of a virgin. So this is something we rightly receive by faith, and not by reason.

God's Word contains several holy mysteries which must be received by faith — not in blind faith! — but in humility, appreciating that (1) God is almighty, and (2) that there are many things too great for us to comprehend, and (3), that our ability to reason is bent on sin. So, again, when Scriptures say that Jesus is both man and God, we simply trust in what He has revealed to us and say amen!

So this is all to say that Sola Scriptura means that, yes, there is a place for reason in our faith, but reason must always be governed by God's Word.

Of course.

But, just for example, where you say, "God's Word contains several holy mysteries which must be received by faith — not in blind faith! — but in humility, appreciating that (1) God is almighty, and (2) that there are many things too great for us to comprehend, and (3), that our ability to reason is bent on sin. So, again, when Scriptures say that Jesus is both man and God, we simply trust in what He has revealed to us and say amen!", there is no need to stop reasoning concerning these things. Much can be learned but it is, of course, important to "not lean on our own understanding". It is a lot like science in that way: there is always more to learn about what we think we know.

I particularly like your #3, there. "Our ability to reason is bent on sin". Haha, that can mean several different things, including the one that seems to get past so many Christians, who want to think that once we are regenerated we no longer have the fallen nature, or something. But the 'old man' must be put to death all day long. The redeemed truly has been cleaned, and much is changed, but we still are slaves to whom we serve.