Martin Luther's Teaching on Predestination.

[Edward65]

Another good example of what I've said before:

Lutherans simply take the Bible at its word, trusting what it says, and NOT extrapolating based on what our reason might lead us to conclude. The paradox stands: Those who are saved, are predestined to be saved; those who are lost are not.
Paradox. It's the word of God.

This part of Calvinist soteriology makes the atheists right: God is evil. Thank God (sic!) that this isn't the case.

The teaching of Scripture doesn't contain any logical contradictions as you Lutherans (a misnomer because you don't agree with Luther on predestination) imagine. It's absurd to believe that God teaches logically contradictory things in His Word. God teaches things beyond human comprehension but not things which are logically contradictory.

Also Luther when he said that God wills things which He doesn't disclose to us in His Word, wasn't including the Scriptural teaching of predestination to hell which God teaches in His Word. Romans 9 teaches predestination to hell and it's only because you Lutherans misinterpret Paul here by inappropriately combining Scriptural passages which don't belong together, and thereby forcing a foreign interpretation into Paul's words, that you can say that Paul doesn't teach predestination to hell.

As regards your allegation that this makes God evil if He predestines people to be damned that's not true. Since God wills from eternity to leave some people to suffer the consequences of their being fallen and sinful creatures that doesn't make God evil. It would only make God evil if He had created men evil in the first place, which He didn't do.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

The teaching of Scripture doesn't contain any logical contradictions as you Lutherans (a misnomer because you don't agree with Luther on predestination) imagine.

Daf..?
1: "Lutheran" doesn't mean "Agree with Luther on absolutely EVERYTHING he ever said or wrote". The man didn't think much of the name in the first place.

2: It CERTAINLY doesn't mean: "Agree with Luther on this one point that I arbitrarily decide!".

3: There are points on which all Lutherans disagree with Luther (the virulent anti-semitism of his late years), and even more on which the vast majority of Lutherans disagree with Luther (his view on Mary, for instance).

It's absurd to believe that God teaches logically contradictory things in His Word. God teaches things beyond human comprehension but not things which are logically contradictory.

The Bible certainly DOES contain paradoxes. Single predestination is one of them. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this, doesn't change it one bit.

Also Luther when He said that God wills things which He doesn't disclose to us in His Word, wasn't including the Scriptural teaching of predestination to hell which God teaches in His Word. Romans 9 teaches predestination to hell and it it's only because you Lutherans misinterpret Paul here by inappropriately combining Scriptural passages which don't belong together, and thereby forcing a foreign interpretation into Paul's words, that you can say that Paul doesn't teach predestination to hell.

Ahem....no....
As someone who's doing his thesis on Romans 9-11 at the moment, I can state quite clearly that it is by no means clear that Romans 9 teaches predestination to hell. In fact, it can ONLY be done by millions of unsubstantiated assumptions. The only one I've read so far who claims this, is Dongsu Kim, who does so from a heavily Calvinist-biased position, and not one of actual biblical scholarship.
That article read more like a Calvinist sermon than as a peer-reviewed article, anyway. How it GOT to be peer-reviewed in the first case, is beyond me...but I digress.

As regards your allegation that this makes God evil if He predestines people to be damned that's not true. Since God wills from eternity to leave some people to suffer the consequences of their being fallen and sinful creatures that doesn't make God evil.
It would only make God evil if He had created men evil in the first place, which He didn't do.

Yes, it does. He creates people. Not just Adam and Eve; Christians believe and confess that every single human being in existence, has come into existence because God created them. IF the heresy of double-predestination was true, then God created people who were evil (from creation), with the explicit purpose of damning them for all eternity.

If that is not evil, then evil does not exist. Calvinism is one big disgusting and unnecessary theodicé.

Reason is ministerial, not magisterial. In the words of Jonathan Fisk: "Scripture reveals all. Where we can understand it, we do. When we don't, we say: Blesséd be the Lord, He has spoken". That's the reaction of a Christian. That it isn't the reaction of the Calvinist, who instead says: "The word of God HAS to conform to what I think" speaks volumes.

 

[Albion]

Another good example of what I've said before:

Lutherans simply take the Bible at its word, trusting what it says, and NOT extrapolating based on what our reason might lead us to conclude. The paradox stands: Those who are saved, are predestined to be saved; those who are lost are not.
Paradox. It's the word of God.

This part of Calvinist soteriology makes the atheists right: God is evil. Thank God (sic!) that this isn't the case.

Is there really that much difference between the two? I'm not convinced that there is, although it seems common for Lutherans to want to slice this matter so thinly that they can find a comfortable middle-way. That said, I personally don't know how God decides what he does, but I do know that all the logic is on the predestinarian side and none really is on the freewill side.

We love to think that we are the masters of our own fate--with God's help, of course--but there's nothing that suggests we could pull it off. That's why we needed a Savior in the first place. If we were able to save ourselves by keeping the Law, Christ would not have had to come and to die. By the same token, we can't find God, let alone live righteously, any more easily, once sin is part of the human condition.

 

[Reformationist]

I was engaged in a debate concerning Martin Luther’s teaching on predestination on the Lutherans /LCMS sub forum ( thread: “The Augsburg Apology Article XVIII: Of Free Will”), when the thread was closed because it was deemed I was proselytizing so I thought I’d post here instead.

In my posts I’d showed from Luther’s book “The Bondage of the Will” that Luther taught double predestination, and that he would have rejected the teaching of present day Lutherans that God only predestines to heaven and not also to hell. (For anyone unfamiliar with this book, this was Luther’s reply to Erasmus on the subject of free will and predestination in which Luther showed from Scripture that we have no free will and that everything is predestined by God to happen). To briefly fill you in I had previously quoted from Luther’s book the following two passages - amongst many others:

“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!”
(Cole, Section 167; Packer & Johnston, page 317; Luther’s Works 33, page 293)

“And if God be thus robbed of His power and wisdom to elect, what will there be remaining but that idol Fortune, under the name of which, all things take place at random! Nay, we shall at length come to this: that men may be saved and damned without God's knowing anything at all about it; as not having determined by certain election who should be saved and who should be damned;” (Cole, section 81; Packer & Johnston, page 199; Luther’s Works 33, page 171)

In response to these passages and others someone tried to argue that Luther didn’t believe that God elects people from eternity to be damned, implying that God only elects people from eternity to be saved. But there are no valid grounds for making such a claim. Never does Luther make any distinction between election and predestination to heaven and election and predestination to hell. In fact he says:

“THIS, therefore, is also essentially necessary and wholesome for Christians to know: That God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will.
(Cole, section 9; Packer & Johnston, page 80; Luther’s Works 33, page 37)

To “purpose and will” to do something is the same as to “choose” to do something, which is the same as to “elect” to do something, and since Luther says God wills and purposes from eternity to do all things, it follows that Luther held that God elects from eternity that people should be damned just as He elects from eternity that people should be saved.

Also in response to something else I’d written namely: “God doesn't harden and damn people in response to anything they have done. He hardens people purely because He wills to from eternity”. The same person replied saying:

“Yes, all that God does he has chosen to do from eternity (including what he will do on the Last Day); but No, this doesn’t mean that those whom God has chosen to damn he choses to damn without regard to their sin. Your idea that God hardens and damns “purely because He wills to from eternity” is obviously intended to deny that God has chosen to damn people on account of their sin. That Luther didn’t deny this, but clearly taught this, is plain as daylight from the passage I quoted: “The fault which accounts for evil being done when God moves to action lies in these instruments”, as well as from the great bulk of Luther’s corpus. Never does Luther preach in his sermons (of which we have thousands of pages) that God damns not on account of our sins but purely because he wills to; always does he say that God damns on account of our sins”.

This interpretation of my words however isn’t correct. I wasn’t intending to deny that God damns us on account our sins. What I was meaning when I said that “God doesn't harden and damn people in response to anything they have done. He hardens people purely because He wills to from eternity”, was that God doesn’t damn people as a response to anything they have done in their lives such that the decision by God to damn sequentially follows their committing of sin, because God’s decision to damn a person is decided in eternity before the person is even born. However of course because God’s election and predestination to hell is always in view of the fact that we are fallen and sinful creatures, God damns people because of their sin.

That Luther taught both eternal predestination to hell as well as to heaven is also proven from his Preface to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans 1546 (1522):

http://www.vasynod.org/files/BibleStudy/GreatestHits/Vol%2035%20Romans.pdf

“In chapters 9, 10, and 11 he teaches of God’s eternal predestination—out of which originally proceeds who shall believe or not, who can or cannot get rid of sin.. (page 12)

As you can see Luther says the reason why people don’t believe and therefore can’t get rid of their sin is because of God’s eternal predestination (i.e. this is the same as Luther saying they’ve been predestined to hell). And this he says is the teaching of St. Paul in his letter to the Romans.

So if Luther were alive today he would regard present day Lutherans who deny that the Scriptures teach predestination to hell, as believing false doctrine, and he wouldn’t therefore subscribe to their confessional document (i.e. the Formula of Concord) in which this teaching that God only predestines to heaven and not to hell is stated.

Forgive me if someone has already made the point I post here. I admit, I did not read every single response.

The Bible, and Luther, absolutely teach/taught double predestination. That said, what the Bible does not teach is equal ultimacy. That is, in the same sense and in the same manner that God predestines the elect unto eternal felicity and actively intervenes in their hearts to ensure their salvation, He, likewise, predestines the reprobate unto eternal damnation by actively working sin into their hearts to ensure their condemnation. This, of course, is neither a biblical view, nor the view Luther taught, nor an accurate depiction of double predestination.

While it is true that God's sovereign choice to withhold His grace of salvation from the reprobate ensures that they remain in their sin and, thus, face His wrath, His actions with regard to the non-elect are passive. He need not work in to their hearts that which already is in residence, i.e., sin leading unto death.

Lastly, before anyone accuse God of being "unfair" in His dispensation of grace, let me say that, most assuredly, God is "unfair" but He is not unjust. As all have merited wrath and condemnation, it can be said, in an attempt to make a play on words, that those who receive His grace are just as worthy of condemnation so the blessing of salvation is unfairly given to them. More accurately, those who receive His grace of salvation are the recipients of His mercy. Those who do not are the recipients of His justice. None are subject to injustice at the hands of God.

So, yes, Luther did teach double predestination, as should all believers that seek to remain obedient to God.

God bless

 

[squint]

Ahem....no....
As someone who's doing his thesis on Romans 9-11 at the moment, I can state quite clearly that it is by no means clear that Romans 9 teaches predestination to hell. In fact, it can ONLY be done by millions of unsubstantiated assumptions. -

-He creates people. Not just Adam and Eve; Christians believe and confess that every single human being in existence, has come into existence because God created them. IF the heresy of double-predestination was true, then God created people who were evil (from creation), with the explicit purpose of damning them for all eternity.

That is a woefully shortsighted statement.

Technically even the RCC teaches predestination to HELL.

And also, technically, traditional Calvinism does not teach predestination to heaven as a certain fact. No Calvinist died in faith with anything more than reasonable assurance. Not all that much different than the RCC.

[will wait for the ignorant stones to be slung]

s

 

[squint]

So, yes, Luther did teach double predestination, as should all believers that seek to remain obedient to God.

That is probably not the case.

Single and double predestination are the quick litmus tests between the factions.

s

 

[Albion]

That is a woefully shortsighted statement.

Technically even the RCC teaches predestination to HELL.

And also, technically, traditional Calvinism does not teach predestination to heaven as a certain fact. No Calvinist died in faith with anything more than reasonable assurance. Not all that much different than the RCC.

[will wait for the ignorant stones to be slung]

s

Your problem appears to be not understanding the meaning of the term. For instance, "reassurance" is not inherent in predestination. It doesn't make any difference if an individual Christian, Calvinist or not, dies without knowing for a fact what lies ahead. It still is what it is regardless of his knowledge, and that is what any predestination who's schooled in these things would tell you.

 

[squint]

Your problem appears to be not understanding the meaning of the term. For instance, "reassurance" is not inherent in predestination. It doesn't make any difference if an individual Christian, Calvinist or not, dies without knowing for a fact what lies ahead.

True in most forms of predestination and even in orthodoxy. I said no differently.

Reasonable assurance is not a guarantee. Most forms of protestant predestination does not entail a guarantee to heaven. Luther did not teach such either. Calvinism, different form of predestination, but still no guarantee.

There are in many reformed sects today, outright OSAS guarantees being sold (educationally speaking.) These are fairly recent developments.

It still is what it is regardless of his knowledge, and that is what any predestination who's schooled in these things would tell you.

I've paid my dues in the arena A.

s

 

[Albion]

Reasonable assurance is not a guarantee. Most forms of protestant predestination does not entail a guarantee to heaven. Luther did not teach such either. Calvinism, different form of predestination, but still no guarantee.

Predestination does not confer reasonable assurance any more than it guarantees salvation.

There are in many reformed sects today, outright OSAS guarantees being sold (educationally speaking.) These are fairly recent developments.

Eternal Security/Perseverance of the Saints is Biblical, not necessarily connected to Predestination, and was indeed included in the theology of the Reformation, so I don't get the "fairly recent" idea you were speaking of, unless you are referring to some sects that have lately put a new twist on the matter

 

[Reformationist]

And also, technically, traditional Calvinism does not teach predestination to heaven as a certain fact. No Calvinist died in faith with anything more than reasonable assurance. Not all that much different than the RCC.

Actually, that's inaccurate. Traditional Calvinism does teach predestination to Heaven "as a certain fact," at least with regard to the elect. That our individual feelings of certainty of our own salvation will not extend beyond a "reasonable assurance" is irrelevent. We need not be assured of our salvation for God to ensure it through the efficacious work of Christ and the gracious imputation of that merit in God's work of regeneration.

[will wait for the ignorant stones to be slung]

s

Not ignorant. Just wrong.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

That is probably not the case.

Luther wasn't what one would call shy about sharing His views. That Luther, for whatever reason, sought to avoid controversy (admittedly, not really his style) by not following his own views to their unavoidable and natural conclusion does not invalidate the position he held.

For instance, if I make the following statement:

3 + 1 = 4

I have identified the statement in its entirity.

Likewise, if I state:

3 + ? = 4

I have also made clear the elements of the statement, whether I have attempted to conceal them or not.

Reformed Christians make the first statement with regard to predestination, i.e., that by virtue of His sovereign office and the government of His will, God predestines some unto life in Christ (3) and some unto death in their sins (1), meaning that all people, regardless of the dispensation, are predestined (4). Now, it is definitely worthwhile to note that God's active reconciliation of His elect is accomplished in a way that is unlike His reprobation of the non-elect.

Further, Luther made his view clear, even if he avoided articulating it. He rightly acknowledged that God predestines His elect and only His elect unto salvation and that such an act of God is necessary for one's salvation (read: the 3 and the 4 from the equation above). Just because he didn't acknowledge that his own view demanded that he acknowledge that those that are not predestined unto salvation are, by default, left to stand judgement for their sins doesn't mean that he wasn't clear that such was his view.

Single and double predestination are the quick litmus tests between the factions.

s

Actually, single and double predestination, at least in the historic sense, is a distinction without a difference. In acknowledging the explicit nature of God's all encompassing sovereign government of His creation (Matt 10:29), there is no such thing as "single predestination." Such a view would require that we see God as some doddering old fool that forgot to make a decision about those He chose to not elect unto salvation. IOW, God would no longer be the God of Scripture.

There is, however, a litmus test, but it is between the biblically accurate view of double predestination and that of equal ultimacy, a decidedly unbiblical and heinous view of both God and His Word.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Your problem appears to be not understanding the meaning of the term. For instance, "reassurance" is not inherent in predestination. It doesn't make any difference if an individual Christian, Calvinist or not, dies without knowing for a fact what lies ahead. It still is what it is regardless of his knowledge, and that is what any predestination who's schooled in these things would tell you.

Absolutely true.

 

[Reformationist]

Predestination does not confer reasonable assurance any more than it guarantees salvation.

I would disagree. I acknowledge that God's sovereign act of predestination does not, itself, do anything to accomplish a single person's salvation. It is, however, just one part of God's work of redemption. If God predestined and left it at that, then no, no one would be saved, much less guaranteed salvation. Thankfully, God's work of redemption included all the elements necessary to ensure the salvation of the elect.

Romans 8:30
And those whom he predestined He also called, and those whom he called He also justified, and those whom he justified He also glorified.

So, while predestination does not accomplish salvation, we can rest assured in the promise of God to, ultimately, glorify ALL whom He predestined.

God bless

 

[squint]

Luther wasn't what one would call shy about sharing His views. That Luther, for whatever reason, sought to avoid controversy (admittedly, not really his style) by not following his own views to their unavoidable and natural conclusion does not invalidate the position he held.

And that is what a reformist would naturally state to justify their extensions, which Luther did not hold.

Some forms of predestination have went way beyond Luther's understandings, particularly of the double predestination sort.

For instance, if I make the following statement:

3 + 1 = 4

I have identified the statement in its entirity.

Likewise, if I state:

3 + ? = 4

I have also made clear the elements of the statement, whether I have attempted to conceal them or not.

That math may work but that doesn't mean the logic connects to the subject matter, other than in yer own head.

Reformed Christians make the first statement with regard to predestination, i.e., that by virtue of His sovereign office and the government of His will, God predestines some unto life in Christ (3) and some unto death in their sins (1), meaning that all people, regardless of the dispensation, are predestined (4). Now, it is definitely worthwhile to note that God's active reconciliation of His elect is accomplished in a way that is unlike His reprobation of the non-elect.

If you are saying that Luther held the above, nope.

AND the world of Lutheranism, Protestantism, Calvinism and Reformed is a vastly wider array than, pardon me, the personal dissection of a 'segment' of determination presented above.

Karl Barth for example decimates your presentation. I have a great deal of respect for some reformed theologians. Not all 'reformed' are going to fit your little box above.

Even though we may agree on that same trail to a certain point, there are flaws that have been addressed far better, which is the ground of 'ever reforming' anyway.

Further, Luther made his view clear, even if he avoided articulating it.

too funny. What you are saying in effect is Luther agreed with me, even if he didn't say so....

zzzzz

I'm gonna nod out now. Thanks for the chuckles though.

s

 

[squint]

Predestination does not confer reasonable assurance any more than it guarantees salvation.

Uh, Albion, I've never said any different on that part.

But if you are saying that determinists don't hold at a minimum, reasonable assurance of some sort, I'd simply beg to differ. Every sect holds reasonable assurance of some sort.

Eternal Security/Perseverance of the Saints is Biblical, not necessarily connected to Predestination,

Of course they are connected. These are not subjects held in a vacuum.

and was indeed included in the theology of the Reformation, so I don't get the "fairly recent" idea you were speaking of, unless you are referring to some sects that have lately put a new twist on the matter

Lutheranism and Reformed have held to reasonable assurance ONLY until the last couple centuries and nothing more.

You see even if they hold PREDESTINATION to salvation, they all also held Perseverance, which meant NONE of the holders really knew until post death when THEE SOVEREIGN HIMSELF actually made or makes the specific determination for them.

As far as I know both Lutherans and Calvinists of the early sort held PERSEVERANCE. Luther did beyond any doubt.

Most sects have only reasonable assurance as well because of the Perseverance requirement. Some have recently discounted the P.

It is only recent branches of reformed that have transitioned into 'solid guarantees' of OSAS upon X circumstance sets (confession, baptism, whatever else) some of which have trouble holding scriptural water, even though I personally agree with that position.

How they all get there is and remains interesting.

s

 

[Albion]

I would disagree. I acknowledge that God's sovereign act of predestination does not, itself, do anything to accomplish a single person's salvation. It is, however, just one part of God's work of redemption. If God predestined and left it at that, then no, no one would be saved, much less guaranteed salvation. Thankfully, God's work of redemption included all the elements necessary to ensure the salvation of the elect.

I really don't know what you're trying to say there. It appears that you are disagreeing because you don't favor the concept of predestination. You are using the word to mean God's overall plan of salvation or something else, but not Election. IF we were still discussing Election AKA Predestination we would have to know that it is not the case that the Elect have any way of knowing if they are in that company or not...but they still may be predestined to salvation.

So, while predestination does not accomplish salvation, we can rest assured in the promise of God to, ultimately, glorify ALL whom He predestined.

Let's put it this way. The Elect are saved by Faith. God chooses to give saving Faith to whomever he has selected out of mankind from before the foundations of the world. Why you'd highlight the word "all" above, I don't know. Yes, all whom he's predestined to receive Faith and so be saved will be.

 

[Reformationist]

And that is what a reformist would naturally state to justify their extensions, which Luther did not hold.

It's not an extension, and Luther did hold it, whether he was willing to acknowledge it or not. It's not simply a matter of an open interpretation of Luther's view. Luther was clear that God predestined those He intended to save. Luther also acknowledged that apart from this divine work, none would be saved. It is akin to the silly distinction people make between a "lie" and "an omission for the purposes of deceit." You know, you hear people say nonsense like, "I didn't lie. I just didn't tell you the whole truth." Yeah. Semantics. Even in court they say something like, "I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Huh? If it's not the whole truth then it isn't the truth. If you say something other than the truth, it isn't the truth. Same same. Rather redundant. Anyway, if Luther acknowledged the sovereign, and necessary grace of God in salvation and, likewise, acknowledged that there are those who, by the plan and purpose of God do not receive it, then, whether he articulates it or not, he is, in fact, stating that God, in choosing to withhold from some His grace of salvation, is ensuring, i.e., predestining, their condemnation.

As I said, God owes no one this grace so His choice to withhold it doesn't make Him unjust.

Some forms of predestination have went way beyond Luther's understandings, particularly of the double predestination sort.

Well, I'm sure you're right. Unfortunately, the label of "double predestination" is used in varying ways so I couldn't say, without exception, that such a view is biblically inaccurate.

That math may work but that doesn't mean the logic connects to the subject matter, other than in yer own head.

Not sure what you find illogical about it but, if it doesn't work for you, disregard it.

If you are saying that Luther held the above, nope.

I'm not. I prefaced my understanding of Luther's view with the words, "Further, Luther made his view clear..."

AND the world of Lutheranism, Protestantism, Calvinism and Reformed is a vastly wider array than, pardon me, the personal dissection of a 'segment' of determination presented above.

I agree. My apologies if you felt I was implying otherwise.

Karl Barth for example decimates your presentation. I have a great deal of respect for some reformed theologians. Not all 'reformed' are going to fit your little box above.

Again, I was using the term "reformed" rather loosely. My apologies.

too funny. What you are saying in effect is Luther agreed with me, even if he didn't say so....

I am not trying to say that. He may have. I don't know exactly what you believe so I couldn't make that claim.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

You see even if they hold PREDESTINATION to salvation, they all also held Perseverance, which meant NONE of the holders really knew until post death when THEE SOVEREIGN HIMSELF actually made or makes the specific determination for them.

Seems like you're still trying to make some point hinge on finite man's apprehension on this side of the dirt. Regardless of whether man has doubts or is fully confident, our feelings are non-determinative as to the outcome. What I know, with all confidence, is that if I am one of God's elect, I will be saved. My confidence in whether I am one of His elect isn't a catalyst for anything, other than, maybe, some stress filled nights without sleep.

As far as I know both Lutherans and Calvinists of the early sort held PERSEVERANCE. Luther did beyond any doubt.

Most sects have only reasonable assurance as well because of the Perseverance requirement. Some have recently discounted the P.

Just to clarify my own view, this "perseverance requirement" is more of a presevatory role that God holds, i.e., it is God who holds us in an eternal state of salvific grace.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

It appears that you are disagreeing because you don't favor the concept of predestination.

Of course I acknowledge the biblical veracity of predestination.

You are using the word to mean God's overall plan of salvation or something else, but not Election.

Well, I was actually trying to address that in light of what you posted. Yes, God predestines/elects some unto salvation. However, that is not all He predestines. He's God. He's eternal. Everything is predestined.

IF we were still discussing Election AKA Predestination we would have to know that it is not the case that the Elect have any way of knowing if they are in that company or not...but they still may be predestined to salvation.

As I said previously, our unwavering assurance of our place in the family of God is not necessary to be predestined unto salvation.

The Elect are saved by Faith.

No. The elect are saved by Christ. Faith is the vehicle through which God dispenses His grace of salvation based on the merits of Christ's vicarious atonement. In truth, we are saved by works. They're just not our works.

God chooses to give saving Faith to whomever he has selected out of mankind from before the foundations of the world. Why you'd highlight the word "all" above, I don't know. Yes, all whom he's predestined to receive Faith and so be saved will be.

Okay. Sounds great.

God bless

 

[Albion]

Well, I was actually trying to address that in light of what you posted. Yes, God predestines/elects some unto salvation. However, that is not all He predestines. He's God. He's eternal. Everything is predestined.

Hmmm. But Election is a matter only of salvation, not everything that happens.

As I said previously, our unwavering assurance of our place in the family of God is not necessary to be predestined unto salvation.

...which sounds like a rejection of Predestination, by which I mean Election.

No. The elect are saved by Christ. Faith is the vehicle through which God dispenses His grace of salvation based on the merits of Christ's vicarious atonement. In truth, we are saved by works. They're just not our works.

That's just unnecessarily convoluted IMO. Perhaps we could say that because of Christ's unique work, we are able to be saved, and the vehicle is God choice of those whom he does choose to have the Faith in Christ that appropriates the merits of Christ's work. That isn't what works-righteousness means, though.