Replies

That being said, Luther, himself, was a Double Predestinarian. It was the later Lutherans who denied the predestination of the reprobate.

Please cite some evidence of this, especially from the man himself. Like this one: "I care nothing about the disputation concerning predestination" (citation in link below).

I've already read one analysis by a Brian Mattson, and his analysis of Lewis Spitz (Spitz wrote, "[Luther] left the question of why some were lost open," to which Mattson calls "unfortunate") makes the case against himself. Judging one's words across milieus often leads to big misunderstandings. I think this is certainly the case with respect to Mattson, Allister McGrath, et al. Read all of Luther's works and you will not find that he held to double predestination at all; read a few items from his prolific writings and you come away with a rather small picture -- and quite likely an incomplete one -- of what he believed.
Here's a quick source from me.

Now, however, many Lutherans deny Reformational predestination all together.

Many people in one particular church body call themselves Lutheran while denying the Lutheran confessions, sola fide, sola gratia, inerrancy, the Trinity, and other doctrines of the Christian faith. My synod (denomination) remains true and faithful to her calling, though not without occasional turmoil. The large synod to which I referred consists of a number of those who voluntarily left mine in the 1970s when our synod affirmed traditional, historic Christianity.

"I've already read one analysis by a Brian Mattson, and his analysis of Lewis Spitz (Spitz wrote, "[Luther] left the question of why some were lost open," to which Mattson calls "unfortunate") makes the case against himself. Judging one's words across milieus often leads to big misunderstandings"

This quote would support my contention that "official" Lutheran theology does not believe that men are predestined to condemnation -actively or passively.

This quote mentions Luther's position only with respect to the unregenerate. Furthermore, it doesn't state ~his~ position at all, only that ~he~ is willing to leave it an open issue. One can hold a specific position and at the same time one can hold that there is room for dissenting views on that opinion.

On the issue of the evidence of Luther's double predestination, see Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination by Brian Mattson

Regards,

Jean

Whooops!

I missed your mention of Mattson's article.

Could you explain your statement "I've already read one analysis by a Brian Mattson, and his analysis of Lewis Spitz (Spitz wrote, "[Luther] left the question of why some were lost open," to which Mattson calls "unfortunate") makes the case against himself" a little more clearly?

I will also note that Mattson quotes Spitz as saying:

St. Augustine was a high double predestinarian. . . .Luther found assurance in the belief that the faith of the elect was determined by God's eternal counsel and did not depend upon man's own weak will, but, except for some polemical passages in his treatise On the Bondage of the Will in which he overstated his own case, he left the question of why some were lost open. . . ."[

At the very least, Spitz acknowledges that Luther held to at least the "Single Predestination" view. The Single Predestination view, in reminder, believes that God foreordains/predestines the "elect" to salvation apart from their "wills". In other words, "Single Predestinarians" are not remotely "Arminian", they do not believe that "election" is based on "foreseen faith". They readily acknowledge God unconditionally elected certain men to salvation. This is precisely the "official" Lutheran version I mentioned in my #8.

Thanks,

Jean