What Did Luther Believe About Predestination? – His Final Word on the Subject

Rev. Dr. Richard P. Bucher ^ | Martin Luther

[xzins]

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.

[blue-duncan]

Is there a Cliff Notes version of this treatise?

[xzins]

Sure.

Just ask me what I think it says. :>)

Actually, I think Luther is attempting to summarize in the final few paragraphs. Read those.

[P-Marlowe]

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.

Sounds to me that Luther would have rejected the Dort Council and the Wesminster confession, both of which require the confessor to so inquire. Those confessions require that the confessor make a determination as to the meaning of predestination, specifically ruling out any statement that it is in any way predicated upon God's foreknowledge.

The fact of the matter is that it that the predestination of God is a mystery. We are given clues but we are not given the answer.

The meaning of predestination is not to be solved in either the Arminian or the Calvinist systems. Neither system should require any confessor to make any determinative statement on the subject.

[Augustinian monk]

I dont think any of the Geneva reformers ever tried to "solve" predestination. Nor did Luther disagree with the Geneva reformers except on the issue of the Lord's Supper. I think Luther rightly makes the subject of God's sovereignty in all matters, including one's salvation, subservient to the preaching of Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

[P-Marlowe]

I think Luther rightly makes the subject of God's sovereignty in all matters, including one's salvation, subservient to the preaching of Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Calvin used the word "soverignty" only one time in his Institutes. I suspect that Luther may not have ever used it at all. The emphasis on "sovereignty" in regard to predestination is a concept largely promulgated by Beza and his followers.

[xzins]

Prove it. Prove that the Synod of Dort & the WCF require people to explore into the hidden mind of God.

I don't think it says "hidden mind of God." I think it says "predestination of the hidden God."

You should be asking Marlowe to prove that the mentioned synods require exploring into the "hidden predestination of God."

[Alex Murphy]

"Lutheran in the Tradition of Leo X" ping

[P-Marlowe]

Prove it. Prove that the Synod of Dort & the WCF require people to explore into the hidden mind of God.

By specifically ruling out God's reliance on his own foreknowledge in election, the WCF insists that the confessor read the mind of God. We don't know whether or not God uses his foreknowledge of a man to make any determination in the election of God. The scriptures seem to suggest that it is part of the process. The WCF specifically denies that it is.

Here it is: II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; Yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions

The bold part requires that the confessor specifically read the mind of God. The fact of the matter is that God has not said that he has not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future. Indeed the presence of thousands of if/then statements in the bible suggest that it may well be that it is true. It is simply something that no one should be required to confess. We can all confess to the first clause, but I cannot (without actually knowing how it is that God has predestined all things) state that the second clause is true with any assurance at all. The second clause is not revealed from scripture. It may be gleaned from some obscure passages, but it is not something that God himself has declared.

If you confess to the second clause, then you are reading the mind of God and insisting you know something that he has not revealed. The WCF in that sense requires the confessor to inquire into the Predestination of the hidden God. Martin Luther obviously saw the havoc that would be created by such a requirement in a confession and thus, that is why I think he wrote this parting shot.

[DungeonMaster]

All I care about is what the bible says about it.

[P-Marlowe]

Here, my Presbyterian sister, is more intellectual fraud by those who darken counsel with their words.

Let's not poison this thread with personal insults and accusations. OK?

[xzins]

There is no fraud here. To suggest it is an insult to me.

These are the words of Luther. They are not mine. I am simply posting what Luther wrote.

Sheeesh......

[scripter]

These are the words of Luther. They are not mine. I am simply posting what Luther wrote.

Thank you. A very interesting post.

[xzins]

Luther says above: Furthermore, God has most sternly forbidden this investigation of the divinity. Thus when the apostles ask in Acts 1:6, “Has it not been predestined that at this time the kingdom should be restored?” Christ says to them: “It is not for you to know the times” (Acts 1:7). “Let Me be hidden where I have not revealed Myself to you,” says God, “or you will be the cause of your own destruction, just as Adam fell in a horrible manner; for he who investigates My majesty will be overwhelmed by My glory.”

Luther appears to be saying that "discussion of predestination" is not a the top of his list of priorities. I was making this point to DrE the other day, and she was open to my providing some comments from Luther to that effect. It's simply taken time to get to it.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I think the key is to remember his argument is against this: 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.” Right doctrine can be wrongly applied. The test question should be this: Does it serve the cause of righteousness or wickedness? God is holy. He HATES sin. All doctrine must be consistent with that premise.

[NZerFromHK]

Luther is definitely not a Calvinist and traditional-style Lutherans will tell you upfront that they are about as far away from Presbyterian Calvinist as from Wesleyan Arminians.

A WELS article is here:

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=10&cuItem_itemID=5678

[Dr. Eckleburg]

xzins, last time you tried to tell us Luther believed in free will. Yet you couldn't substantiate that with anything Luther had written.

This time you're discussing Predestination. Scripture tells us, not Calvin or Luther (although they both understood this and affirmed it) not to inquire as to WHY God predestines, but that we are to rest assured that He DOES predestine, based on His good pleasure alone.

Do you get the distinction?

The security of Predestination lies in our election. Luther never wavered in his staunch support of election by the will of God and not by some foreseen faith in men who have the good sense to believe. "Read Bondage of the Will."

This excerpt from Luther is just more tossing into the air someone's words and declaring, "See, this is what he's REALLY saying." But do you even read the stuff you post?

"It is profitable and necessary above all that the knowledge of God be completely certain in us and that we cling to it with firm assent of the heart. Otherwise our faith is useless. For if God does not stand by His promises, then our salvation is lost, while, on the other hand, this is our comfort, that, although we change, we nevertheless flee for refuge to Him who is unchangeable. For in Mal. 3:6 He makes this assertion about Himself: "I the Lord do not change." And Rom. 11:29 states: "The gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."

God does not change. What He has purposed from before the foundation of the world will occur, not because of our wills, but because of His will. God is unchangeable. Our only comfort is in what He has promised to do -- give us faith in Jesus Christ and bring us home.

Luther ran the long race during his lifetime. He was a monk. God untangled him from incredible error and brought him forward into His grace. Calvin was a lawyer. He benefited from the race Luther had run. He took our understanding of Scripture deeper, farther, for God's glory. So I'm a Presbyterian, not a Lutheran.

If Luther or Calvin were alive today to see how men still attempt to twist their words, they'd be saddened indeed.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Today's Lutherans are about as far from Luther as today's PCUSA is from Calvin.

More's the pity.