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

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

[Frumanchu]

I don't think so E. I think that it's just the way some folks see things. They tend to see them broadly rather than narrowly. It does make sense to me.

That's a more palatable way of saying some people don't wish to be as discerning as others.

If the IRS says I should pay something, and they have a regulation on it, and I find that their language allows me to be very broad in my interpretation, then I'm not going to pay them.

LOL. That reminds me of the classic W.C. Fields response when he was found reading the Bible and was asked what he was doing.

"Lookin' for loopholes."

One can use such interpretive methods and claim to be in compliance all day long, but eventually if it is not in keeping with the meaning and intent it will be shown as such. That's precisely what happened at Dordt.

[11th_VA]

I don't usually comment on these threads, but this was very enlightening. Thanks for posting.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I think he is saying it is important in one way and not in others. It is important when considering the promises of God in relation to our own security in the faith. He is saying it is important in that case, but that the only way we can know we are predestined and therefore secure is by weighing the evidence of our faith -- only the fruits of faith can give the assurance that the doctrine of predestination provides. So examine yourself.

We should preach all the revealed truth and not worry about the unrevealed truth, or we might find ourselves redefining the nature of God and be guilty of blasphemy. I think he is saying that, too. Predestination is a revealed truth, but he thinks some of the ways it was being speculated about beyond what is revealed were appalling and contradictory to other revealed truth about the nature and acts of God. And the unholy extreme the speculation was being carried to left the mighty deeds of God on our behalf as empty, pointless, and meaningless. One revealed truth cannot nulify another. If you want to know if you were predestined, look at your life. Do you love God and His righteousness or do you love the world and its sin? The doctrine of predestination cannot nulify that reality.

[xzins]

Apparently, we disagree.

I just sent a letter to a fellow pastor in our area who wanted me to oppose a ballot initiative against alcohol in our heretofore dry precinct. We have a major grocery chain that wants to build here, and they sell beer and wine. (The jobs in the area sure would be nice.)

I told him that I could not join in because I do not think the bible forbids the consumption of alcohol, that it only forbids drunkenness.

It is also true that many folks shop in this same chain in the communities around us, and all of those outlets do sell alcohol. I told him I thought it would be hypocritical for me to oppose in my own town what I do elsewhere.

Now, I suppose that there is a very narrow biblical interpretation of alcohol consumption or hypocrisy that will permit him to say that alcohol consumption is forbidden and that this would not be hypocrisy.

I will choose the broader interpretation BECAUSE I think it is the right, honest interpretation. It will not be because I want it to fit my opinions.

It is the same with understanding the reformation. It was originally viewed very broadly, and then some narrowed it to a movement narrowly focused on determinism.

I just don't see it that way. I'm not trying to be dishonest or anything. I simply don't see it that way.

[xzins]

You're welcome. Have a great weekend.

[Lord_Calvinus]

Aparently, not everyone saw it that way. Oh, well, too bad no one can see how the WCF was twisted to teach the exact opposite of what it actually teaches.

post tenebras lux,

[Lord_Calvinus]

http://www.contra-mundum.org/essays/mattson/Luther-predestination.pdf

Luther was most certainly with we true Reformers:

When Luther's followers, in a subsequent generation, openly deviated from scriptural orthodoxy on these points, they set themselves to prove that Luther had never held Calvinistic principles. . . But we have no hesitation in saying, that it can be established beyond all reasonable question, that Luther held the doctrines which are commonly regarded as most peculiarly Calvinistic, though he was never led to explain and apply, to illustrate and defend some of them, so fully as Calvin did. ~ William Cunningham, The Reformers & the Theology of the Reformation, (London: Banner of Truth, 1967) p.109.

Any attempts otherwise is nothing but liberal history revisionism. As one who has read Luther, it is clearly obvious that he affirmed doctrines as a true Reformer which are clearly Calvinistic.

post tenebras lux,

[xzins]

I didn't even see it at all. :>)


Post Toasties Lox&Bagels.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You have a right to your opinion that the Reformation was broader than some would think. Certainly Rome would like us to see it this way.

You haven't given any evidence for that interpretation however, but that's your prerogative.

It's my opinion the Reformation was light-years more specific and particular than it is seen today. Men don't go to their death over ambiguities.

Like everything else in modern life, we tend to rationalize things out of existence.

As for me, I like dry counties and I'm not a Baptist and I'm not against alcohol. And I don't think I'm a hypocrite. I think it's lovely there are still towns that resist the cash-flow from selling liquor to its citizens who are free to buy it somewhere else.

[xzins]

I have given evidence....I posted the entire Augsburg Confession the other day. Read it. The word predestination doesn't show up in it anyplace.

[xzins]

I would agree if they consistently shopped only their own town and did not shop in the very store, selling the very thing, that they purportedly abhor.

It's like the dog owner who's walking his dog and is willing to let his dog crap in the neighbor's yard but not his own.