Luther on Predestination

Introduction. Luther considered that Augustine's doctrine on grace (Luther

developed it in the doctrine of justification by faith alone), was the articulus stantis
et cadentis ecclesiae (the article by which the church stands or falls). or the
refor!ers, especially Luther, the "hristian church was constituted by its doctrine of
grace# and any co!pro!ise on this !atter by an ecclesiastical group caused the
irrelevance of the "hristianity of that group. ($c%rath & 'efor!ation (hought, )*+).
,o!e theologians (for e-a!ple .on $at/at, Luther on 0redestination)
considered Luther's doctrine of predestination as an aberration fro! his !ajor
the!es or, at best, as a 1!erely au-iliary thought.1 2ut Luther hi!self had another
opinion. 3n answering to 4ras!us's attac5 on the doctrine, Luther appreciated the
hu!anist scholar for not bothering hi! with secondary issues such as the papacy,
purgatory, or indulgences. 1you 6 have attac5ed the real thing, that is, the essential
issue... 7ou alone have seen the hinge on which all, turns, and ai!ed for the vital
spot. ((i!othy %eorge, (heology of the 'efor!ers, 89).
Chronological development. 3f we can see that Luther's doctrine on
justification changed a lot during the develop!ent of his theological thin5ing,
especially in his early period, we cannot trace the sa!e evolution for the doctrine of
predestination, but we can suppose & because the two doctrines are connected in
Luther's view : that it had a si!ilar evolution, fro! so!e sort of pelagianis! (free
will, !an's capacity to earn justification before %od, hu!ans have the possibility to
choose their destiny) in augustinianis! (bondage of the will, total depravity of soul,
%od's election of hu!an destiny).
0redestination is found in his early writings and also in the later ones.
;<. (he best and infallible preparation for grace and the sole disposition toward
grace is the eternal election and predestination of %od. =6> +;. $oreover, nothing
is achieved by the following saying? 0redestination is necessary by virtue of the
conse@uence of %od's willing, but not of what actually followed, na!ely, that %od
had to elect a certain person. (.isputation against ,cholastic (heology, crucial
docu!ent fro! the early fall of )9)8, in Lull : Luther's 2asic (heological Aritings).
7ou !ust not regard hell and eternal pain in relation to predestination, not in
yourself, or in itself, or in those who are da!ned, nor !ust you be worried by the
!any people in the world who are not chosen. (A ser!on on preparing to die,
)9)<, in Lull, op. cit., B**)
Ce who thus insists and relies on the sacra!ents will find that his election and
predestination will tu! out well without his worry and effort (Ibid, B*D)
EoFs (iberiu&3osif
or if grace co!es fro! the purpose or predestination of %od, it co!es by
necessity and not by our effort or endeavor, as we have shown above. $oreover, if
%od pro!ised grace before the law was given, as 0aul argues here and in
%alatians, then grace does not co!e fro! wor5s or through the law# otherwise the
pro!ise !eans nothing. ((he 2ondage of the Aill, De servo arbitrio Luther's
answer fro! .ece!ber )9;9 to 4ras!us's De Libera Arbitrio fro! ,epte!ber
)9;*)
Gor if we believe it to be true that %od fore5nows and predestines all things, that
he can neither be !ista5en in his fore5nowledge =...>, that nothing ta5es place but
as he wills it =...>, then on the testi!ony of reason itself there cannot be any free
choice in !an or angel or any creature (Bondage of the will, Lull : op. cit., ;;*)
Luther's !ost clear position on predestination can be found in this writing, in
his disputation with 4ras!us? (he will of !an is bound in sin and is therefore unable
to cooperate with %od. (herefore the sovereign will of %od !ust be the sole
deter!ining factor in the salvation of !an. A proble! connected with predestination
is the tension between %odHs sovereignty and hu!an will. 4ras!us considered that?
%odHs will should not be e!phasi/ed to the point that the freedo! of !anHs will is
usurped but Luther said? %od has surely pro!ised grace to the hu!ble6but !an
cannot be hu!bled till he reali/es that his salvation is utterly beyond his powers, =...>
and depends absolutely on the will, counsel, pleasure and wor5 of Another & %od
alone (I''eggio, powerpoint)
Origin of the doctrine of predestination. (he conflict between %od's free
election and genuine hu!an response is visible in the Jew (esta!ent. Kesus and
0aul spo5e of the elect ones and the chosen few. 3n the Ild (esta!ent, %od
chose one single people to be Cis !essengers. 2ut, Augustine, in his classic struggle
with 0elagius, was the first ever to articulate a clear doctrine of predestination.
(%eorge : (heology of the 'efor!ers, 8+)
Luther's doctrine of justification bro5e decisively with the Augustinian !odel of
a progressive endow!ent of grace. 2ut on Augustine's principle of Sola gratia Luther
agrees (later Lwingli and "alvin, also) with Augustine against the neo&pelagians.
who e-alt hu!an free will at the e-pense of %od's free grace. (%eorge, 8*)
Detailed description of Luther's view on predestination. An i!portant
@uote of Luther on predestination says 1%race puts %od in the place of everything
else, and prefers hi! to itself, but nature puts itself in the place of everything, and
even in the place of %od, and see5s only its own and not what is %od's.1 2y 1nature1
EoFs (iberiu&3osif
Luther did not !eant the fallen, created universe, and particularly the fallen hu!an
will (incurvatus in se).
3n the Ceidelberg's .isputation fro! )9)D, Luther gave other argu!ents for
the thesis? 1ree will after the fall e-ists only in na!e, and as long as one 'does what
in one lies,' one is co!!itting !ortal sin.1 (his for!ulation was i!portant enough for
being included in the bull Exsurge Domine by which 0ope Leo M e-co!!unicated
Luther in )9;N (Ibid).
Although Luther never denied that the will retains its power in !atters which
do not concern salvation. or 4-a!ple, Luther said to 4ras!us? 17ou are no doubt
right in assigning to !an a will of so!e sort, but to credit hi! with a will that is free in
the things of %od is too !uch.1. Luther granted that even the enslaved will is 1not a
nothing,1 that with respect to those things which are 1inferior1 to it, the will retains its
full powers. 3t is only with respect to that which is 1superior1 to it that the will is held
captive by sins and cannot choose the good according to %od.
Onderstood as the %od given capacity to !a5e ordinary decisions, to carry out
one's responsibilities in the world, the will re!ains intact. Ahat it cannot do is to
affect its own salvation. In this score free will is totally& vitiated by sin and in
bondage to ,atan. (%eorge, op. cit., 8B)
Ae can find out that, for Luther, the purpose of grace is to ease us fro! the
illusion of freedo! which is really slavery, and to lead us into the 1glorious liberty of
the children of %od.1 Inly when the will has received grace, 1does the power of
decision really beco!e free, at all events in respect to salvation.1 (he true intention
behind Luther's e!phasis on the enslaved will now beco!e obvious. %od desires
that we should be truly free in our love toward Ci!, yet this is not a possibility until we
have been freed fro! our captivity to ,atan and self.
,ince apart fro! grace the hu!an possesses neither sound reason nor a
good will, the infallible preparation for grace ... is the eternal election and
predestination of %od. (%eorge, Ibid, 88)
Recognizing difficulty of the matter. Ce did not depart fro! a doctrine of the
double predestination# though he ad!itted that 1this is, very strong wine, and solid
food for the strong.1 Ce even restricted the scope of the atone!ent to the elect?
1"hrist did not die for all absolutely.1 (li!ited atone!entP). Against the objection that
EoFs (iberiu&3osif
such a view turns %od into an arbitrary authority Luther answered li5e 0aul 1%od wills
it so, and because he wills it so, it is not wic5ed.1
$artin Luther was close to "alvin on the topic of predestination. 2ut there are
so!e differences between Luther and later Lutherans. ('utger, 0redestination and
ree will). Although, he did try to set the !ystery in the conte-t of eternity. Ce never
ad!itted that %od's inscrutable judg!ents were in fact unjust, only that we are
unable to see why they are just. (he answer to the riddle of predestination lies in
%od's hiddenness behind and beyond Cis revelation.
Luther ad!onished, we can only believe this. 0redestination li5e justification is
also sola fide. (%eorge, 8D)
Pastoral response on predestination issues. Luther 5new better than
anyone, fro! his youth, the anguish which doubting one's election could produce in a
wavering soul. Cow should a pastor respond to so!eone who is plagued with this
proble!Q Luther gave two answers to this @uestion, one for the strong "hristian, the
other for the wea5er or newly converted "hristian.
(he first category & the highest ran5 a!ong the elect belongs to those who
resign the!selves to hell if %od wills this.1 $ore co!!only, Luther was as5ed to
counsel with ordinary "hristians (;nd category) who were tor!ented by the @uestion
of election. Luther's basic advice was, 1(han5 %od for your tor!entsP1 3t is an
attribute of the elect not of the reprobate, to tre!ble at the hidden counsel of %od.
Conclusion. (he doctrine of predestination was not originated, in Luther's
theology, by speculative or !etaphysical concerns. 3t had practical !otivations, it
was an e-planation of the gracious will of %od who connected Ci!self to hu!anity by
the sacrifice of Kesus "hrist. 0redestination, li5e the nature of %od Ci!self, could
only be approached through the cross, through the 1wounds of Kesus1 to which
,taupit/ had directed young Luther in his early struggles.
i!liography.
(i!othy . Lull, ed. Martin Luthers Basic !heological "ritings.
(i!othy %eorge. !heolog# of the $eformers. 2road!an, ;NN+.
Alister 4. $c%rath. $eformation !hought% An Introduction. +
rd
ed.
http?RRgeneva.rutgers.eduRsrcRchristianityRpredest.ht!l
.on $at/at, Luther on &redestination' www.!tio.co!RarticlesRaissarD<.ht!
EoFs (iberiu&3osif