Comments on: Refuting Calvinist Claims that Luther Taught Double-Predestination

By: Daniel Gorman

Daniel Gorman — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:30:16 +0000

Rom 9:22-23, Mat 23:37, Rom 11:21-23, Mat 11:25-26, 1 Pet 2:8, John 8:43-44, Jude 4.

None of these verses support double predestination and many refute the false doctrine of double predestination. For example, in “Bondage of the Will,” Luther uses Mat. 23:37 to press the point that the God Incarnate was sent for the purpose of desiring, suffering, and offering salvation to all (“I would”) while weeping and lamenting over those who would not.

“The God Incarnate, then, here speaks thus—”I WOULD and THOU WOULDST NOT!” The God Incarnate,—I say, was sent for this purpose—that He might desire, speak, do, suffer, and offer unto all, all things that are necessary unto salvation, although He should offend many, who, being either left or hardened by that secret will of Majesty, should not receive Him thus desiring, speaking, doing, and offering: as John i. 5, saith, “The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.” And again, “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.” (11.) It belongs also to this same God Incarnate, to weep, to lament, and to sigh over the perdition of the wicked, even while that will of Majesty, from purpose, leaves and reprobates some, that they might perish. Nor does it become us to inquire why He does so, but to revere that God who can do, and wills to do, such things.”

Please note that this passage is from a Calvinist translation. The author, Henry Cole, prepared a footnote explaining how Luther’s anti-double predestination exposition is in error and quoting Calvin’s commentaries to refute Luther!

By: Moses Lee

Moses Lee — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:40:54 +0000

I was also always taught that Luther and Calvin essentially disagreed on two topics – the issue of double predestination and the Lord’s Supper so it would be impossible for Luther to hold to the view of double predestination. Yes, the Calvinists you have met should stop referring to the Bondage of the Will (that is usually the only book by Luther Reformed circles recommend) but if you are going to say why double predestination is wrong, I would really appreciate your opinion on the following verses:

Rom 9:22-23, Mat 23:37, Rom 11:21-23, Mat 11:25-26, 1 Pet 2:8, John 8:43-44, Jude 4.

Calvinists don’t believe everything Calvin believed. They rarely do. But whatever they do choose to believe, they always back it up with scripture (in spirit of the five solas of the Reformation). Those are the verses I believe support the doctrine of reprobation (I don’t like using the terms “double predestination”). But again, I would love to here what you all have to say about those verses.

By: Sue Kreft

Sue Kreft — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 04:54:12 +0000

I’m really confused. I looked up Gen. 29:9 referred to near the beginning of this post and it reads: “While he was still speaking with them, Rachel came with her father’s sheep, for she was a shepherdess.” Is this a mistake or am I missing something?

By: Michael Mapus

Michael Mapus — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:37:37 +0000

I’m curious, what is Rome’s view on predistination and election?

By: Enoch

Enoch — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:00:42 +0000

Here in my country (Eastern Europe) Calvinist Baptist have translated from English an abridged version of Luther’s Bondage of the Will. The book(let) contains the afterward written by an English publisher that says that Arminianism is a heresy, and that Calvinism is the truth. The basic impression left by that article is that Luther, of course, was a good, old, TULIP Calvinist. How unfair, how untrue. When you think that they did not bother to publish some other work by Luther, his sermons, or something that focuses on the Gospel, for the sake of lost soul, but this particular work, and when you think that they have published this book in 15,000 copies! My, my! What for? Who’s gonna read it? Unbelievers? They couldn’t care less about the subject. But yes, it’s for the Evangelicals (few thousand people in the land that is 90% nominal Eastern Orthodox!) to turn them into Calvinists. Ah, the glory of Calvinism! How beautiful are the feet of those who bring the TULIP to the unsuspected!!

By: Randy Keyes

Randy Keyes — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:52:26 +0000

So, in which printed book is this discourse available. I want it!

Thank you
Randy

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:39:18 +0000

Pastor McCain,
I have often heard Calvinists say that Luther regarded Bondage of Will as one of his most important writings, second only to the Small Catechism. This is then used to argue that Luther thought predestination was a very important doctrine in the church. I’m wondering…Did Luther ever say that Bondage of the Will was the second-best or second-most important book he wrote? If so, what should we make of that? What was Luther saying, if anything, about the importance of the doctrine of election or predestination?

McCain: Luther was fond of saying “this is my best” or “these are my best” writings, and he often had several lists. Not much is to be made of it other than he thought Bondage of the Will was one of his favorite books. It doesn’t prove anything Calvinists try to accuse Luther of believing and teaching. They ignore what Luther said elsewhere and latch on to what they think supports their errors regarding predestination.

By: Daniel Gorman

Daniel Gorman — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:50:38 +0000

The Formula of Concord, SD, Original Sin, commends both Luther’s “Bondage of the Will” and his exposition of Genesis. I have had many discussions with Calvinists regarding “Bondage of the Will.” I have pointed out to them many passages from “Bondage of the Will” that contradict their TULIP, double predestination, and doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. They, on the other hand, could find nothing in “Bondage of the Will” that contradicts the doctrine within the Book of Concord. If someone is aware of a doctrinal error in “Bondage of the Will,” please post it here.

By: Bethany Kilcrease

Bethany Kilcrease — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:47:14 +0000

For a never-ending comment chain on this topic involving both confessional Lutherans and confessional Calvinists, see http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=4197
I think both sides make good points in a respectful manner.

Bethany Kilcrease

By: Darren

Darren — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:47:53 +0000

Thank you for this post. I’ve been banging my head against the wall off and on for about 4 years, ever since I first picked up “Bondage of the Will”. A recent pastor-led discussion of the Augsburg Confession and a discussion on Issues, Etc a month or two ago have helped significantly, and this post really adds a lot.