Alexander Schweizer propagated the thesis that predestination is a central theme of Calvin’s theology and that later Calvinism had to defend his teaching as the distinguishing point between the Lutheran and reformed traditions. In this article it is shown that election is also an important element of Luther’s theology. The historic development of the two reformers’ thinking about election is presented. In spite of different nuances, the difference between the two are minimal. The main reason why the differences could be underplayed is because it is shown that Calvin’s thesis of ‘double predestination’ only forms one part of Calvin’s doctrinal thinking on this subject. Calvin has actually two sets of statements on predestination. When the unacceptable statements about ‘double predestination’ are not emphasised, but rather his early works and sermons, he and Luther share the same opinions on election in Christ through grace. Both of them understand election as the final word on justification.
Until the Barthian revolution
Alexander Schweizer’s thesis influenced theological opinions for centuries. The animosity between reformed and Lutheran theologies, which could still be traced in South Africa, has to do with these type of dramatic slogans that could not be traced back to Luther and Calvin themselves. The aim of this contribution is to show that election and predestination
By looking at Rieger’s new handbook (
It is well documented that Martin Luther was afflicted by the question on predestination during his time as monk and priest. His father confessor, Johannes von Staupitz, helped him to deal with God’s incomprehensible will (cf. Leppin
Ego semel conquerebar de sublimtate praedestinationis Staupitio meo. Respondit mihi: In vulneribus Christi intelligitur praedestinatio et invenitur, non alibi, quia scriptum est: Hunc audite. Der Vater ist zu hoch, sed dixit Pater: Ego dabo viam veniendi ad me, nempe Christum. Ite, credite, hengt euch an den Christum, so wirts sichs wol finden, quis sim, suo tempore. Das thun wir nicht, ideo Deus est nobis incomprehensibilis, incogitabilis; er wirt nicht begriffen, er will ungefast sein extra Christum. [
His initial difficulty and conflict (
In 1519 Luther (
In 1525 Luther published one of his major works called
To summarise: Election is the doctrine of God’s gracious and unconditional choice of those who are brought to faith by the Holy Spirit to be his children. Luther holds that believers can attribute their salvation ultimately to God choosing them although he rejects the idea that God also predestines those who do not believe to damnation. No one should try to fathom the mystery of God choosing his own (Kolb, Dingel & Batka
Calvin (
Calvin’s first contribution on predestination in the
In his
For the seed of God’s Word takes root and bears fruit only in those whom the Lord has by his eternal election predestined as his children and heirs of the kingdom of heaven; for all the rest, who were condemned by this same plan of God before the foundation of the world, the utterly clear preaching of truth can be nothing but the stench of death unto death. Now why should the Lord deem the former worthy of his mercy but exercise his severe judgement on the latter? Let us leave the cause in his hand, for he has for the best reasons willed to hide it from us […]. Only let us acknowledge among ourselves that this dispensation of the Lord, although hidden to us, is nonetheless just and holy. For if he were to destroy all mankind, he would only be doing so by his own right. If those he calls back from perdition one can see nothing but his supreme goodness. Let us therefore recognize the elect to be vessels of his mercy; the reprobate the vessels of his wrath, but a just wrath indeed. (p. 17)
There is, however, another statement that should not be ignored. Ultimately, Calvin (Hesselink 1997 [1538]) explains election and predestination from the perspective of Christ:
Just as all who before the foundation of the world were foreordained to life were chosen in Christ, so it is he in whom the pledge of our election is set forth to us. Accordingly, we receive and embrace him in faith […]. But if while possessing Christ in faith, we at the same time possess life in him, we have no business investigating anything beyond this concerning God’s eternal plan. For Christ is not simply the mirror wherein God’s will is shown to us, but the pledge wherewith it is, so to speak, sealed. (p. 17)
In the
In his
Duobus potissimum membris constat. Ut electos spiritu gubernet suo: ut reprobos, qui se illi in obsequium trader recusant, prosternat, et exitio tradat: ut ita palam fiat, nihil esse, quod resistere eius virtuti queat. [
These harsh words are some of the first steps in the direction of his heartless doctrine of double predestination.
Although Calvin treated predestination as an important biblical theme, he also had to give expositions on the theme, because it became one of the controversies he had to deal with (cf. Gamble
There is little of importance in this publication that is not found in the 1559 version of Calvin’s
Now I hear Pighius babble something: The whole human race is chosen in Christ, so that whoever should lay hold of Him by faith may obtain salvation. But in this invention there are two gross errors which can be instantly refuted by the words of Paul. For first there is certainly a mutual relation between the elect and the reprobate, so that the election spoken of here cannot stand, unless we confess that God separated out from others certain men as second good to Him. It is this that is expressed by the word predestinating, afterwards twice repeated. Further he calls those chosen who are by faith engrafted into the body of Christ; and that this is something not common to all men is plain. Paul therefore refers to those only whom Christ condescends to call after they have been given to Him by the Father. To make faith the cause of election is quite absurd and at variance with the words of Paul. For as Augustine wisely observes, he does not call them elect because they are about to believe, but in order that they may believe; he does not call them elect whom God foresaw would be holy and immaculate, but in order that they might be made so. (p. 68–69)
In the
As God by the effectual working of his call to the elect perfects the salvation to which by his eternal plan he has destined them, so he has his judgement against the reprobate, by which he executes his plan for them. What of those, then, whom he created for dishonour in life and destruction in death, to become the instruments of his wrath and examples of his severity? That they may come to their end, he sometimes deprives them of the capacity to hear his word; at other times he, rather, blinds and stuns them by the preaching of it. (p. 978)
Calvin’s teaching on predestination should, however, not be reduced to his view on double predestination. Calvin actually has two sets of teachings that seems to be in conflict with one another, but is not (Link
In his preface to the first edition of the
We shall never be clearly persuaded, as we ought to be, that our salvation flows from the wellspring of God’s free mercy until we come to know his eternal election, which illumines God’s grace by this contrast: that he does not indiscriminately adopt all into the hope of salvation but gives to some what he denies to others. (p. 921)
Calvin, clearly shares Augustine’s view that the gratuitousness of God’s grace is fundamental, and the eternal election of grace explains the observed fact that some accept the gospel while others don’t. Calvin further agrees with Augustine that, while the division between the elect and the non-elect is inescapably, the teaching of Scripture – the reason why God chooses some and not all – is hidden in God’s inscrutable justice.
Calvin, however, did not agree with Augustine in all regards (cf. Gerrish
In the light of the conflict with Bolsec, the
Both Luther and Calvin are convinced that predestination is biblical and therefore useful to believers. Their respective teachings on predestination are not born out of eagerness to speculate, but obedience to Scripture (Exalto
Both of them teach that predestination is God’s mystery. We cannot uncover this mystery by human reason. We can only accept what God has done in Jesus Christ. The mystery-character of this doctrine does not mean uncertainty in terms of salvation. Through faith in Christ we are certain about our eternal destination (Bouwsma
In spite of the fact that Calvin does not use the same terminology as Luther, he has the same argument on the hidden and revealed God.
Many scholars in the past concentrated on some of Calvin’s arguments which state that God has from eternity elected only some people for salvation. With this argument in hand, they argued that Calvin and Luther do not teach the same theology. According to them, Luther teaches that God has revealed himself in Christ as the God of mercy and that those who accept his offer of grace could be certain that they are elected (e.g. Bayer (
One point of difference is that Calvin’s doctrine of predestination has shown to have huge ethical consequences. His doctrinal understanding liberated people from fatalism. This freedom gave the Huguenots the courage to endure persecution and to resist tyranny (
Election and predestination are biblical themes. Both the Old and New Testament deal with these themes. Present-day scholars find it difficult to defend the reformers’ expositions of these notions. Especially, Calvin’s double predestination does not find apologists. In the light of the radical critique of the Enlightenment, Schleiermacher and Barth proposed new ways of explaining and defending these notions. Barth’s tendency to embrace the idea that all would eventually be saved (
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships which may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
Reformed scholars such as Brouwer (
Compare McCormack (
Compare McCormack (
The terminological difference between election and predestination has to do with the fact that the doctrine of election only concentrates on the destination of people towards salvation, while the doctrine of predestination deals with the destination of people salvation or perdition (Härle
An important reference in this regard is Luther’s ‘table-talk’ nr. 5658a (
Luther’s own words in the modernised version of T. Dietz ( Zum Zwölften darfst du die Hölle und die Ewgkeit des Leidens samt der Verwerfung nicht in dir, nicht an sich und nicht in denen, die verdammt sind, ansehen; auch darfst du dich nicht bekümmern wegen so vieler Menschen in der ganzen Welt, die nicht erwählt sind […] Darum musst du hier stark sein und die Augen fest gesclossen halten vor solchem Anblick. Denn es ist zu gar nichts nütze, wenn du dich auch tausend Jahre darin übst, am Ende verdirbt er dich doch. Du musst doch Gott Gott sein lassen und zulassen, dass er mehr von dir weiβ als du selbst. Darum sieh das himmlische Bild Christi an, der um deinetwillen in die Hölle gefahren ist und von Gott verlassen war wie einer, der auf ewig verdammt ist, and am Kreuz sprach: Eli, Eli, lama asabthani, O mein Gott, o mein Gott, warum hast du mich verlassen? Siehe, in diesem Bild ist deine Hölle überwunden und deine ungewisse Erwählung ist gewiss gemacht. Wenn du dich allein darum kümmerst und glaubst, es sei für dich geschehen, so wirst du ganz gewiss in diesem Glauben bewahrt. Darum verliere das ja nicht aus den Augen und suche dich nur in Christus und nicht in dir, dann wirst du dich ewig in ihm finden. Und wenn du Christus und alle seine Heiligen ansiehst und dir wohl gefällt die Gnade Gottes, der sich doch erwählt hat, und ganz fest in diesem Wohlgefallen bleibst, so wirst auch du schon erwählt sein.
This title could be translated in more than one way. The German translation of the title in Luther (
In Luther’s own words: ‘
Luther says:
Cur non ab inquirendis illis contines ipse et absterres alios, quae Deus occulta nobis esse voluit, et scripturis non prodidit? Hic oportuit os digito compescere, revereri, quod lateret, adorare secreta maiestatis consilia et cum Paulo clamare, O homo, tu qui es, qui contendas cum Deo?
Luther says:
[…] Deus voluit ea vulgari, voluntatis verbo divinae rationem quarendam non esse, sed simpliciter adorandam, data gloria Deo, quod cum sit iustus et sapiens solus nulli faciat iniuriam, nec stulte aut temere quippiam agere possit, licet nobis longe secus appareat, hac responsione pii sunt contenti.
This distinction is not only an important pillar in his thoughts on predestination, but also a cornerstone of his whole theology (cf. Barth
Luther ( […] [
For comprehensive information about this dictum, see Jüngel (
Compare Brouwer (
The reformed theologian, Otto Weber (
Readers should remember that Calvin is not the inventor of ‘double predestination’. Medieval theologians such as Gregory of Rimini and Gugolino of Orvieto worked with this notion long before Calvin (McGrath
The discomfort has inter alia to do with the logical consequences of the argument. One consequence is that one has to accept that God wants to eternally punish the sinner. Jan Bonda (
In older expositions on his doctrine of election such as those of Otten (
Exalto’s argument (