Double predestination

My self-denying ordinance not to post on this blog has lasted ... about five hours. Ah well.

My understanding of the basic reason for Lutherans rejecting DP is that the Bible teaches that God does not desire the death of the wicked, that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, etc. As with limited atonement, it's a refusal to improve God's Word by dotting i's and crossing t's that He has left undotted and uncrossed.

So we believe in effectual atonement and eternal election to life no less strongly than our Calvinistic brothers and sisters in Christ - rejecting with them Arminian errors that leave salvation finally in the hands of the individual - but are happy to keep these teachings in tension with the biblical texts that teach universal atonement and personal responsibility for one's own damnation.

The key text for the Calvinistic DP position - and the one area where they may have us a bit more on the back foot - is probably Romans 9:21-23:

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.

I gather the explanation for this from a Lutheran perspective is that St Paul is careful to use the passive to describe the "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" rather than the active "which he has prepared". Also, that this is a "what if?" argument in response to a specific objection, and cannot be used to overthrow other clear biblical teachings. (I'm not convinced that these are the most persuasive arguments I've ever heard, though I accept the basic conclusion.)

There is thus a parallel with Paul's similar (and similarly controversial) argument in 1 Cor 15, "why are people baptized for the dead if the dead rise not?". So if I was really wanting to "stir it", I might invite people to consider the parallels between Calvinist and Mormon interpretations of the Bible. But perhaps it's best if I leave the Calvinist-bashing to Josh ;-)

Originally posted in June 2004