Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 6

Bercot says it was originally pagans who believed in predestination and that Luther explicitly appealed to Virgil and “heathen poets” about “unchangeable law” and “the binding chain of fate”; what do you make of Luther’s comfort with pagan fatalism language, and where might Christians today borrow non-Christian frameworks in a similar way without noticing?

Another way to ask: What do you think about Luther using pagan “fate” language to talk about predestination? Where might Christians today borrow non-Christian ideas in a similar way without realizing it?

Direct Answer Bercot’s point is that Luther was unusually comfortable supporting predestination with pagan “fate” language, which shows how Christians can absorb outside frameworks; the transcript doesn’t list modern examples, but it warns that such borrowing can quietly reshape doctrine.

Support from Transcript:

Bercot claims, “originally, it was the pagan world, not the Christians, who believed in predestination.”
He says Luther “took the side of the pagan Romans against the early Christians,” and even “literally sided with them.”
Luther is quoted asking why predestination should be “difficult…when heathen poets…have them in their mouths,” then cites Virgil: “All things stand fixed by unchangeable law,” “Fixed is the day of every man,” and “the binding chain of fate.”
Luther argues this “knowledge of predestination” was universally known, even by “common folk” and “consciences.”
Bercot frames this as a “strange quirk of Christian history,” highlighting the influence of non-Christian assumptions.

Discussion Follow-ups What sources most shape our instincts—Scripture and early Christian reasoning, or cultural “common sense” about fate, determinism, or psychology?

Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 6 of 10