This was a post over on Catholic Answers: Split: Luther, Calvin, Pope Benedict, etc. agree predestination?
The post itself appears to be from a non-Catholic. The basic idea is that Luther and Calvin followed Augustine's view on predestination. Here was a comment from the post:
St A's interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:4 and Romans 9 are especially revealing. Even more surprisingly, his passage on "Love" seems to imply that Christ died only to save his elect: "the kingdom of death will not hold one for whom [Christ laid down his life." St A's views seem to accord with Martin Luther's, which are explained in detail in his work, "Bondage of the Will." Therein, he claims that justification is based on God's unconditional election, which, in turn, always leads to faith (and faith produces love).
Here's just a quick clarification. It appears to me in Luther's earlier writings he embraced something like "Christ died only to save his elect". In his later writings he has many statements that indicate Christ died for "all," yet he still held to a vigorous predestination, in which God has determined who will be saved. Luther had no problem with paradox- if the Scriptures appeared to say something was x in one place, and y in another, and these did not appear to add up, it didn't matter to him. simply let the Scriptures say what they say. In regards to reading Luther, the Bondage of the Will isn't a bad book to get a hold of. The Johnston/Packer translation reads the best.
As far as I know, There are differences of opinion on the doctrine of predestination within the Roman Catholic Church. That is, Catholics are allowed a range of freedom to hold differing views. As my "dear" Catholic apologist friend Dr. Sippo once said, "there are a range of views permissible within the limits of Catholic orthodoxy" on predestination.
Of course, I would ask why, since the scriptures speak so often about the subject. Think of how many passages speak explicitly about predestination as compared to say, what the Scriptures say about, the Assumption of Mary. The former is allowed a much wider range of interpretation, than the later. I would argue, the Scriptures are much more concerned about predestination than the Assumption, yet there are specific binding dogmatic statements about the Assumption, and not predestination. Perhaps a controversy of some sort will prompt a dogma on predestination at some point, until then, Catholics are free to embrace Augustine's views, or the views of others.
I had one response to these comments, so far:
If the Scriptures were that explicit about Predestination, you would not have this diversity of opinion from good faith Calvinists, Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, etc... The reality of the Assumption has been divinely revealed through the Church in a theological way that the nature of Predestination has not. Of course, you do not believe the Church bears such a charism, so your criteria does not apply here.
I would argue the Scriptures are explicit about predestination. It's the fact that many people (both Catholic and Protestants) don't like that clarity, so they attempt to water those explicit Scriptures down. I think the diversity of opinion is not due to "good faith." Quite the opposite, all those who counter the Augustinian/Luther/Calvin understanding of predestination are prone to not letting the text speak.
But among Catholics, if the Scripture has an important doctrine addressed multiple times, and the Roman church does little or nothing to clarify exactly what that important doctrine is, one wonders if they've learned their lesson from the Reformation. Recall the diversity of opinion about justification caused quite a problem. Rome was forced to take a solid position. Well, fortunately for Rome, it's probably the case the sale of indulgences aren't wrapped up with predestination. Fortunately for Rome, a great number of people could care less exactly what predestination means.
As to, "The reality of the Assumption has been divinely revealed through the Church in a theological way that the nature of Predestination has not"...why? Why is this more of an important subject than predestination? Why did the biblical writers write explicitly on this subject, while they say little or nothing about Mariology? Why wouldn't Rome desire divinely reveal the nature of predestination in a theological way? Must everything hinge on a controversy?