This is the third part of the response to Leighton Flowers video in regards to Luther vs Calvin (two Reformers who carried forth two different stream of Augustinian predestination thoughts). The first part is a defense of Augustine found here:
https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/response-to-leighton-flowers-video-on.html?m=1
The second part refuted his caricatures of Lutheranism:
https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/response-to-leighton-flowers-video-on_29.html?m=1
Flowers’ video can be found here:
https://youtu.be/pZrTO88WmDg
This will not only refute the caricatures Leighton Flowers made of Luther’s beliefs but slanderous remarks accusing Luther wanting to hide his alleged Calvinistic beliefs.
From around the 57 minute and for around the next 40 minutes Flowers accused Luther of not only holding to Calvinistic views of God ordaining some to be saved and others not to be saved, saving grace withheld from those who aren’t chosen, and Christ not dying for the sins of those not chosen so that they perished for eternity in their sins (as how Flowers put it), but of wanting to hide his views rather than honestly have such views preached.
At around the one hour and 16 minute mark, he said that if such views are that problematic then drop the system rather than hide his beliefs. There’s just one problem: the accusations Flowers made aren’t honest of what Luther held to at all.
For starters, he lumped all who affirmed Augustinian views of freewill as unable to on its own to come to Christ, unless given the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of them to do so, as all Calvinists. That isn’t honest, and he knows it.
Earlier on at the 54:58 minute mark, Flowers rightfully criticized Ryan Reeves for claiming Arminians deny the need for God’s grace prior to faith. He correctly pointed out that Arminians hold to prevenient grace is needed prior to one can have saving faith. Because Arminians hold to such grace allows for man to choose for or against faith (synergism), that must mean they are closer to his views.
What he didn’t mention here though was that the reason why Arminians, especially Wesleyans, affirmed prevenient grace was because they affirmed (along with Lutherans and Calvinists) as well the doctrine of total depravity meaning without such grace, man is born incapable-because of the sinful inclinations of his heart- to choose faith unless God works in man to move him towards faith. Keep in mind, his rhetoric was 1) only Calvinists hold to such view of total depravity (false, as proven by the existence of both Lutherans and Arminians) and 2) and such a view came from Manichaean and Gnostic heresies that Augustine introduced into the early church (false as shown by past rebuttals written on this blog to Flowers’ chief source for his prop propaganda, Ken Wilson).
Know what else Flowers didn’t mentioned? Prevenient grace itself is an Augustinian concept. While Arminians applied the term to mean it in a synergistic sense, monergistic Lutherans and Calvinists don’t (the term is more in disuse among them because of what Arminians did with it). The term simply meant that divine grace is needed prior to one can come to faith. It can mean salvation is all of God in regards to faith is given effectually as a gift (monergism) or it can mean grace gives man, who is previously incapable because of unborn sin, the ability to choose for or against Christ.
Consider Augustine’s words affirming prevenient grace in his anti-Pelagian writing On Nature and Grace chapter 31:
“In this matter, no doubt, we do ourselves, too, work; but we are fellow-workers with Him who does the work, because His mercy anticipates us. He anticipates us, however, that we may be healed; but then He will also follow us, that being healed we may grow healthy and strong. He anticipates us that we may be called; He will follow us that we may be glorified. He anticipates us that we may lead godly lives; He will follow us that we may always live with Him, because without Him we can do nothing.”
Aquinas’ Summa Theologica First Part of the Second Part, Quention 111: referred to this as prevenient grace:
“I answer that, As grace is divided into operating and cooperating, with regard to its diverse effects, so also is it divided into prevenient and subsequent, howsoever we consider grace. Now there are five effects of grace in us: of these, the first is, to heal the soul; the second, to desire good; the third, to carry into effect the good proposed; the fourth, to persevere in good; the fifth, to reach glory. And hence grace, inasmuch as it causes the first effect in us, is called prevenient with respect to the second, and inasmuch as it causes the second, it is called subsequent with respect to the first effect. And as one effect is posterior to this effect, and prior to that, so may grace be called prevenient and subsequent on account of the same effect viewed relatively to divers others. And this is what Augustine says (De Natura et Gratia xxxi): "It is prevenient, inasmuch as it heals, and subsequent, inasmuch as, being healed, we are strengthened; it is prevenient, inasmuch as we are called, and subsequent, inasmuch as we are glorified."
Flowers can’t play the Manichaean and Gnostic card on total depravity view without also trashing the Arminians whom he want to claim on his side, since the premise behind Arminian understanding of prevenient grace is total depravity. He can’t also play the Luther or Lutherans must be Calvinist card without doing the same to Arminians.
He complained throughout the video at the way Ryan Reeves framed the debates doing the Reformation in such a way to make his Provisionist views look ridiculous despite the fact that the debates during that era wasn’t between Reformers and Provisionists, but between Reformers and Rome (which at least affirmed grace is necessary prior to faith but insisted on our role in our conversion once grace is given).
Yet, the way Flowers was framing things had the intended effect of imputing views to Luther that he had did not hold to so he can throw baseless accusations that Luther didn’t want predestination debated or preached because he was trying to “hide” his views. (He even played the Manichaean, Gnostic and Stoic card at the one hour and six minute mark, which was par for the course in regards to his need to slander Augustine and all his spiritual heirs, including Luther.)
Contrary to what Flowers wanted to claim, Luther was no Calvinist given he held to 1) God wants all to be saved earnestly with His divine grace given in Word and Sacrament, 2) Christ died for all, and saving grace given in Word and Sacrament can be resisted whether to convert or preserve in the faith (though God will ultimately keep His elect).
As shown above, one can hold to total depravity and still not hold to God’s saving grace works inwardly only on the elect and Christ died only for the elect. Flowers inadvertently disproved his claim when he mentioned Wesleyans/Arminians affirmed prevenient grace. Besides the fact Luther (who was no Arminian) holding to total depravity was no proof that he was a Calvinist, he also didn’t hold to predestination the same way Calvinists did regardless of what Flowers wanted to claim.
To be sure, he agreed with Calvinists that God’s divine choice of us is not based on anything He foresaw in us, not even our faith, but is cause of being given faith and being preserved in that faith. Where he differed from Calvinists, however, was that he refused to speculate into such hidden decrees in regards to thinking that meant God actively or passively passes over others, who aren’t elect, so that they won’t get saving grace and be lost eternally.
Flowers claimed that Luther, based on affirming such mentioned views of total depravity and unconditional election (or election not conditional on what God foresees we will do), agreed with the Calvinist understanding of reprobation (which involved God withholding effectual saving grace from those who aren’t chosen, but taught we should not talk about. That’s where the slanderous and repeated charges of Luther wanting to hide his alleged views of God wanting to save all comes in.
But is that true? Take 1 Timothy 2:4. The only time that Luther ever saw that text as teaching God only wants to save all the elect, not everyone, came in his Romans commentary, two years before he wrote the 95 theses and was a Reformer.
In regards to his famous Bondage of the Will, written in 1525 as a response to Catholic humanist Erasmus, when he examined texts like 1 Timothy 2:4, John 1:29 Matthew 23:37, and Ezekiel 18:23, he landed on the side of God wanting to save all as His revealed gracious will. In fact he argued for especially universal atonement with the premise of universality of sin that bound the will of all.
Luther wrote in Bondage of the Will, quoting John 1:29 to start:
"If, therefore, Christ be the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world, it follows, that the whole world is under sin, damnation, and the devil. Hence your distinction between the principal parts, and the parts not principal, profits you nothing: for the world, signifies men, savouring of nothing but the things of the world, throughout all their faculties."
That puts the lie to Flowers’ claim that Luther held to Christ didn’t die for those not chosen so that God could carry out His desire to doom them for eternity for His glory and and more so to the claim that Luther wanted to hide such beliefs (that he didn’t even affirmed).
An overview of Luther’s sermons will also disproved Flowers’ claim there as well:
"For, as already stated, this is the sin of all sins, that when God is gracious and wants all our sins forgiven, man by his unbelief rejects God's truth and grace, and casts it away from him, and will not let the death and resurrection of Christ the Lord avail." (Luther's Third Sermon on Mark 16:1-8 (Easter Sunday)
"The teaching and preaching of the Gospel is nothing else than that Christ is the Son of God, sent by the Father as a sacrifice and ransom for the sin of the world, by his own blood, that he might appease the wrath of God and effect reconciliation for us, redeeming us from sin and death and securing for us righteousness and everlasting life. It must follow, then that no one, by his own work and holiness can atone for his sins or appease the wrath of God, and there is no other way to attain the grace of God and eternal life than by the faith which thus apprehends Christ." (Luther’s Sermon on John 15:26-16:4, Sunday After Christ's Ascension):
"It is Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. He, and no one else either in heaven or on earth takes our sins upon himself. You yourself could not pay for the smallest of sins. He alone must take upon himself not alone your sins, but the sins of the world, and not some sins, but all the sins of the world, be they great or small, many or few" (Luther’s Sermon on John 1:19-28, 4th Sunday in Advent)
Not to mention Luther wrote in his Galatians commentary chapter 3:
“Our merciful Father in heaven saw how the Law oppressed us and how impossible it was for us to get out from under the curse of the Law. He therefore sent His only Son into the world and said to Him: "You are now Peter, the liar; Paul, the persecutor; David, the adulterer; Adam, the disobedient; the thief on the cross. You, My Son, must pay the world's iniquity." The Law growls: "All right. If Your Son is taking the sin of the world, I see no sins anywhere else but in Him. He shall die on the Cross." And the Law kills Christ. But we go free.
“The argument of the Apostle against the righteousness of the Law is impregnable. If Christ bears our sins, we do not bear them. But if Christ is innocent of our sins and does not bear them, we must bear them, and we shall die in our sins. ‘But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.’”
“Let us see how Christ was able to gain the victory over our enemies. The sins of the whole world, past, present, and future, fastened themselves upon Christ and condemned Him. But because Christ is God He had an everlasting and unconquerable righteousness.
“These two, the sin of the world and the righteousness of God, met in a death struggle. Furiously the sin of the world assailed the righteousness of God.
“Righteousness is immortal and invincible. On the other hand, sin is a mighty tyrant who subdues all men. This tyrant pounces on Christ. But Christ's righteousness is unconquerable. The result is inevitable. Sin is defeated and righteousness triumphs and reigns forever.”
And in chapter 5 of that commentary, he added that what Christ won for us at the cross can be refused or lost due to unbelief or final apostasy:
“To fall from grace means to lose the atonement, the forgiveness of sins, the righteousness, liberty, and life which Jesus has merited for us by His death and resurrection. To lose the grace of God means to gain the wrath and judgment of God, death, the bondage of the devil, and everlasting condemnation.”
In regards to his view of God’s universal desire to save in regards to the passages, 1 Timothy 2:4, Matthew 23:37, and Ezekiel 18:23, Luther wrote in Bondage:
“Therefore it is rightly said, 'if God does not desire our death, it is to be laid to the charge of our own will, if we perish:' this, I say, is right, if you speak of GOD PREACHED. For He desires that all men should be saved, seeing that, He comes unto all by the word of salvation, and it is the fault of the will which does not receive Him: as He saith. (Matt. xxiii. 37.) ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not!’ But WHY that Majesty does not take away or change this fault of the will IN ALL, seeing that, it is not in the power of man to do it; or why He lays that to the charge of the will, which the man cannot avoid, it becomes us not to inquire, and though you should inquire much, yet you will never find out: as Paul saith, (Rom. ix, 20,) ‘Who art thou that repliest against God!’”
Note that Luther stated himself that God wants all to be saved and God comes to all with His word of salvation. In Luther’s view, which early on he stated in Bondage, Word and Spirit cannot be divorced from each other, and God works through the outward Word (as in word preached and sacrament) as outward means He reaches us with the Gospel. There was no outward (for all) and inward grace (for the elect) distinction, that existed in Calvinist theology, in Luther’s system.
Furthermore, when Luther spoke of the distinction between the hidden will, that elects or reprobates, and revealed will, he was not arguing for two wills of God, as if the revealed will means God outwardly commands all to be saved, and the hidden will means God wants to save only some and gives saving grace only to the chosen so His that it can never be resisted, contrary to what Flowers claimed of his views at the one hour and thirty-six minute mark
What Luther was saying was in regards to God’s hidden will, it refers to speculations as to why some are saved and some are not, of which he said is none of our business and we are forbidden to inquire into. We are not to figure out what even occurs with God choosing us in regards to eternal decrees (since they are hidden from us and such speculations treat it as outside of Christ), but to treat predestination as in Christ, for our assurance, that our salvation is in God’s hands, not based on what we do or how “good” we are (in fact, Luther’s primary point isn’t predestination but about law and gospel distinction must be kept).
That’s not Luther trying to hide his views as Flowers slanderously and falsely accused him of (which complaining throughout the video that Reeves framed the issues in ways that weren’t fair to Flowers’ views that weren’t even involved back in the Reformation days between Reformers and Rome). In fact, Luther feared these predestination debates would lead to views such as denying God wants all to be saved. Luther didn’t need to hide holding to the view God decided not to save some by withholding atonement and grace from them, since he didn’t hold to such views, not even in Bondage.
For Luther, there remains one saving will: the universal.
A few paragraphs later in Bondage, he added his take on Matthew 23:37, affirming God’s saving will can be resisted:
“Nor do I suppose that any one will cavillingly deny, that that will which here saith, "How often would I!" was displayed to the Jews, even before God became Incarnate; seeing that, they are accused of having slain the prophets, before Christ, and having thus resisted His will. For it is well known among Christians, that all things were done by the prophets in the name of Christ to come, who was promised that He should become Incarnate: so that, whatever has been offered unto men by the ministers of the word from the foundation of the world, may be rightly called, the Will of Christ.”
That isn’t to say Luther was Arminian. While he shared with Arminians the view of God’s universal atonement and desire to save to all that can be resisted, he shared with Calvinist view that salvation is all of God (hence his view of conversion is monergistic, or God alone converts us). He refused to compromise on either set of beliefs (monergism/election and universal grace) despite them seeming to be paradoxical to others. His answer in Bondage to the question as to why not all are saved if God alone converts the bound will and if God wants all to be saved is not for us to know since God never revealed that to us (hidden will).
Luther was consistent through the course of his life in affirming God’s earnest universal desire to save. He wrote in a letter on July 20, 1528:
“Although God Almighty knows all things, and all works and thoughts in all creatures must come to pass according to His will (iuxta decretum voluntatis suae), it is nevertheless His earnest will and purpose, aye, His command, decreed from eternity, to save all men and make them partakers of eternal joy, as is clearly stated Ezek. 18, 23, where He says: God does not desire the death of the wicked but that the wicked turn and live.Now, if He desires to save and to have saved the sinners who live and move under the wide and high heaven, then you must not separate yourself from the grace of God by your foolish thoughts, inspired by the devil. For God's grace extends and stretches from east to west from south to north, overshadowing all who turn, truly repent, and make themselves partakers of His mercy and desire help. For He is 'rich unto all that call upon Him,'Rom. 10, 12. This, however requires true and genuine faith, which expels such faint-heartedness and despair and is our righteousness, as it is written Rom. 3, 22: 'the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all and upon all.' Mark these words, in omnes, super omnes (unto all, upon all), whether you also belong to them, and are one of those who lie and grovel under the banner of the sinners." "Think also as constantly and earnestly of salvation as you [now] do of damnation, and comfort yourself with God's Word, which is true and everlasting, then such ill winds will cease and pass entirely."
Or consider his outright condemnations of the idea that God wants to give effectual saving grace only to the chosen elect in his sermon in 1533 (same sermon he affirmed God elects through means):
“Some conceive other thoughts, explaining the words thus: 'Many are called', i.e., God offers His grace to many, but few are chosen, i.e.,He imparts such grace to only a few; for only a few are saved. This is an altogether wicked explanation.For how is it possible for one who holds and believes nothing else of God not to be an enemy of God, whose will alone must be blamed for the fact that not all of us are saved? Contrast this opinion with the one that is formed when a man first learns to know the Lord Christ, and it will be found to be nothing but devilish blasphemy.”
Later on in the sermon, he added: “This makes good Christians, whereas those who think that God begrudges salvation to any one either become reckless or secure, wicked people, who live like brutes, thinking: It has already been ordained whether I am to be saved or not; why, then, should I stint myself anything? To think thus is wrong; for you are commanded to hear God's Word and to believe Christ to be your Savior, who has paid for your sin.”
Luther stated similarly in Genesis commentary:
“For what end did it serve to send His Son to suffer and to be crucified for us? Of what use was it to institute the sacraments if they are uncertain or completely useless for our salvation? For otherwise, if someone had been predestined, he would have been saved without the Son and without the sacraments or Holy Scripture. Consequently, God, according to the blasphemy of these people, was horribly foolish when He sent His Son, promulgated the Law and the Gospel, and sent the apostles if the only thing He wanted was that we should be uncertain and in doubt whether we are to be saved or really to be damned.”
When Reeves made reference to that, he tried to claim that Luther wasn’t refuting Calvinism or Calvinist like views (of God’s saving grace not intended to give faith effectually to all), but his practical concerns with it, he was wrong. Luther encountered similar views in 1533 even before Calvin and railed against such views using similar phrasing. In fact, his concerns on the practical side was that dwelling into predestination thoughts could lead to holding to God doesn’t want to save all. Flowers exploited what Reeves said to accuse Luther falsely of holding to God wants many not be atoned for and saved so they could be damned for eternity for God’s glory and of trying to hide his beliefs.
Contrary to Flowers’ slanders, Luther opposed predestination focus and debates was because he didn’t want to turn what was written for the comfort of the believer (when we think of predestination as us in Christ, as revealed to us in Word and Sacrament, not speculate into it, as eternal decrees as outside of Christ) into drawing false conclusions such as God doesn’t earnestly desire to save all or we have a role in our salvation (either view to Luther would be hindrance towards assurance). For Luther, while grace was effectual to give faith, not dependent on us, it worked on all and can be resisted. He wasn’t hiding views he didn’t even hold to! Flowers put those views in Luther’s mouth.
Nor was Luther holding to Calvinism but preached and practiced like Arminian as Flowers asserted. No, Luther held to his Lutheran beliefs and preached and practiced such beliefs, distinguished from Calvinism, Arminian, and Flowers’ Provisionist camps.
Let us close with these words of wisdom from Luther:
“A dispute about predestination should be avoided entirely... I forget everything about Christ and God when I come upon these thoughts and actually get to the point to imagining that God is a rogue. We must stay in the word, in which God is revealed to us and salvation is offered, if we believe him. But in thinking about predestination, we forget God . . However, in Christ are hid all the treasures (Col. 2:3); outside him all are locked up. Therefore, we should simply refuse to argue about election.
“Such a disputation is so very displeasing to God that he has instituted Baptism, the spoken Word, and the Lord’s Supper to counteract the temptation to engage in it. In these, let us persist and constantly say., I am baptized I believe in Jesus. I care nothing about the disputation concerning predestination.”
Here we stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment