I've been on quite a long break from blogging, but have recently wanted to get back in the swing of things. A big thanks to my fellow bloggers who have kept From Geneva to Wittenberg alive during my hiatus.
I've been doing a lot of reading lately and that has spiked my interest in blogging again. A little Chemnitz here, a splash of Hermann Sasse there, and even some Jordan Cooper; as well as the book I will be touching on briefly here, Has American Christianity Failed, by Bryan Wolfmueller.
I gobbled Pr. Wolfmueller's book up in about three sittings when I first received it in the mail. It's very well written, and provides an accurate summary of the sad state of American Christianity. Moreover, it provides the sweet antidote of the Gospel as the solution to the false doctrines being peddled as authentic Christianity in America.
One of the major issues that pops up in American churches is an over-emphasis on the preaching of the Christian and not the Christ. This false teaching rears its ugly head in a few different manners. The most obvious one is the predominance of decisional theology taught in a plethora of churches. Leave it to us Americans to twist our theology to suit our cultural virtues.
The beginnings of these false teachings can be traced back to the Second Great Awakening in the 19th century. At the very least, this is when they became popular; mainly because they agreed with American ideals. The ideal of the self made man and the free self-determination of the independent will of man certainly contributed to these false doctrines.
Enter Charles Grandison Finney. If you don't know who Finney is, you should. Finney has had more influence on the shape and doctrine of American theology than nearly any other person in the last 500 years. If you've ever seen a church conduct an altar call at the end of the service, you have Finney to thank. If the Gospel is reduced to a decision a person must make in order to be saved, thank old Finney. If you've ever wondered why the "praise band" plays emotional songs to set the mood to get people to make a decision, thank Finney. If you're familiar with the Sinner's Prayer, thank Finney. All of this can be traced back to Finney's persuasive ideas and a practice he called the "anxious bench," which was essentially a place where people who were close to choosing Jesus were brought to be persuaded to actually do so.
The problems with this sort of theology should be pretty obvious to anyone who has read the Scriptures or been instructed in a more traditional or confessional church. That is to say, decisional theology is not found in the Bible, nor is it found in church history. But for some reason, old habits die hard. Many churches still practice these false doctrines today. Pr. Wolfmueller explains: "The decision for Christ is both the end and the beginning of everything. Jesus made salvation possible, but really, it all starts with me. Revivalism fails to see the big picture of the Scriptures: our gracious God and Savior comes after us, grabs us up, gives us the gift of repentance and faith, and calls us to be His own dear friends. Our salvation is His work from the very beginning, and we are the beneficiaries of His mercy." (Wolfmueller, p. 14)
Oh but the American church doesn't end there. Now that we made our decision, what's next? Well, it's more me, of course! Now that we've got the decision out of the way, we're done with the Gospel, because only unbelievers need to hear that! Hence, in the usual American church, once we've made it beyond the Gospel, it's time for us to move on to better things, like doing our best and trying to please God by our obedience. This idea plays itself out in both Calvinist as well as Arminian churches; churches that teach once saved always saved, and churches that do not. Either way, this idea is still prevalent.
Calvinist author Mark Jones, in his book Antinomianism, argues, "God cannot help but love us more and more if we become more and more like him." (Jones, Kindle Location 1617) Hence, here we have a Calvinist, a proponent on the P in the Calvinist TULIP, arguing for a conditional love of God based on our obedience to the law. In the Arminian camp, there are sinless perfectionist churches known as holiness churches that teach that a person can be perfected in love and live without sin. John Wesley was a proponent of this doctrine. Wolfmueller comments on his experience in American Christianity, saying, "Resolve to keep God's Law is, of course, a godly sentiment, but on the pages of my journal (and in my own heart), this resolve overshadowed everything else. Most especially, it overshadowed Jesus. The purpose of my life and my daily goal was to keep God's Law, and a bit more: to make God happy by my obedience. Each day would begin with a rally to assault sin and overcome it. Each day would end with defeat, sometimes despair. I was a loser in the battle to be holy. Like a worker with an overbearing boss, I assumed that the Lord was giving out daily evaluations, and most days were bad. Most days, I was sure God was frowning at me." (Wolfmueller p. 15)
The problem with all of these theologies, from Calvinist to Arminian to various strains of Baptist and big box Evangelicalism, is their failure to keep the Gospel as the central teaching for all people everywhere - including (and especially!) Christians. Instead, the Gospel is seen as a stepping stone to get oneself saved, whether it be by making a decision for Christ or by the sovereign Holy Spirit working apart from the means of grace. Once one is beyond the Gospel, in comes the Law, as a measuring stick for good living and pleasing God.
Of course, all of this is really, really, bad theology. There is, for all intents and purposes, no possible way to have any assurance that one is saved in any of these theologies, since every single one of them, at some point, puts all the assurance on the subjective decision making and doing/obedience of the Christian. None can base assurance on the completely objective work of Christ, outside of us. God demands perfection. The Law is God's Law. Hence, the Law requires perfect obedience. This is what Jesus has in mind when He says "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)
Those who admit that they cannot be perfect are honest, and hence can never be assured they are doing well enough, and those who think they can be perfect (in thought, word, and deed) are liars.
The Holy Scriptures, and Christ, give us a better way. Baptism, the Word, the Holy Supper. All of these are objectively outside of us and give us the faith we need.
This is why, in a Confessional Lutheran Church, you will hear both the Law and the Gospel in a sermon. The Law drives us to repentance. The Gospel, the good news of Christ's one-sided work for you, given to you in the means of grace, lifts us up as redeemed children of God.
Preaching the Christian and not the Christ puts one on sinking sand indeed.
By the way, 5 stars for Pr. Bryan Wolfmueller's fantastic work, "Has American Christianity Failed?"
+Pax+
Showing posts with label Arminianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arminianism. Show all posts
7/31/16
No We're Not
Lutheranism is Lutheranism. We do not borrow some from Calvinism and some from Arminianism and some from Rome. We are Evangelical Catholic. We are Lutheran.
It's way too common for Evangelicals who have some amount of learning experience in theology to try to jam Lutheranism into the debate between Calvin and Arminius. This simply does not work, and I will show you why. We ought to give these folks a pass on this, as it is not any sort of malicious attempt against Lutherans in any way. However, we do need to get the word out there about what we believe. Education is paramount in this endeavor. It must be shown, as we on this blog try to do to the best of our abilities, that we simply do not fit within either of these radical reformation traditions.
I was guilty of this too at one time. When I first started digging into theology, I jumped into Calvinism and Arminianism. I was simply being a good evangelical, and after all, evangelicals fall into one of these two categories; or a mixture of the two. Ultimately I cast my lot with Calvin and the Reformed tradition. I saw everything through the lens of the sovereignty of God, predestination, and covenant theology. I thought Lutherans were essentially Arminians, because Lutheranism rejected the P in the famous TULIP.
Then I came across some learned Lutherans online. I didn't listen to them much at first. I thought Lutheranism was a jumbled irrational mess. Little did I know, my world was about to be rocked.
So, why don't Lutherans fit with evangelicals? Simply put, it's the Sacraments. Whereas we can definitely have a scholarly conversation with Calvinists and Arminians regarding election, free will, and other things, we begin in a completely different place. For us, we start and end with Christ crucified for the forgiveness of all of our sins.
Why the Sacraments? Because in Lutheranism, you simply cannot divorce the Sacraments in any way whatsoever from salvation and justification. In Calvinist Covenant Theology, the Covenant of Grace has a substance and an administration. That is to say, there are two aspects to this covenant. One is external and one is internal. The external covenant is the administration of the covenant, where the Word is preached and the Sacraments administered. The internal is the substance, where the Holy Spirit gives that special inward call to the elect alone and no one else. This strips the Sacraments of objectivity. In Arminianism, everything hinges on the free will decision of the individual. Hence, modern American Evangelicalism, which is strongly Arminian and in many cases outright Pelagian, is big on getting people to make a decision for Jesus, ask Him into their hearts, or come forward for an altar call. All of these practices assume a choice is needed to enact salvation. This is the horrendous error of decisional regeneration or decision theology.
We don't fit. In Lutheranism, Christ is right there for us in our baptism. Saving us. We are baptized into the Triune God, objectively. It's not part of an external covenant. It's grace for you, and it saves.
We also need constant forgiveness. How do we know we are receiving constant forgiveness? Well, because some dude in a white dress who is called and ordained stands in the place of Christ (cf. John 20:23) and pronounces "I forgive you all of your sins in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Why do we believe this? Because Christ Himself ordained the Office of the Holy Ministry and gave the Keys to the Kingdom to the Church.
How do I receive forgiveness in other ways? Well, because some dude in a white dress consecrates ordinary bread and wine and Christ feeds us His true body and blood for the forgiveness of sins (cf. Matthew 26:26-28).
How do I know I am forgiven? Because I am baptized into the Name of God. He saved me right there; His Word working through ordinary water. Because I eat the body and blood of Jesus, in my mouth, orally. Now, for any of you Calvinists or Arminians who happen to stumble across this blog post, be honest with yourself. According to your theology, us Lutherans are idolatrous heretics. We know we are forgiven because we eat and drink Jesus in our mouths. Think about that. We know we are forgiven because the guy in the white dress acts on behalf of Christ and forgives us all of our sins. Think about that.
I close with an excellent quote from Gene Veith. He states:
"To understand Lutheranism, it is necessary to recognize that the Lutheran understanding of salvation by grace and justification by faith cannot be separated from the Lutheran teachings of baptismal regeneration and the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine of Holy Communion. These teachings are all intimately connected with each other in Lutheran theology and spirituality. If you play them off against each other, thinking you can have Lutheran soteriology without Lutheran sacramental theology, you might have Calvinists or Baptists or Calvinist Baptists or something else, but you cannot have Lutherans. Nor can you have Lutheran Calvinists or Calvinist Lutherans or Lutheran Baptists or Baptist Lutherans." Gospel Coalition Debate
Exactly. We do not fit.
And no we are not ______. Fill in the blank.
We are Lutheran. Here We Stand.
+Pax+
And no we are not ______. Fill in the blank.
We are Lutheran. Here We Stand.
+Pax+
7/23/16
Start Wrong, End Wrong.
Theologically speaking, when a theology begins in a place it shouldn't, it ends up in a lot of trouble in the end.
Two great examples of this are the radical reformation theologies of Calvinism, taught in the Reformed Churches as well as Presbyterian and some Baptists; and Arminianism, taught by most Baptists, Wesleyans, and Charismatic churches.
A Synod was convened at Dort in 1618 in which the Remonstrants (Arminians) were challenging the traditional staunch predestinarian doctrines of the Reformed Church (Calvinists). The Remonstrants brought five objections to Reformed Theology, and the famous 5 points of Calvinism was the Reformed response.
Interestingly enough, the bickering that existed between these two schools of theological thought in the early 17th century is alive and well today. It is also quite common for proponents of these two systems to lump everything theological into one system or the other. Hence, any Christian church that believes in some sort of free will in the conversion of a sinner is "Arminian" and any church that believes that God elects people to salvation is "Calvinist."
The problem is that this caricature given by many evangelicals is just not true. No form of sacramental Christianity fits into either of these categories.
Ultimately, the problem with both Calvinism and Arminianism is that they begin their theology in the wrong spot. Arminianism starts with the free will of man. Some Arminians may object to this, but the objection is empty. This is precisely where Arminianism challenges Calvinism and thus begins its theology as an anti-Calvinism of sorts.
When you start with the free will of man, everything in the theological system ends up being read through that lens. Hence, you end up with logical deductions made into dogma. For instance, in many Baptist churches, there is a doctrine called the Age of Accountability. This is a direct result of elevating free will to a primary status. It is surmised that since an infant or young child is not capable of understanding the Gospel and thus unable to make a free will choice, they are then not held accountable by God until they are able to choose one way or the other. Of course, Scripture nowhere teaches this doctrine. It is an example of something completely foreign to Scripture being made a doctrine due to a starting place that is erroneous. Not to mention, many Arminian churches are Baptist, and one of the main arguments they make against infant baptism is that the infant is not able to choose to be baptized. Some Arminians have even proposed blasphemous absurdities like Open Theism, in which God doesn't know the future simply to keep our free will truly free.
Calvinism, on the other hand, has its own difficulties. Generally speaking, Calvinism starts their theology with the absolute sovereignty of God over all things. This idea manifests itself in different ways. One way is that Calvinists tend to get involved with abstract in-house debates about the logical ordering of God's decrees in eternity past. Scripture, however, really doesn't give enough information for one to hold to any of these logical orders. This is also something Luther would term a theology of glory. The Calvinist here is peering into the hidden God.
One outworking of this idea is that objectively speaking, the sacraments are stripped of their power. Ultimately, if a person is elect, the sacraments are effacious for them. But if they are not elect, the sacraments are useless. In this manner, the Spirit is divorced from the places He said He will be in grace. For this reason, Calvinists have to invent novel theories for retaining infant baptism. Calvinism and Infant Baptism Ultimately, infant baptism makes very little sense at all in a Calvinist Theology. It can't be to save them like Scripture says, because there is no correlation (or at the very least, it is unclear) between baptism and God's decree to elect specific individuals in eternity past.
Calvinism also relegates Christ's work to a status that must fit within God's logical order of decrees. Suffice it to say, Christ's work is always logically relegated to a position after God's decree of election. Hence, the Calvinist will argue that Christ only died for the elect and no one else. It is difficult for the Calvinist to say that "In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28) or "For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died" (2 Cor 5:14), because Christ is only for the elect in their scheme.
Two great examples of this are the radical reformation theologies of Calvinism, taught in the Reformed Churches as well as Presbyterian and some Baptists; and Arminianism, taught by most Baptists, Wesleyans, and Charismatic churches.
A Synod was convened at Dort in 1618 in which the Remonstrants (Arminians) were challenging the traditional staunch predestinarian doctrines of the Reformed Church (Calvinists). The Remonstrants brought five objections to Reformed Theology, and the famous 5 points of Calvinism was the Reformed response.
Interestingly enough, the bickering that existed between these two schools of theological thought in the early 17th century is alive and well today. It is also quite common for proponents of these two systems to lump everything theological into one system or the other. Hence, any Christian church that believes in some sort of free will in the conversion of a sinner is "Arminian" and any church that believes that God elects people to salvation is "Calvinist."
The problem is that this caricature given by many evangelicals is just not true. No form of sacramental Christianity fits into either of these categories.
Ultimately, the problem with both Calvinism and Arminianism is that they begin their theology in the wrong spot. Arminianism starts with the free will of man. Some Arminians may object to this, but the objection is empty. This is precisely where Arminianism challenges Calvinism and thus begins its theology as an anti-Calvinism of sorts.
When you start with the free will of man, everything in the theological system ends up being read through that lens. Hence, you end up with logical deductions made into dogma. For instance, in many Baptist churches, there is a doctrine called the Age of Accountability. This is a direct result of elevating free will to a primary status. It is surmised that since an infant or young child is not capable of understanding the Gospel and thus unable to make a free will choice, they are then not held accountable by God until they are able to choose one way or the other. Of course, Scripture nowhere teaches this doctrine. It is an example of something completely foreign to Scripture being made a doctrine due to a starting place that is erroneous. Not to mention, many Arminian churches are Baptist, and one of the main arguments they make against infant baptism is that the infant is not able to choose to be baptized. Some Arminians have even proposed blasphemous absurdities like Open Theism, in which God doesn't know the future simply to keep our free will truly free.
Calvinism, on the other hand, has its own difficulties. Generally speaking, Calvinism starts their theology with the absolute sovereignty of God over all things. This idea manifests itself in different ways. One way is that Calvinists tend to get involved with abstract in-house debates about the logical ordering of God's decrees in eternity past. Scripture, however, really doesn't give enough information for one to hold to any of these logical orders. This is also something Luther would term a theology of glory. The Calvinist here is peering into the hidden God.
One outworking of this idea is that objectively speaking, the sacraments are stripped of their power. Ultimately, if a person is elect, the sacraments are effacious for them. But if they are not elect, the sacraments are useless. In this manner, the Spirit is divorced from the places He said He will be in grace. For this reason, Calvinists have to invent novel theories for retaining infant baptism. Calvinism and Infant Baptism Ultimately, infant baptism makes very little sense at all in a Calvinist Theology. It can't be to save them like Scripture says, because there is no correlation (or at the very least, it is unclear) between baptism and God's decree to elect specific individuals in eternity past.
Calvinism also relegates Christ's work to a status that must fit within God's logical order of decrees. Suffice it to say, Christ's work is always logically relegated to a position after God's decree of election. Hence, the Calvinist will argue that Christ only died for the elect and no one else. It is difficult for the Calvinist to say that "In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28) or "For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died" (2 Cor 5:14), because Christ is only for the elect in their scheme.
Some of the higher Calvinists even take their doctrine of sovereignty to a level where they are fully comfortable saying that God is the author of sin. Perish the thought!
The bottom line is that if a theology begins in the wrong place and reads their starting point into everything else, they end up contradicting Scripture and deviating from classic Christian theology all over the place once the doctrines are fleshed out. Both combatants of the radical Reformation do this repeatedly. As I have argued elsewhere, the Reformed Churches are not a Reformation (Reformed is a Misnomer) but rather a completely new thing. Not to mention the Arminian Remonstrance, which is even further off the rails.
The proper starting place in Christian theology is not philosophical debates about the human will or the hidden God in eternity past. It is Christ, revealed to us, crucified and risen. Only in Lutheranism is this the case.
+Pax+
The proper starting place in Christian theology is not philosophical debates about the human will or the hidden God in eternity past. It is Christ, revealed to us, crucified and risen. Only in Lutheranism is this the case.
+Pax+
10/21/15
Arminianism is Soft Works Righteousness
For those of you who are not aware, once upon a time the Reformed Church had a Synod that convened at Dordrecht (1618-19). At this Synod, traditional Reformed Theology was questioned. In response to the Remonstrants, the Synod formulated the 5 points of Calvinism. Thus, on one side there were the Calvinists (Classic Reformed Theology), and on the other there were the Arminians (the Remonstrants).
Now, some of our more classical Arminian (read: not Pelagian like much of American evangelicalism) friends have been claiming the term monergism as something that applies to them.
This is completely untrue.
In their own words, I will show how this is patently false. Here is an article from August of 2009 on the Evangelical Arminians website. The article can be found here: Arminians and Monergism
In the article, the author attempts to show how Arminians are grace alone, faith alone, monergistic people. His own words betray him.
The article starts with a valid concern. Calvinists do indeed often charge that Arminianism believes that man must make a move first and then God will make His move second. This is a valid concern. Arminianism teaches no such thing. Pelagianism does teach that though. Yet, Arminianism is not Pelagianism.
Yet, Arminianism ends up in the same place.
In the author's own words, here it is.
"After being enabled by the Spirit, the response of the sinner is passive. The sinner must stop resisting, repent of their sins, and place their faith in Christ. This gift, like any gift, is not irresistible. The sinner must accept the unmerited gift of God. Once this is done, following the plan of the Father, the Spirit joins the sinner to Jesus and thus begins the Savior’s relationship with the sinner."
"This is the part of Arminianism one could call synergistic, the acceptance of the gift of salvation, and it is nothing to be scared of because it is Biblical. The process of salvation is monergistic. He enables, He convicts, He draws, and He calls. Once the sinner places their faith in God, He is the one who justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies the sinner; just as He had predestined to do (Romans 8:29-30) because the work of Christ on the cross was made for our atonement. Calvinists cannot seem to get past this synergistic aspect, but it is the Biblical view of salvation. (Acts 16:30-31, Ephesians 2:8-9, etc)."
There it is. It's all God...but you must accept it. If you must do something to accept it, how is it all God? In other words, God does everything to save you, but you, as an individual, must make a positive choice to accept this gift. How is this monergist at all? Well, it's not. Monergism means "one work." There is no monergism where there is the formula that "God does it all, but..."
There is no "but." No "you must choose." No "you must accept."
Now, some of our more classical Arminian (read: not Pelagian like much of American evangelicalism) friends have been claiming the term monergism as something that applies to them.
This is completely untrue.
In their own words, I will show how this is patently false. Here is an article from August of 2009 on the Evangelical Arminians website. The article can be found here: Arminians and Monergism
In the article, the author attempts to show how Arminians are grace alone, faith alone, monergistic people. His own words betray him.
The article starts with a valid concern. Calvinists do indeed often charge that Arminianism believes that man must make a move first and then God will make His move second. This is a valid concern. Arminianism teaches no such thing. Pelagianism does teach that though. Yet, Arminianism is not Pelagianism.
Yet, Arminianism ends up in the same place.
In the author's own words, here it is.
"After being enabled by the Spirit, the response of the sinner is passive. The sinner must stop resisting, repent of their sins, and place their faith in Christ. This gift, like any gift, is not irresistible. The sinner must accept the unmerited gift of God. Once this is done, following the plan of the Father, the Spirit joins the sinner to Jesus and thus begins the Savior’s relationship with the sinner."
"This is the part of Arminianism one could call synergistic, the acceptance of the gift of salvation, and it is nothing to be scared of because it is Biblical. The process of salvation is monergistic. He enables, He convicts, He draws, and He calls. Once the sinner places their faith in God, He is the one who justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies the sinner; just as He had predestined to do (Romans 8:29-30) because the work of Christ on the cross was made for our atonement. Calvinists cannot seem to get past this synergistic aspect, but it is the Biblical view of salvation. (Acts 16:30-31, Ephesians 2:8-9, etc)."
There it is. It's all God...but you must accept it. If you must do something to accept it, how is it all God? In other words, God does everything to save you, but you, as an individual, must make a positive choice to accept this gift. How is this monergist at all? Well, it's not. Monergism means "one work." There is no monergism where there is the formula that "God does it all, but..."
There is no "but." No "you must choose." No "you must accept."
In other words, Arminianism, even the classical variety, slips in that one little thing that we must do in order to be saved.
There is no way around it, Arminianism is a soft form of works righteousness. Anything that gets slipped in that we must do in order to be saved, as something that comes from our will, is works. There is no way around it.
To put this simply, it is 100% God and His works that save us. If we add in anything that we must do to the equation, we enter the realm of synergism and thus works righteousness. Arminianism falls into tat category. And yes, if we say that we must accept Christ in order to be saved, we are falling back on our own work.
Calvinism has its own issues, but this is not one of them.
+Pax+
Calvinism has its own issues, but this is not one of them.
+Pax+
7/11/15
Crypto Arminianism?
In ages past, the Confessing Lutherans had problems with Crypto-Calvinism seeping into Lutheran churches. And this problem was dealt with swiftly and decisively. The trend now, at least in the United States within Lutheranism, is that Arminianism is seeping in. Thankfully we have steered clear of outright Pelagianism, although I would venture to guess that this also is out there somewhere in various Lutheran churches. This Crypto-Arminianism also needs to be dealt with swiftly and decisively.
This shouldn't surprise us however. All around us in the United States are mainstream Evangelical churches, Pentecostalism, and even cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Latter Day Saints. Not to mention the enormous Roman Catholic Church and the fringe semi-cultish body known as the Seventh Day Adventists. What do all of the aforementioned faith bodies have in common? Synergism and libertarian free will. Certainly it is not my intent to lump evangelicals in with the cults, and the same goes for Roman Catholicism. But they all do affirm synergism and free will.
So it's not shocking that these ideas have crept into Confessional Lutheran churches. In reality, the only two major church bodies of theology that are not synergistic are Confessional Lutheranism and Reformed Theology. Certainly we have our share of disagreements with the Reformed, but monergism is not one of them.
The fact of the matter is that Confessional Lutheranism does not allow for synergism in any form as it is classically understood. This means that Classical Arminianism is not within the bounds of Lutheranism. It's as acceptable to Confessional Lutheranism as say, Calvinism.
In other words, as we have dealt with Crypto-Calvinism as well as the Philippists on the basis of God's Word, we need to be wary of Cryto-Arminianism as well. It has no place in Confessional Lutheranism. Synergism and free will do not belong here. They do not fit within our Confessions and are decidedly not Lutheran.
This must be dealt with at a local level with our faithful pastors teaching God's Word and the Lutheran Confessions.
+Pax+
This shouldn't surprise us however. All around us in the United States are mainstream Evangelical churches, Pentecostalism, and even cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Latter Day Saints. Not to mention the enormous Roman Catholic Church and the fringe semi-cultish body known as the Seventh Day Adventists. What do all of the aforementioned faith bodies have in common? Synergism and libertarian free will. Certainly it is not my intent to lump evangelicals in with the cults, and the same goes for Roman Catholicism. But they all do affirm synergism and free will.
So it's not shocking that these ideas have crept into Confessional Lutheran churches. In reality, the only two major church bodies of theology that are not synergistic are Confessional Lutheranism and Reformed Theology. Certainly we have our share of disagreements with the Reformed, but monergism is not one of them.
The fact of the matter is that Confessional Lutheranism does not allow for synergism in any form as it is classically understood. This means that Classical Arminianism is not within the bounds of Lutheranism. It's as acceptable to Confessional Lutheranism as say, Calvinism.
In other words, as we have dealt with Crypto-Calvinism as well as the Philippists on the basis of God's Word, we need to be wary of Cryto-Arminianism as well. It has no place in Confessional Lutheranism. Synergism and free will do not belong here. They do not fit within our Confessions and are decidedly not Lutheran.
This must be dealt with at a local level with our faithful pastors teaching God's Word and the Lutheran Confessions.
+Pax+
3/12/15
Free Will. Scripture. Philosophy. Shenanigans!
What is our ultimate authority? Is it the Church (as Rome)? Is it philosophy? Is it Scripture?
I assert that one of these three has absolutely no place, or at least a very small place, in Christian theology. It is philosophy. Scripture has authority and so does the church. But philosophy does not.
Sadly, especially in America, philosophy is one of (notice I did not say the only) the driving factors in biblical interpretation for a vast amount of churches. These churches are ones that hold to the philosophical construct of libertarian free will. Who are these churches? Well, the Methodists, Wesleyans, *most* Baptists, the Pentecostals, and the seeker-sensitive mega-churches.
This is not a new idea, however. C.S. Lewis once said, "If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)
Lewis is essentially arguing that free will is a necessity for any and all goodness, love, and joy. In other words, we must be inherently able to will those things in order for them to have any meaning.
I realize attacking C.S. Lewis is sort of like attacking St. Peter, but he is flat wrong here.
We must ask the relevant question here, however. Do the Holy Scriptures teach this? And our answer must come in two forms.
First, before the fall of man, we can say yes. Adam and Eve had free will. God created them good. This is to say, Adam and Eve were not sinful in the Garden of Eden as we are sinful today.
However, after the whole fruit-eating incident, something happened. We have what Christianity refers to as the fall of man and original sin.
Original sin puts our will in bondage. We are sinners not by choice, but by nature. Our original nature was not so, however, and thanks be to God, this will be removed at the Parousia.
Ultimately, the free will stance so prevalent today has two major problems per Holy Scripture. First and foremost, Scripture militates very clearly against this philosophical construct repeatedly. The free will folks insist on making decisions for Jesus and making the right choices, as if we, in our own power, can do those things. The problem is, the Bible says we cannot. Two quick quotes from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans ought to clear this up once and for all. It won't, but it should.
Romans 3:10-12: it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”
Romans 8:7-8: For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
And there it is. The free will folks would exhort us to seek God, choose Christ, and submit to God. St. Paul flatly says we don't do those things and we can't do those things.
End of discussion. Or at least, it should be the end of the discussion.
The second problem is that the more extreme free will folks appeal to the Garden of Eden as their example. They opine that we are in the same situation as Adam. This is to say, we are in that same spot and are able to choose to disobey or obey. This, to put it bluntly, is sheer Pelagianism and puts a person outside of the Christian faith. Why? Because it denies the Gospel. No, I do not think Pelagians are Christians. When you reject salvation by grace as they do and get God totally incorrect, how can that be anything but another God?
[I am *not* saying that every professed Christian who believes in free will is not a Christian.]
Ultimately, the extreme logical-deduction free will folks flatly reject the fall of man and some even go so far as to throw ignorance on God (Open or Free Will Theism) in order to continue in their heresies. Thankfully, classical Arminian theology does not go to this level.
To sum it up, denying original sin denies the Gospel. Denying the Gospel denies Christ and Christianity, no matter how loudly one says the name of Jesus.
Free will in the libertarian sense is a sacred cow that needs to be burnt up.
Think about it. This stance is something different than salvation by grace alone, and as such, it's something different than what the Scriptures teach.
"If any man ascribes anything of salvation, even the very least thing, to the free will of man, he knows nothing of grace, and he has not learned Jesus Christ rightly." ~Martin Luther
I assert that one of these three has absolutely no place, or at least a very small place, in Christian theology. It is philosophy. Scripture has authority and so does the church. But philosophy does not.
Sadly, especially in America, philosophy is one of (notice I did not say the only) the driving factors in biblical interpretation for a vast amount of churches. These churches are ones that hold to the philosophical construct of libertarian free will. Who are these churches? Well, the Methodists, Wesleyans, *most* Baptists, the Pentecostals, and the seeker-sensitive mega-churches.
This is not a new idea, however. C.S. Lewis once said, "If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)
Lewis is essentially arguing that free will is a necessity for any and all goodness, love, and joy. In other words, we must be inherently able to will those things in order for them to have any meaning.
I realize attacking C.S. Lewis is sort of like attacking St. Peter, but he is flat wrong here.
We must ask the relevant question here, however. Do the Holy Scriptures teach this? And our answer must come in two forms.
First, before the fall of man, we can say yes. Adam and Eve had free will. God created them good. This is to say, Adam and Eve were not sinful in the Garden of Eden as we are sinful today.
However, after the whole fruit-eating incident, something happened. We have what Christianity refers to as the fall of man and original sin.
Original sin puts our will in bondage. We are sinners not by choice, but by nature. Our original nature was not so, however, and thanks be to God, this will be removed at the Parousia.
Ultimately, the free will stance so prevalent today has two major problems per Holy Scripture. First and foremost, Scripture militates very clearly against this philosophical construct repeatedly. The free will folks insist on making decisions for Jesus and making the right choices, as if we, in our own power, can do those things. The problem is, the Bible says we cannot. Two quick quotes from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans ought to clear this up once and for all. It won't, but it should.
Romans 3:10-12: it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”
Romans 8:7-8: For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
And there it is. The free will folks would exhort us to seek God, choose Christ, and submit to God. St. Paul flatly says we don't do those things and we can't do those things.
End of discussion. Or at least, it should be the end of the discussion.
The second problem is that the more extreme free will folks appeal to the Garden of Eden as their example. They opine that we are in the same situation as Adam. This is to say, we are in that same spot and are able to choose to disobey or obey. This, to put it bluntly, is sheer Pelagianism and puts a person outside of the Christian faith. Why? Because it denies the Gospel. No, I do not think Pelagians are Christians. When you reject salvation by grace as they do and get God totally incorrect, how can that be anything but another God?
[I am *not* saying that every professed Christian who believes in free will is not a Christian.]
Ultimately, the extreme logical-deduction free will folks flatly reject the fall of man and some even go so far as to throw ignorance on God (Open or Free Will Theism) in order to continue in their heresies. Thankfully, classical Arminian theology does not go to this level.
To sum it up, denying original sin denies the Gospel. Denying the Gospel denies Christ and Christianity, no matter how loudly one says the name of Jesus.
Free will in the libertarian sense is a sacred cow that needs to be burnt up.
Think about it. This stance is something different than salvation by grace alone, and as such, it's something different than what the Scriptures teach.
"If any man ascribes anything of salvation, even the very least thing, to the free will of man, he knows nothing of grace, and he has not learned Jesus Christ rightly." ~Martin Luther
11/2/14
Romans 8:29-30: I Don't Think It Means What You Think It Means
Romans 8:29-30 is a battleground text in Scripture. Differing theologies interpret it differently. I'm going to try to show what the verse says and what it doesn't say here. I'll do my best.
Romans 8:29-30 (ESV): For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
There it is. It's a heavy passage, loaded with some big time theological words. Foreknew, predestined, called, justified, glorified. Our Reformed friends see this as a golden chain of salvation. And I think in concept they're correct here. It is certainly talking about that. Yet, I also think they push it too far as well. Our Arminian friends see this as God looking through the corridor of time and seeing who would choose Him of their own free will. This interpretation is pretty far from the mark, I think. It actually makes little sense when it is fleshed out.
I've also heard of another interpretation in the past tense that this is only referring to those who were in Christ before the book was written and after they died. Thus, those whom God foreknew would be those whom He knew in ages past, pre-St. Paul.
So then, what is it saying, and how far should we take this? How far is too far? I think it's fairly simple if we just allow this one to say what it says and not read too much into it.
It is clearly a promise of God and flows naturally from Romans 8:28, which states: And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
So God works all things together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose. And then, the promise of that is that He predestines all those He foreknows, and promises to call, justify, and glorify them as well.
So I think this verse is a very strong passage for the Lutheran dogma of single predestination insofar as it is promising that God will save all those whom He foreknows and has predestined. He promises to call them, justify them, and glorify them. If we would like, we could call these people the elect.
But what this passage does not say is anything about those who are unbelievers. It says nothing about them. So whereas we know that God promises to save the predestined people, and those are the only ones who are finally saved, it never comments at all on others. In short, this is not a congruent passage teaching that there is a group of people who are predestined to be damned. Likewise, it never says anything that these other folks will not be called by God and will never be justified. It never says God predestines them to hell.
To put it simple, the people who do not end up in glory can't say that God predestined them there for His glory, because the Bible simply does not teach that; certainly not here in Romans 8. And indeed, in other places of Scripture, God is said to "desire all people to be saved" (1 Tim 2:1-4), and that "the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people" (Tit 2:11), and "The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world" (Joh 1:9).
Likewise, looking to our predestination is foolish. Wondering if Christ died for us is also foolish, because He did. You're a sinner and a human, thus He died for you. He also elects us before the foundation of the world, but carries this election out via means of grace temporally in Baptism, the Word, and the Eucharist.
So what is the gist of Romans 8:28-30? Well, it's a blessed promise. Those predestined in Christ are saved and will be in glory. Predestination is a soft pillow for the believer in Christ. It says nothing about unbelievers.
Thus, while strongly affirming predestination, we refuse to go beyond what is written. We look to Christ and His work and gifts to us as our assurance, not our election before the foundation of the world, for that is only revealed through the means of grace that bring us faith in the crucified and risen Christ. Plus nothing.
Yes, I know, neither our Reformed friends or our Arminian friends like this line of thought. They argue that it has to be one or the other, logically speaking. But when Scripture offers us this paradox without a solution in Holy writ, we must affirm both.
Of course, Lutheranism is not against reason and logic, per se. We are simply against using it as a lens through which to build a systematic theology (Calvinism, Arminism, etc.). Where the Word speaks clearly, our answer is to be Amen! Let it be so!
Even if our feeble minds can't logically explain it or reason out way into a perfect reconciliation of texts. Inevitably, something gets twisted and denied when we do that. The Reformed affirm a predestination to hell (due to logic), and the Arminians pervert the entire meaning of predestination - not to mention the foolishness that results from rationalism of the Open Theists or the Hyper Calvinists.
Rest in Christ. Our election is in Him and is given to us objectively in Word and Sacrament.
Amen! Let it be so!
Romans 8:29-30 (ESV): For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
There it is. It's a heavy passage, loaded with some big time theological words. Foreknew, predestined, called, justified, glorified. Our Reformed friends see this as a golden chain of salvation. And I think in concept they're correct here. It is certainly talking about that. Yet, I also think they push it too far as well. Our Arminian friends see this as God looking through the corridor of time and seeing who would choose Him of their own free will. This interpretation is pretty far from the mark, I think. It actually makes little sense when it is fleshed out.
I've also heard of another interpretation in the past tense that this is only referring to those who were in Christ before the book was written and after they died. Thus, those whom God foreknew would be those whom He knew in ages past, pre-St. Paul.
So then, what is it saying, and how far should we take this? How far is too far? I think it's fairly simple if we just allow this one to say what it says and not read too much into it.
It is clearly a promise of God and flows naturally from Romans 8:28, which states: And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
So God works all things together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose. And then, the promise of that is that He predestines all those He foreknows, and promises to call, justify, and glorify them as well.
So I think this verse is a very strong passage for the Lutheran dogma of single predestination insofar as it is promising that God will save all those whom He foreknows and has predestined. He promises to call them, justify them, and glorify them. If we would like, we could call these people the elect.
But what this passage does not say is anything about those who are unbelievers. It says nothing about them. So whereas we know that God promises to save the predestined people, and those are the only ones who are finally saved, it never comments at all on others. In short, this is not a congruent passage teaching that there is a group of people who are predestined to be damned. Likewise, it never says anything that these other folks will not be called by God and will never be justified. It never says God predestines them to hell.
To put it simple, the people who do not end up in glory can't say that God predestined them there for His glory, because the Bible simply does not teach that; certainly not here in Romans 8. And indeed, in other places of Scripture, God is said to "desire all people to be saved" (1 Tim 2:1-4), and that "the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people" (Tit 2:11), and "The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world" (Joh 1:9).
Likewise, looking to our predestination is foolish. Wondering if Christ died for us is also foolish, because He did. You're a sinner and a human, thus He died for you. He also elects us before the foundation of the world, but carries this election out via means of grace temporally in Baptism, the Word, and the Eucharist.
So what is the gist of Romans 8:28-30? Well, it's a blessed promise. Those predestined in Christ are saved and will be in glory. Predestination is a soft pillow for the believer in Christ. It says nothing about unbelievers.
Thus, while strongly affirming predestination, we refuse to go beyond what is written. We look to Christ and His work and gifts to us as our assurance, not our election before the foundation of the world, for that is only revealed through the means of grace that bring us faith in the crucified and risen Christ. Plus nothing.
Yes, I know, neither our Reformed friends or our Arminian friends like this line of thought. They argue that it has to be one or the other, logically speaking. But when Scripture offers us this paradox without a solution in Holy writ, we must affirm both.
Of course, Lutheranism is not against reason and logic, per se. We are simply against using it as a lens through which to build a systematic theology (Calvinism, Arminism, etc.). Where the Word speaks clearly, our answer is to be Amen! Let it be so!
Even if our feeble minds can't logically explain it or reason out way into a perfect reconciliation of texts. Inevitably, something gets twisted and denied when we do that. The Reformed affirm a predestination to hell (due to logic), and the Arminians pervert the entire meaning of predestination - not to mention the foolishness that results from rationalism of the Open Theists or the Hyper Calvinists.
Rest in Christ. Our election is in Him and is given to us objectively in Word and Sacrament.
Amen! Let it be so!
10/23/14
Lutheranism and Election
Much has been written about the doctrine of election in Christian circles. It is clearly one of those topics that divides entire church bodies. Generally the topic of election and predestination gets presented as a wrangle between Calvinists and Arminians. But this is not the only way to see the doctrine. In fact, every church body has a stance on the issue. And well they should, considering it is in Scripture.
We do believe, as Confessional Lutherans, that both the Calvinists and the Arminians rationalize the doctrine in opposite directions, both deviating from Scripture in some aspects. Calvinists affirm the biblical teaching of election, but then go too far and concoct a parallel doctrine of reprobation. In some circles, they even hold to a crazy doctrine called Equal Ultimacy, which is essentially Hyper Calvinist. So, we should paint all Calvinist doctrine as holding to Equal Ultimacy. That would be not only unfair, but crass misrepresentation. On the other hand, the Arminians completely redefine the doctrine of election and in essence deny it altogether in favor of human choice. At the far end of the spectrum in the human choice camp are the Pelagians who deny original sin and the Open Theists, who deny essential attributes of God taught in Holy Scripture.
From my perspective, I would tend to see Open Theism (and Pelagianism) and Equal Ultimacy as equal and opposite errors. Both are dreadfully wrong because they both do away with attributes of God.
Confessional Lutheranism sees all of these as deviations from clearly revealed Scripture. Both the double predestination of Calvinism (not to mention Equal Ultimacy...shudder) and the denial of the doctrine altogether by redefinition of Arminianism (and Open Theism and Pelagianism...yuck) are erroneous.
The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord answers this well.
Solid Declaration, XI, 13-22
Therefore, if we wish to think or speak correctly and profitably concerning eternal election, or the predestination and ordination of the children of God to eternal life, we should accustom ourselves not to speculate concerning the bare, secret, concealed, inscrutable foreknowledge of God, but how the counsel, purpose, and ordination of God in Christ Jesus, who is the true Book of Life, is revealed to us through the Word, 14] namely, that the entire doctrine concerning the purpose, counsel, will, and ordination of God pertaining to our redemption, call, justification, and salvation should be taken together; as Paul treats and has explained this article Rom. 8:29f ; Eph. 1:4f , as also Christ in the parable, Matt. 22:1ff , namely, that God in His purpose and counsel ordained [decreed]:
15] 1. That the human race is truly redeemed and reconciled with God through Christ, who, by His faultless [innocency] obedience, suffering, and death, has merited for us the righteousness which avails before God, and eternal life.
16] 2. That such merit and benefits of Christ shall be presented, offered, and distributed to us through His Word and Sacraments.
17] 3. That by His Holy Ghost, through the Word, when it is preached, heard, and pondered, He will be efficacious and active in us, convert hearts to true repentance, and preserve them in the true faith.
18] 4. That He will justify all those who in true repentance receive Christ by a true faith, and will receive them into grace, the adoption of sons, and the inheritance of eternal life.
19] 5. That He will also sanctify in love those who are thus justified, as St. Paul says, Eph. 1:4.
20] 6. That He also will protect them in their great weakness against the devil, the world, and the flesh, and rule and lead them in His ways, raise them again [place His hand beneath them], when they stumble, comfort them under the cross and in temptation, and preserve them [for life eternal].
21] 7. That He will also strengthen, increase, and support to the end the good work which He has begun in them, if they adhere to God's Word, pray diligently, abide in God's goodness [grace], and faithfully use the gifts received.
22] 8. That finally He will eternally save and glorify in life eternal those whom He has elected, called, and justified.
There are a few important things we can pull from Concord here. First, God's election is carried out by specific means (the classical Calvinist would affirm this too). These means are not to be sought in God's decree (which is hidden) but in the Word and Sacraments. Therefore, God elects people through Baptism, the preached Word, Holy Absolution, and the Eucharist. This the classical Calvinist would have a hard time affirming due to their doctrines of the Perseverance of the Saints and Limited Atonement.
This is to say that while God elects in eternity past (Eph 1:4), this is carried out temporally through the finished work of Christ being delivered to us objectively in Word and Sacrament. God elects in Baptism, in the preached Word, in the Eucharist. And this is all God's working, completely monergistic. It is God who saves us in our baptism. In fact, baptism of infants is the perfect example of divine monergism at work. A helpless infant, completely dependent on others for its well-being, is saved unilaterally by God in their Holy Baptism.
In short, the Formula is compelling us to look to Christ and the effective gifts that he gives for our election. Look outside of ourselves to that finished work of Christ on the cross given to us in Word and Sacrament and rooted in the immutable character of God and His promises, for God does not lie and His Word means what it says.
Yet, we also must affirm the other side of the coin. The Saxon Visitation Articles, an appendix to the Book of Concord, are not an official confessional document, but nevertheless address the flip side of the coin. They are written contra-Calvinism.
Here is what is affirmed in the Saxon Visitation Articles regarding predestination.
1] That Christ died for all men, and, as the Lamb of God, took away the sins of the whole world.
2] That God created no man for condemnation; but wills that all men should be saved and arrive at the knowledge of truth. He therefore commands all to hear Christ, his Son, in the gospel; and promises, by his hearing, the virtue and operation of the Holy Ghost for conversion and salvation.
3] That many men, by their own fault, perish: some, who will not hear the gospel concerning Christ; some, who again fall from grace, either by fundamental error, or by sins against conscience.
4] That all sinners who repent will be received into favor; and none will be excluded, though his sins be red as blood; since the mercy of God is greater than the sins of the whole world, and God hath mercy on all his works.
Thus, while affirming eternal election in strong terms in the Formula, we also affirm the following aforementioned doctrines. Christ indeed died for everyone. Yes, even Judas and Pharaoh. He also desires to save everyone. In the third article we reject the Calvinist doctrine of Perseverance.
And here is what we reject regarding Calvinism's doctrine of election.
1] That Christ did not die for all men, but only for the elect.
2] That God created the greater part of mankind for eternal damnation, and wills not that the greater part should be converted and live.
3] That the elected and regenerated can not lose faith and the Holy Spirit, or be damned, though they commit great sins and crimes of every kind.
4] That those who are not elect are necessarily damned, and can not arrive at salvation, though they be baptized a thousand times, and receive the Eucharist every day, and lead as blameless a life as ever can be led.
We reject limited atonement. We reject double predestination. We reject the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance. And we reject the idea that predestination is carried out apart from means.
In short, God's election, while done in eternity past, is carried out temporally through Word and Sacrament. And since Christ died for YOU, you can know with certainty that the Sacraments are also for YOU. Limited Atonement points a person to themselves, since Christ's death is only for certain people.
Here is the kicker: These means of grace are universally available to everyone. (Titus 2:11) God desires to save everyone (2 Pet 3:9, 1 Tim 2:4).
Paradox? Yep. but Scripture teaches both. This is where God's Word stands and speaks. We had best affirm both sides of the coin, lest we deviate from the Holy Scriptures.
+Pax+
We do believe, as Confessional Lutherans, that both the Calvinists and the Arminians rationalize the doctrine in opposite directions, both deviating from Scripture in some aspects. Calvinists affirm the biblical teaching of election, but then go too far and concoct a parallel doctrine of reprobation. In some circles, they even hold to a crazy doctrine called Equal Ultimacy, which is essentially Hyper Calvinist. So, we should paint all Calvinist doctrine as holding to Equal Ultimacy. That would be not only unfair, but crass misrepresentation. On the other hand, the Arminians completely redefine the doctrine of election and in essence deny it altogether in favor of human choice. At the far end of the spectrum in the human choice camp are the Pelagians who deny original sin and the Open Theists, who deny essential attributes of God taught in Holy Scripture.
From my perspective, I would tend to see Open Theism (and Pelagianism) and Equal Ultimacy as equal and opposite errors. Both are dreadfully wrong because they both do away with attributes of God.
Confessional Lutheranism sees all of these as deviations from clearly revealed Scripture. Both the double predestination of Calvinism (not to mention Equal Ultimacy...shudder) and the denial of the doctrine altogether by redefinition of Arminianism (and Open Theism and Pelagianism...yuck) are erroneous.
The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord answers this well.
Solid Declaration, XI, 13-22
Therefore, if we wish to think or speak correctly and profitably concerning eternal election, or the predestination and ordination of the children of God to eternal life, we should accustom ourselves not to speculate concerning the bare, secret, concealed, inscrutable foreknowledge of God, but how the counsel, purpose, and ordination of God in Christ Jesus, who is the true Book of Life, is revealed to us through the Word, 14] namely, that the entire doctrine concerning the purpose, counsel, will, and ordination of God pertaining to our redemption, call, justification, and salvation should be taken together; as Paul treats and has explained this article Rom. 8:29f ; Eph. 1:4f , as also Christ in the parable, Matt. 22:1ff , namely, that God in His purpose and counsel ordained [decreed]:
15] 1. That the human race is truly redeemed and reconciled with God through Christ, who, by His faultless [innocency] obedience, suffering, and death, has merited for us the righteousness which avails before God, and eternal life.
16] 2. That such merit and benefits of Christ shall be presented, offered, and distributed to us through His Word and Sacraments.
17] 3. That by His Holy Ghost, through the Word, when it is preached, heard, and pondered, He will be efficacious and active in us, convert hearts to true repentance, and preserve them in the true faith.
18] 4. That He will justify all those who in true repentance receive Christ by a true faith, and will receive them into grace, the adoption of sons, and the inheritance of eternal life.
19] 5. That He will also sanctify in love those who are thus justified, as St. Paul says, Eph. 1:4.
20] 6. That He also will protect them in their great weakness against the devil, the world, and the flesh, and rule and lead them in His ways, raise them again [place His hand beneath them], when they stumble, comfort them under the cross and in temptation, and preserve them [for life eternal].
21] 7. That He will also strengthen, increase, and support to the end the good work which He has begun in them, if they adhere to God's Word, pray diligently, abide in God's goodness [grace], and faithfully use the gifts received.
22] 8. That finally He will eternally save and glorify in life eternal those whom He has elected, called, and justified.
There are a few important things we can pull from Concord here. First, God's election is carried out by specific means (the classical Calvinist would affirm this too). These means are not to be sought in God's decree (which is hidden) but in the Word and Sacraments. Therefore, God elects people through Baptism, the preached Word, Holy Absolution, and the Eucharist. This the classical Calvinist would have a hard time affirming due to their doctrines of the Perseverance of the Saints and Limited Atonement.
This is to say that while God elects in eternity past (Eph 1:4), this is carried out temporally through the finished work of Christ being delivered to us objectively in Word and Sacrament. God elects in Baptism, in the preached Word, in the Eucharist. And this is all God's working, completely monergistic. It is God who saves us in our baptism. In fact, baptism of infants is the perfect example of divine monergism at work. A helpless infant, completely dependent on others for its well-being, is saved unilaterally by God in their Holy Baptism.
In short, the Formula is compelling us to look to Christ and the effective gifts that he gives for our election. Look outside of ourselves to that finished work of Christ on the cross given to us in Word and Sacrament and rooted in the immutable character of God and His promises, for God does not lie and His Word means what it says.
Yet, we also must affirm the other side of the coin. The Saxon Visitation Articles, an appendix to the Book of Concord, are not an official confessional document, but nevertheless address the flip side of the coin. They are written contra-Calvinism.
Here is what is affirmed in the Saxon Visitation Articles regarding predestination.
1] That Christ died for all men, and, as the Lamb of God, took away the sins of the whole world.
2] That God created no man for condemnation; but wills that all men should be saved and arrive at the knowledge of truth. He therefore commands all to hear Christ, his Son, in the gospel; and promises, by his hearing, the virtue and operation of the Holy Ghost for conversion and salvation.
3] That many men, by their own fault, perish: some, who will not hear the gospel concerning Christ; some, who again fall from grace, either by fundamental error, or by sins against conscience.
4] That all sinners who repent will be received into favor; and none will be excluded, though his sins be red as blood; since the mercy of God is greater than the sins of the whole world, and God hath mercy on all his works.
Thus, while affirming eternal election in strong terms in the Formula, we also affirm the following aforementioned doctrines. Christ indeed died for everyone. Yes, even Judas and Pharaoh. He also desires to save everyone. In the third article we reject the Calvinist doctrine of Perseverance.
And here is what we reject regarding Calvinism's doctrine of election.
1] That Christ did not die for all men, but only for the elect.
2] That God created the greater part of mankind for eternal damnation, and wills not that the greater part should be converted and live.
3] That the elected and regenerated can not lose faith and the Holy Spirit, or be damned, though they commit great sins and crimes of every kind.
4] That those who are not elect are necessarily damned, and can not arrive at salvation, though they be baptized a thousand times, and receive the Eucharist every day, and lead as blameless a life as ever can be led.
We reject limited atonement. We reject double predestination. We reject the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance. And we reject the idea that predestination is carried out apart from means.
In short, God's election, while done in eternity past, is carried out temporally through Word and Sacrament. And since Christ died for YOU, you can know with certainty that the Sacraments are also for YOU. Limited Atonement points a person to themselves, since Christ's death is only for certain people.
Here is the kicker: These means of grace are universally available to everyone. (Titus 2:11) God desires to save everyone (2 Pet 3:9, 1 Tim 2:4).
Paradox? Yep. but Scripture teaches both. This is where God's Word stands and speaks. We had best affirm both sides of the coin, lest we deviate from the Holy Scriptures.
+Pax+
2/15/14
Lap-Who???
Our Calvinist friends invest a lot of time, discussion, and effort into something called the Lapsarian debate. Ever heard of that Lutherans? I'm guessing some of you have, but many of you haven't. So in this blog I'm going to cover what the Lapsarian debate is, as well as the varying positions that are held. I'll wrap it up by how Lutheran theology views this in-house discussion amongst Calvinists.
The Lapsarian debate or discussion has to do with God's decrees in eternity past, before the foundation of the world. Traditionally, Calvinists take one of two stances in this discussion, but there are some nuanced versions of Lapsarianism as well. That being said, we'll leave the nuanced versions alone for our purposes here.
Reformed theology speaks of the logical order of God's decrees in eternity past. They're not so much speaking about the temporal order here. Keep in mind that all of these positions hold that all of these decrees occurred in eternity past, before the foundation of the world. In short, none of them have God decreeing something as a reaction to what man does in time.
The five topics that are ordered in this discussion are election, creation, sin, Christ's atonement, and regeneration. The four positions I will outline here all order the decrees differently. The two standard positions are called Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism. These are the two traditional Calvinist positions. There are two other decretal orders called Sublapsarianism and then of course, Arminianism. Traditional Calvinists reject Sublapsarianism as being something other than Calvinism (it's 4 point Calvinism) and of course reject Arminianism as heretical (see the Synod of Dordt, 1618-19).
Supralapsarianism logically orders God's decrees as follows.
1. Elect some and reprobate the rest.
2. Create the universe.
3. Decree the fall of man.
4. Send Christ to die for and save the elect.
5. Regenerate the elect via the inward call of the Spirit.
You can pretty clearly see in Supralapsarianism, that election comes before everything. The other thing that is important to notice here is that election is logically decreed prior to the atonement. In other words, this order of God's decrees has a limited atonement for the elect alone.
Supralapsarianism is generally equated with a "high" Calvinism of sorts.
If you are interested in learning more about the Supralapsarian position, I would recommend my friend Andy Underhile's blog found here: Contra Mundum. Andy is a staunch Supralapsarian and presents the position well.
Infralapsarianism logically orders God's decrees as follows.
1. Create the universe.
2. Allow the fall of man to occur.
3. Elect some sinful men and pass over the rest.
4. Provide Christ's atonement for the elect.
5. Regenerate the elect via the inward call of the Spirit.
The main difference between Supra and Infra is that God is electing people in Infra *in view of their sin.* In other words, in Supra, God elects first, then creates the necessary conditions to bring about His election; including sin and the fall. The Supra argues that God is sovereign over everything, including sin. The Infra counters that this makes God the author of sin. And round and round the Calvinists go.
However, it still is important to point out that Infralapsarianism also places election prior to atonement and therefore has a classical Calvinist limited atonement.
Sublapsarianism, also known as Amyraldism, is another hat in the ring of God's decrees.
1. Create the universe.
2. Allow the fall of man to occur.
3. Provide Christ's atonement for the whole fallen human race.
4. Elect some and reprobate the rest.
5. Regenerate the elect via the inward call of the Spirit.
Here we have Christ's atonement preceding election. Therefore, the atonement in Sublapsarianism is universal and provisional. Then this theory proceeds to say that since man is dead in sin, none will freely choose Christ and therefore God must elect some to take hold of that universal atonement.
Traditional Calvinists reject this theory as illogical and inconsistent. Many even go as far as to say that it is warmed over Arminianism.
Arminianism is the theology that came out of Calvinism in the late 16th century and into the early 17th century.
1. Create the universe.
2. Allow the fall of man to occur.
3. Provide the atonement for the whole human race.
4. Offer Christ indiscriminately to everyone.
5. Elect those who believe.
Obviously, in this theology, it's not Calvinistic at all. It has God, in essence, looking through time and electing those who He sees will believe in Christ. Election is something done in response to human freewill here and not something that is a cause of salvation.
So, how should we as Lutherans approach this discussion? In fact, I am guessing that some of you Lutherans who read this blog wonder why I even wrote it. And to be honest, that's completely fair. I wrote it for informational purposes alone. I am of the opinion that we ought to know about other theologies. And, as a former Calvinist, that is the other theology that I can expound upon.
So again, how should we as Lutherans approach this? Where do we fall in this debate?
This should not surprise you, but we don't fall anywhere here. In fact, we reject the whole Lapsarian debate outright. But why?
Simply put, these ordering of decrees is an attempt to peer into the hidden God. From our perspective, the whole discussion really is not worth having and worth taking a stance upon. To put it in Lutheran terms, it's a theology of glory and not a theology of the cross. Instead of being focused on Christ crucified for you, it's focused on decrees in eternity past. Instead of focusing on the revealed God given for you in Christ, it's focused on the hidden God, not revealed to us to much extent in Scripture. Yes, for sure the people in these different Lapsarian camps use Holy Scripture to defend their positions. But from my perspective, none of them are slam dunks anyways. It's speculation for the most part. And speculation can be a bad thing sometimes.
So, as Lutherans, we simply do not engage in these sorts of debates most of the time. We would rather stick to the revealed Christ given for us at Calvary and then received in Holy Baptism and Holy Communion.
We may get labeled as irrational or simplistic by some of those in Reformed Theology, but really, we shouldn't care. We're not irrational or simplistic, we just have no desire to go beyond the Word into hidden topics. Or in another way, we affirm ministerial usage of reason, but not magisterial. Not all Calvinists use magisterial reason over Scripture, but sadly many do.
Hopefully this article was helpful for Lutherans to understand some of the stances out there.
Looking under Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. ~Hebrews 12:2
+Grace and Peace+
The Lapsarian debate or discussion has to do with God's decrees in eternity past, before the foundation of the world. Traditionally, Calvinists take one of two stances in this discussion, but there are some nuanced versions of Lapsarianism as well. That being said, we'll leave the nuanced versions alone for our purposes here.
 |
| John Calvin |
The five topics that are ordered in this discussion are election, creation, sin, Christ's atonement, and regeneration. The four positions I will outline here all order the decrees differently. The two standard positions are called Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism. These are the two traditional Calvinist positions. There are two other decretal orders called Sublapsarianism and then of course, Arminianism. Traditional Calvinists reject Sublapsarianism as being something other than Calvinism (it's 4 point Calvinism) and of course reject Arminianism as heretical (see the Synod of Dordt, 1618-19).
SUPRALAPSARIANISM
1. Elect some and reprobate the rest.
2. Create the universe.
3. Decree the fall of man.
4. Send Christ to die for and save the elect.
5. Regenerate the elect via the inward call of the Spirit.
You can pretty clearly see in Supralapsarianism, that election comes before everything. The other thing that is important to notice here is that election is logically decreed prior to the atonement. In other words, this order of God's decrees has a limited atonement for the elect alone.
Supralapsarianism is generally equated with a "high" Calvinism of sorts.
If you are interested in learning more about the Supralapsarian position, I would recommend my friend Andy Underhile's blog found here: Contra Mundum. Andy is a staunch Supralapsarian and presents the position well.
INFRALAPSARIANISM
Infralapsarianism logically orders God's decrees as follows.
1. Create the universe.
2. Allow the fall of man to occur.
3. Elect some sinful men and pass over the rest.
4. Provide Christ's atonement for the elect.
5. Regenerate the elect via the inward call of the Spirit.
However, it still is important to point out that Infralapsarianism also places election prior to atonement and therefore has a classical Calvinist limited atonement.
SUBLAPSARIANISM
Sublapsarianism, also known as Amyraldism, is another hat in the ring of God's decrees.
 |
| Moise Amyraut - Four Points |
2. Allow the fall of man to occur.
3. Provide Christ's atonement for the whole fallen human race.
4. Elect some and reprobate the rest.
5. Regenerate the elect via the inward call of the Spirit.
Here we have Christ's atonement preceding election. Therefore, the atonement in Sublapsarianism is universal and provisional. Then this theory proceeds to say that since man is dead in sin, none will freely choose Christ and therefore God must elect some to take hold of that universal atonement.
Traditional Calvinists reject this theory as illogical and inconsistent. Many even go as far as to say that it is warmed over Arminianism.
ARMINIANISM
Arminianism is the theology that came out of Calvinism in the late 16th century and into the early 17th century.
1. Create the universe.
2. Allow the fall of man to occur.
3. Provide the atonement for the whole human race.
4. Offer Christ indiscriminately to everyone.
5. Elect those who believe.
Obviously, in this theology, it's not Calvinistic at all. It has God, in essence, looking through time and electing those who He sees will believe in Christ. Election is something done in response to human freewill here and not something that is a cause of salvation.
LUTHERANISM AND LAPSARIANISM
So, how should we as Lutherans approach this discussion? In fact, I am guessing that some of you Lutherans who read this blog wonder why I even wrote it. And to be honest, that's completely fair. I wrote it for informational purposes alone. I am of the opinion that we ought to know about other theologies. And, as a former Calvinist, that is the other theology that I can expound upon.
So again, how should we as Lutherans approach this? Where do we fall in this debate?
This should not surprise you, but we don't fall anywhere here. In fact, we reject the whole Lapsarian debate outright. But why?
Simply put, these ordering of decrees is an attempt to peer into the hidden God. From our perspective, the whole discussion really is not worth having and worth taking a stance upon. To put it in Lutheran terms, it's a theology of glory and not a theology of the cross. Instead of being focused on Christ crucified for you, it's focused on decrees in eternity past. Instead of focusing on the revealed God given for you in Christ, it's focused on the hidden God, not revealed to us to much extent in Scripture. Yes, for sure the people in these different Lapsarian camps use Holy Scripture to defend their positions. But from my perspective, none of them are slam dunks anyways. It's speculation for the most part. And speculation can be a bad thing sometimes.
So, as Lutherans, we simply do not engage in these sorts of debates most of the time. We would rather stick to the revealed Christ given for us at Calvary and then received in Holy Baptism and Holy Communion.
We may get labeled as irrational or simplistic by some of those in Reformed Theology, but really, we shouldn't care. We're not irrational or simplistic, we just have no desire to go beyond the Word into hidden topics. Or in another way, we affirm ministerial usage of reason, but not magisterial. Not all Calvinists use magisterial reason over Scripture, but sadly many do.
Hopefully this article was helpful for Lutherans to understand some of the stances out there.
Looking under Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. ~Hebrews 12:2
+Grace and Peace+
1/20/14
We're All Sacramental. Kind Of. Unless We're Not.
Pretty much every Christian church has Sacraments. And if a church has no sacraments, it rejects means of grace. That usually leads to a false dichotomy between spiritual and physical (*cough* Gnosticism *cough*).
33 year LCMS veteran Pr. Peters wrote an excellent piece on made up sacraments, and I would like to piggyback his thoughts and hit it from a different angle a bit. The blog is found here:
Made Up Sacraments <<< READ THIS!!!
sac-ra-ment (noun)
I could go on and on and perhaps name some more. I won't. The point is this: None of these things (well, prayer is) are Christian practices. People don't "get saved" by walking an aisle, coming forward to the altar, or praying a prayer asking Jesus into their heart. Only God's creative Word gives us grace that creates faith. Not our choice and not a memorized sinner's prayer that puts Christ in our heart.
33 year LCMS veteran Pr. Peters wrote an excellent piece on made up sacraments, and I would like to piggyback his thoughts and hit it from a different angle a bit. The blog is found here:
Made Up Sacraments <<< READ THIS!!!
sac-ra-ment (noun)
Ecclesiastical . a visible sign of an inward grace, especially one of the solemn Christian rites considered to have been instituted by Jesus Christ to symbolize or confer grace: the sacraments of the Protestant churches are baptism and the Lord's Supper; the sacraments of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches are baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, matrimony, penance, holy orders, and extreme unction.
That's the definition we get from dictionary.com. According to that site, a sacrament either symbolizes grace or is a means of grace (confers it). I would argue strongly for the latter; that a sacrament is a means of grace, and that is why mainline evangelicalism will not call baptism and the Lord's Supper sacraments. Rather, they are termed as ordinances. An ordinance carries the force of a ceremony or rite, in a purely symbolic sense. No grace is conferred.
However, even in these mainline churches, they still have sacraments. They're just not the ones that Christ gave to us. So if baptism and the Lord's Supper aren't sacraments, but rather ordinances...what are the sacraments? More specifically, what are the means of grace in mainstream churches? Well, here are a few.
1. Prayer
Prayer becomes a form of transaction with God rather than an act of worship and thanksgiving. Prayer is a vital part of Christian life, but it's not something we do to get God to do our will.
2. Altar Calls
How many times have you seen an evangelical altar call where people walk the aisle and make a decision for Christ? This heterodox practice traces it's roots back to the Second Great Awakening and Pelagian teachers such as Charles Grandison Finney.
| One big altar call |
The altar call, sometimes referred to as the invitation, has become a staple of American Evangelicalism, especially in Baptist and Methodist churches. Sadly, nothing even remotely close to this is ever found in Scripture.
Know what else came out of the Second Great Awakening? Seventh-Day Adventism, The Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and the Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.
3. The Sinner's Prayer
How often have you heard a pastor or evangelist lead people in the sinner's prayer? As someone who was a baptist for years, I heard it a lot. It was almost a given. We took it for granted. That is how one gets saved. You admit that you're a sinner and that you need a Savior, then ask Jesus into your heart. Or, as I have heard stated repeatedly lately (I don't know why, but I have), you "pray" Jesus into your heart.
| The Sinner's Prayer: An Example |
This is the big one. The evangelical sacrament if there ever was one.
The problem is, this is unbiblical at best. Where did any of the Apostle's ever lead a congregation in an altar call or the sinner's prayer in Scripture? You'll search in vain for it, because none of that is in there.
| Yeah. It's sort of like this in some circles. |
I could go on and on and perhaps name some more. I won't. The point is this: None of these things (well, prayer is) are Christian practices. People don't "get saved" by walking an aisle, coming forward to the altar, or praying a prayer asking Jesus into their heart. Only God's creative Word gives us grace that creates faith. Not our choice and not a memorized sinner's prayer that puts Christ in our heart.
Here is where someone will interject and say that the methods can change. No, you don't use an argument from methodology to justify unbiblical practices and pragmatism.
God did however give us His Word and Sacraments. According to Scripture, they are Baptism and the Lord's Supper. In these, the Word is given to us. In preaching, the Word is given to us. In public reading of Scripture (or private), the Word is given to us.
Why did early American Evangelicalism decide to introduce these new methods into their churches? We could probably write a book on that (Such as Michael Horton's Made in America) but we'll keep it simple: Early 19th century American ideals revolved around the sovereignty of the individual and the power of the will (like the self-made man). Those ideals got imported right into faith and practice in Baptist and Methodist churches, and voila.
What is even more appalling is that generally these folks tend to say they stick to Scripture alone, then turn around and reject the sacraments and insert their own.
Now it was not about God giving Himself to us as a gift in Word and Sacrament, it was all about us appropriating it by an act of our will.
What is even more appalling is that generally these folks tend to say they stick to Scripture alone, then turn around and reject the sacraments and insert their own.
Now it was not about God giving Himself to us as a gift in Word and Sacrament, it was all about us appropriating it by an act of our will.
And sadly, this stuff is still going strong.
+Pax+
+Pax+
12/30/13
The First Step To Shenanigans
O'Hagen: "I swear I'm gonna pistol whip the next person that says shenanigans!"
Thorny: "Hey Farva..."
The first step towards theological shenanigans is...wait for it...
Making Christianity about our choices, will, and taking of Christ.
As opposed to the proper emphasis: God's gracious giving of Christ to us.
The root problem here is that is makes salvation and Christianity in general a cooperative effort. You know, God did His part, now it's up to me to do mine. This is the inevitable first step towards theological purgatory.
But why? Well, there are numerous reasons.
First of all, this denies the efficacy of Christ and His gifts to us. I don't think anyone wants to claim that Christ's gifts are insufficient. But this makes it so. God does not hold Himself out there and beg us, by our will, to take Him. That's not in Scripture anywhere.
Second of all, it leads to one of two places: Pride, or despair. It leads to pride when one thinks they're doing well. Last I checked, God is still God. That means there is no possible way for us to meet His standards by anything we do. And since He still counts His standards as perfect, and us as imperfect...well, do the math. It leads to despair when people recognize that they have not loved the Lord with their whole heart and have not loved their neighbor as themselves.
Third of all, it leads to heretical beliefs and practices. Earning salvation is but one of the things that can possibly seep in here. Telling people to make choices to get saved, saying prayers that magically have Jesus move in to your heart, and other things. Yes, the sinner's prayer is a nonsense invention. There, I said it. I reckon a grand total of zero people have been saved by the sinner's prayer in history. How can I say such mean and awful things? Well, because God saves by His creative Word, given to us in Scripture and the Sacraments. And you know what? That's what the Church catholic has always believed. More so, it's what Scripture clearly tells us.
Fourth of all, it leads to the theologically liberal error that the Gospel is basically just another law to be followed and obeyed. I've heard numerous theologically liberal folks say that the Gospel is summarized in Matthew 22. You know, the passage where Jesus states to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. But that's not the Gospel. That's the summation of the Law! The good news is not our loving. It's Jesus' doing and giving.
The emphasis, and indeed, the whole of salvation, is a one-sided divine gift, given solely by God through specific means by which He has given to us.
I also realize that this rant could be taken the wrong way. So, let me clarify.
1. No, I am not saying that we don't make choices.
2. No, I am not saying that our choices do not have consequences.
3. No, I am not saying that we are not commanded to obey Christ.
4. No, I am not saying that we should not make rational decisions.
5. No, I am not saying that we should just let go and let God. (Quietism)
But I am saying that when it comes to salvation, it is completely and utterly accomplished outside of us (extra nos) by Christ at Calvary and Christ rising from the grave. It is given to us in His creative Word in faithful preaching, the waters of Holy Baptism, the Sacrament of His body and blood for us, and the Absolution pronounced by His called and ordained servants of the Word.
It's a class A, massive, major, big-time, error...to link our cooperation to our gaining of salvation. That ballpark belongs to God alone. He alone saves. He alone works this in us. He alone gives grace. He alone gives faith through His means of grace.
And praise to You, O Christ, for that faith You have so given clings to You alone.
For everything in salvation.
Thorny: "Hey Farva..."
The first step towards theological shenanigans is...wait for it...
Making Christianity about our choices, will, and taking of Christ.
As opposed to the proper emphasis: God's gracious giving of Christ to us.
The root problem here is that is makes salvation and Christianity in general a cooperative effort. You know, God did His part, now it's up to me to do mine. This is the inevitable first step towards theological purgatory.
But why? Well, there are numerous reasons.
First of all, this denies the efficacy of Christ and His gifts to us. I don't think anyone wants to claim that Christ's gifts are insufficient. But this makes it so. God does not hold Himself out there and beg us, by our will, to take Him. That's not in Scripture anywhere.
Second of all, it leads to one of two places: Pride, or despair. It leads to pride when one thinks they're doing well. Last I checked, God is still God. That means there is no possible way for us to meet His standards by anything we do. And since He still counts His standards as perfect, and us as imperfect...well, do the math. It leads to despair when people recognize that they have not loved the Lord with their whole heart and have not loved their neighbor as themselves.
Third of all, it leads to heretical beliefs and practices. Earning salvation is but one of the things that can possibly seep in here. Telling people to make choices to get saved, saying prayers that magically have Jesus move in to your heart, and other things. Yes, the sinner's prayer is a nonsense invention. There, I said it. I reckon a grand total of zero people have been saved by the sinner's prayer in history. How can I say such mean and awful things? Well, because God saves by His creative Word, given to us in Scripture and the Sacraments. And you know what? That's what the Church catholic has always believed. More so, it's what Scripture clearly tells us.
Fourth of all, it leads to the theologically liberal error that the Gospel is basically just another law to be followed and obeyed. I've heard numerous theologically liberal folks say that the Gospel is summarized in Matthew 22. You know, the passage where Jesus states to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. But that's not the Gospel. That's the summation of the Law! The good news is not our loving. It's Jesus' doing and giving.
The emphasis, and indeed, the whole of salvation, is a one-sided divine gift, given solely by God through specific means by which He has given to us.
I also realize that this rant could be taken the wrong way. So, let me clarify.
1. No, I am not saying that we don't make choices.
2. No, I am not saying that our choices do not have consequences.
3. No, I am not saying that we are not commanded to obey Christ.
4. No, I am not saying that we should not make rational decisions.
5. No, I am not saying that we should just let go and let God. (Quietism)
But I am saying that when it comes to salvation, it is completely and utterly accomplished outside of us (extra nos) by Christ at Calvary and Christ rising from the grave. It is given to us in His creative Word in faithful preaching, the waters of Holy Baptism, the Sacrament of His body and blood for us, and the Absolution pronounced by His called and ordained servants of the Word.
It's a class A, massive, major, big-time, error...to link our cooperation to our gaining of salvation. That ballpark belongs to God alone. He alone saves. He alone works this in us. He alone gives grace. He alone gives faith through His means of grace.
And praise to You, O Christ, for that faith You have so given clings to You alone.
For everything in salvation.
9/14/13
Lutherans, Calvinists, and Arminians: Perseverance
This is the final installment in the 5 part series in which I have sought to compare Lutheranism to both Calvinism (the doctrines of grace) and Arminian Remonstrants. The final overview needed is regarding the doctrine of perseverance in the three camps. Keep in mind, just as with the other 4 comparisons, these are not the only views on the topic out there within the realm of Christendom. We have to a very large extent overlooked two very large elephants in the room throughout this series: Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. However, from the outset, my goal has been to compare Confessional Lutheranism as laid out for us in Scripture and the Book of Concord to these other two major Protestant camps.
If you're paying attention, I have followed the Reformed Calvinist convention through these blogs. That is to say, I have addressed the topics in order of the Calvinist TULIP. Only the P remains to be addressed.
Again I will make a plug for Pr. Cooper's excellent synopsis. If you are looking for a quick, short, and spot-on Lutheran evaluation of the 5 points of Calvinism, my friend Pr. Jordan Cooper has done an excellent short work on this topic over at his blog. The work can be found here:
Lutheran Evaluation of the 5 Points of Calvinism - Pr. Cooper
Likewise, the first 4 blogs I put together on this topic can be found at these links:
Depravity of Man
Predestination and Election
The Atonement of Christ
The Grace of God
And there they are, in all of their glory. Once again, the 3 camps have different views on the topic at hand.
Perseverance in Calvinism
Calvinism's doctrine of perseverance is a direct result of the rest of the TULIP. It relies heavily on the Pactum Salutis (Covenant of Redemption between Father, Son, and Spirit) along with the doctrines of unconditional election and limited atonement. Calvinism's doctrine of perseverance is rooted in the idea that man can do nothing, so God alone must save him completely apart from themselves. Lutherans say amen to this, by the way. However, in Calvinism, since man can do nothing and God elects, *only* the elect are ever atoned for and given the inner call of the Holy Spirit. Thus, *only* the elect are ever regenerate, and no one else. Thus, the elect are saved, cannot fall away, and them alone, while the rest are passed over, not elect, never regenerated, and not atoned for. We must be careful here though. While Reformed Theology does indeed hold to the doctrine of perseverance of the saints (the P), it is not the same thing as the 'softer' doctrine of "once saved always saved." Although they do believe that, there is much more to it than just that.
Westminster Confession, XVII, 1-3
I. They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.
II. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which arises also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve His Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.
"To lose our salvation, we would have to return to a condition of spiritual death. Of what sort of regeneration would the Holy Spirit be the author if those whom he has resurrected and given eternal life are capable of dying spiritually again?" (Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, p. 210)
"When Paul says nothing can separate us from God’s love, he means that even we cannot snatch ourselves from His hand. If we have true faith, we will maintain that faith until the end. Times of doubt may arise, and it is even possible to fall into grievous sin. Yet if we belong to Christ today, we will belong to Him forever." (R.C. Sproul, http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/secure-in-the-love-of-god/)
And there is Calvinism. A person is saved by God alone (Amen!) and kept by God alone (Amen!) and every person ever regenerated (born again) is finally saved. Only the elect are ever regenerate.
Perseverance in Arminianism
Although the early Remonstrants were unsure on the doctrine of perseverance, Arminianism today nearly universally affirms that a Christian can fall from grace and be lost. The one exception to that rule might be Arminian-leaning fundamental baptist churches. In Arminianism, salvation is synergistic. That is, it is a cooperation between God and man. Thus, a person must choose to be born again or choose to reject Christ and either not be born again or stop being born again. It is important to note that Arminians affirm that the Spirit alone is the agent of regeneration. But He does not do so apart from the individual's free will decision coming first.
Remonstrants - Article V:
That those who are incorporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, as a result have full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no deceit or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of neglecting grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full confidence of our mind.
Constitution of the North American General Conference (Wesleyan)
We believe that after we have experienced regeneration, it is possible to fall into sin, for in this life there is no such height or strength of holiness from which it is impossible to fall. But by the grace of God one who has fallen into sin may by true repentance and faith find forgiveness and restoration.
Arminianism, with the exception of the original Remonstrants who were undecided on the topic, is pretty plain that a person can fall out of grace by sin or rejection of Christ. This is to say, a person can be regenerate and then not regenerate.
Perseverance in Lutheranism
Augsburg Confession, XII, 1-10
Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these two parts: One is contrition, that is, terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ's sake, sins are forgiven, comforts the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance.
They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such perfection in this life that they cannot sin.
The Novatians also are condemned, who would not absolve such as had fallen after Baptism, though they returned to repentance.
They also are rejected who do not teach that remission of sins comes through faith but command us to merit grace through satisfactions of our own.
The words, “Ye are fallen from grace,” must not be taken lightly. They are important. 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. (Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians)
This is really all we need from the Lutheran point of view. In short, the Augsburg Confession, XII, 7 says: "They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost."
The Lutheran stance is very clearly that a person can fall from grace who is actually regenerate and be lost. The AC says that and Luther says that in his commentary on Galatians. In Lutheranism, it is a law and gospel thing. The gospel saves us and keeps us saved. Only God can do that. We, however, can throw this away.
So, "losing" salvation is not a term I particularly like, because it's not so much a loss as it is a complete throwing away. And on a personal note, I used to despise this idea that a person could be saved and then lost. I can't imagine why anyone would want to leave Christ, but it does happen. We have all seen it. I'll even go as far as to say that Calvinism is forced to deny other sacramental truths (like baptismal regeneration) because the core dogma in Calvinism is the P. So, in this sense we actually agree with the Arminians. However, we agree with the Calvinists on the positive side of salvation for the most part. It is God alone who saves us and keeps us saved. As the Calvinists, we are monergists. However, our monergism is universal, theirs is limited to the elect alone. Our atonement is universal, theirs is limited to the elect alone. And yes, we hold to election, even as a cause; and we are not synergists. God does this through Word and Sacrament, by Himself. Not because we made a choice (contra Arminianism), but because He gave and continues to give freely and generously. God is a merciful God.
In short, the only thing we can bring to the table is our sin and our rejection of Christ's work on our behalf. We can do negative things pertaining to salvation, but not positive. We can condemn ourselves by rejection but we cannot attain salvation by 'acceptance.' We must receive God's grace, and this is all God's doing, not ours. He does this through the Word given to us in preaching, absolution, baptism, and the Sacrament of the Altar.
God alone saves and God alone keeps us saved, through Word and Sacrament. We need continual forgiveness from God. That's why we have a corporate absolution at the divine service every Sunday and also why we are frequent partakers of the Eucharist, which Our Lord says is "for the forgiveness of sins" (Matt 26:28). That's Lutheranism. But, we are able to spurn this grace and throw it away and reject Christ altogether. That's Lutheranism too. God does not kick us out. In fact, He promises to keep us in grace by His Word. We can add nothing to this. Not our works, not our choice, not our acceptance; nothing.
The Holy Scriptures teach both of these things. Believe them.
If you're paying attention, I have followed the Reformed Calvinist convention through these blogs. That is to say, I have addressed the topics in order of the Calvinist TULIP. Only the P remains to be addressed.
Again I will make a plug for Pr. Cooper's excellent synopsis. If you are looking for a quick, short, and spot-on Lutheran evaluation of the 5 points of Calvinism, my friend Pr. Jordan Cooper has done an excellent short work on this topic over at his blog. The work can be found here:
Lutheran Evaluation of the 5 Points of Calvinism - Pr. Cooper
Likewise, the first 4 blogs I put together on this topic can be found at these links:
Depravity of Man
Predestination and Election
The Atonement of Christ
The Grace of God
And there they are, in all of their glory. Once again, the 3 camps have different views on the topic at hand.
Perseverance in Calvinism
Calvinism's doctrine of perseverance is a direct result of the rest of the TULIP. It relies heavily on the Pactum Salutis (Covenant of Redemption between Father, Son, and Spirit) along with the doctrines of unconditional election and limited atonement. Calvinism's doctrine of perseverance is rooted in the idea that man can do nothing, so God alone must save him completely apart from themselves. Lutherans say amen to this, by the way. However, in Calvinism, since man can do nothing and God elects, *only* the elect are ever atoned for and given the inner call of the Holy Spirit. Thus, *only* the elect are ever regenerate, and no one else. Thus, the elect are saved, cannot fall away, and them alone, while the rest are passed over, not elect, never regenerated, and not atoned for. We must be careful here though. While Reformed Theology does indeed hold to the doctrine of perseverance of the saints (the P), it is not the same thing as the 'softer' doctrine of "once saved always saved." Although they do believe that, there is much more to it than just that.
Westminster Confession, XVII, 1-3
I. They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.
II. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which arises also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve His Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.
"To lose our salvation, we would have to return to a condition of spiritual death. Of what sort of regeneration would the Holy Spirit be the author if those whom he has resurrected and given eternal life are capable of dying spiritually again?" (Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, p. 210)
"When Paul says nothing can separate us from God’s love, he means that even we cannot snatch ourselves from His hand. If we have true faith, we will maintain that faith until the end. Times of doubt may arise, and it is even possible to fall into grievous sin. Yet if we belong to Christ today, we will belong to Him forever." (R.C. Sproul, http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/secure-in-the-love-of-god/)
And there is Calvinism. A person is saved by God alone (Amen!) and kept by God alone (Amen!) and every person ever regenerated (born again) is finally saved. Only the elect are ever regenerate.
Perseverance in Arminianism
Although the early Remonstrants were unsure on the doctrine of perseverance, Arminianism today nearly universally affirms that a Christian can fall from grace and be lost. The one exception to that rule might be Arminian-leaning fundamental baptist churches. In Arminianism, salvation is synergistic. That is, it is a cooperation between God and man. Thus, a person must choose to be born again or choose to reject Christ and either not be born again or stop being born again. It is important to note that Arminians affirm that the Spirit alone is the agent of regeneration. But He does not do so apart from the individual's free will decision coming first.
Remonstrants - Article V:
That those who are incorporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, as a result have full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no deceit or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of neglecting grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full confidence of our mind.
25 Articles of Religion (Methodist): Article 12—Of Sin After Justification
Not every sin willingly committed after justification is the sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore, the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after justification. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and, by the grace of God, rise again and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned who say they can no more sin as long as they live here; or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.Constitution of the North American General Conference (Wesleyan)
We believe that after we have experienced regeneration, it is possible to fall into sin, for in this life there is no such height or strength of holiness from which it is impossible to fall. But by the grace of God one who has fallen into sin may by true repentance and faith find forgiveness and restoration.
Arminianism, with the exception of the original Remonstrants who were undecided on the topic, is pretty plain that a person can fall out of grace by sin or rejection of Christ. This is to say, a person can be regenerate and then not regenerate.
Perseverance in Lutheranism
Augsburg Confession, XII, 1-10
Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these two parts: One is contrition, that is, terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ's sake, sins are forgiven, comforts the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance.
They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such perfection in this life that they cannot sin.
The Novatians also are condemned, who would not absolve such as had fallen after Baptism, though they returned to repentance.
They also are rejected who do not teach that remission of sins comes through faith but command us to merit grace through satisfactions of our own.
The words, “Ye are fallen from grace,” must not be taken lightly. They are important. 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. (Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians)
This is really all we need from the Lutheran point of view. In short, the Augsburg Confession, XII, 7 says: "They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost."
The Lutheran stance is very clearly that a person can fall from grace who is actually regenerate and be lost. The AC says that and Luther says that in his commentary on Galatians. In Lutheranism, it is a law and gospel thing. The gospel saves us and keeps us saved. Only God can do that. We, however, can throw this away.
So, "losing" salvation is not a term I particularly like, because it's not so much a loss as it is a complete throwing away. And on a personal note, I used to despise this idea that a person could be saved and then lost. I can't imagine why anyone would want to leave Christ, but it does happen. We have all seen it. I'll even go as far as to say that Calvinism is forced to deny other sacramental truths (like baptismal regeneration) because the core dogma in Calvinism is the P. So, in this sense we actually agree with the Arminians. However, we agree with the Calvinists on the positive side of salvation for the most part. It is God alone who saves us and keeps us saved. As the Calvinists, we are monergists. However, our monergism is universal, theirs is limited to the elect alone. Our atonement is universal, theirs is limited to the elect alone. And yes, we hold to election, even as a cause; and we are not synergists. God does this through Word and Sacrament, by Himself. Not because we made a choice (contra Arminianism), but because He gave and continues to give freely and generously. God is a merciful God.
In short, the only thing we can bring to the table is our sin and our rejection of Christ's work on our behalf. We can do negative things pertaining to salvation, but not positive. We can condemn ourselves by rejection but we cannot attain salvation by 'acceptance.' We must receive God's grace, and this is all God's doing, not ours. He does this through the Word given to us in preaching, absolution, baptism, and the Sacrament of the Altar.
God alone saves and God alone keeps us saved, through Word and Sacrament. We need continual forgiveness from God. That's why we have a corporate absolution at the divine service every Sunday and also why we are frequent partakers of the Eucharist, which Our Lord says is "for the forgiveness of sins" (Matt 26:28). That's Lutheranism. But, we are able to spurn this grace and throw it away and reject Christ altogether. That's Lutheranism too. God does not kick us out. In fact, He promises to keep us in grace by His Word. We can add nothing to this. Not our works, not our choice, not our acceptance; nothing.
The Holy Scriptures teach both of these things. Believe them.
9/11/13
Lutherans, Calvinists, and Arminians: Grace
Part 4 of the 5 part series comparing Lutheranism to Calvinism and Arminianism deals with the grace of God. The first 3 parts that spoke of the depravity of man, election, and the atonement can be found here:
Depravity of Man
Predestination and Election
The Atonement of Christ
If you are looking for a quick, short, and spot-on Lutheran evaluation of the 5 points of Calvinism, my friend Pr. Jordan Cooper has done an excellent short work on this topic over at his blog. The work can be found here:
Lutheran Evaluation of the 5 Points of Calvinism - Pr. Cooper
The doctrine of irresistible grace, the I in the TULIP, is actually the first leg which caused the TULIP to fall for me. Once again, each of the three camps have differing doctrines regarding the grace of God. They all differ as to it's efficacy, it's administration, and it's resistibility.
Grace in Calvinism
Grace in Calvinism is irresistible; especially as it pertains to regeneration. This is to say a couple things. First, those who God elects will be regenerated or born again by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit, and them alone. No one else will be regenerated. Thus, the Holy Spirit only gives that special gracious inward call to the elect and the elect alone. No one else receives it. Second, in Calvinism, regeneration is an unmediated grace. That is to say, that although God works through Word and Sacrament in Calvinism, He does not do so absolutely. He only gives the inward call to believe the Gospel to the elect.
The Westminster Confession speaks of this irresistible grace in clear terms.
WCF, X, 1-4
I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.
II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.
III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.
We may gather, that in Calvinism, there is a difference between the outward call of the Gospel to everyone, which is gracious, and the inward call, which is true irresistible grace received by the elect alone.
Calvinist author (and rock star, in my opinion) Michael Horton states: The Bible "locates unbelief in the total inability of sinners to effect their own liberation from the bondage of the will, and ... locate faith in the unconditional election, redemption, and effectual calling of the triune God alone. God gives not only sufficient grace (that is, enough grace to enable sinners to respond positively to God if they choose to do so), but efficient grace (that is, regeneration as well as faith and repentance as gifts)." (Michael Horton, The Christian Faith, p. 562)
And Calvinistic Baptist Wayne Grudem says: "Regeneration is a secret act of God in which he imparts new spiritual life to us. As the gospel comes to us, God speaks through it to summon us to himself (effective calling) and to give us new spiritual life (regeneration) so that we are enabled to respond in faith. Effective calling is thus God that Father speaking powerfully to us, and regeneration is God that Father and God the Holy Spirit working powerfully in us, to make us alive.
Sometimes the term irresistible grace is used in this connection. It refers to the fact that God effectively calls people and also gives them regeneration, and both actions guarantee that we will respond in saving faith. The term irresistible grace is subject to misunderstanding, however, since it seems to imply that people do not make a voluntary choice in responding to the gospel - a wrong idea, and a wrong understanding of the term irresistible grace. The term does preserve something valuable, however, because it indicates that God's work reaches into our hearts to bring about a response that is absolutely certain - even tough we respond voluntarily. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology p. 699)"
Thus, Calvinism and grace. It is irresistible to the elect alone, who alone receive the secret inward call of God to eternal life. It is unmediated as well. This means that the Spirit works independently of means in this case; although He certainly does work in conjunction with the outward call of the Gospel, or in that arena, if you will.
Arminianism and Grace
The Remonstrants posited that grace is resistible by all men everywhere. They affirmed wholeheartedly the absolute necessity of grace preceding faith; a doctrine they refer to as prevenient grace. However, in Arminianism, God's grace is never enough in itself. As regeneration is concerned, it is the Spirit who regenerates, but the grace so given is given to put the person in a position to be able to choose positively for Christ or negatively against Him. Grace is given indiscriminately to everyone, and the Spirit always offers and brings grace through the preaching of the Word, while the final decision is left to the individual as to whether or not they will cooperate and accept that grace or not. The Remonstrants state:
Article IV: That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of an good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting, awakening, following, and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, in as much as it is written concerning many that they have resisted the Holy Ghost,—Acts vii, and elsewhere in many places.
"...the grace that begins to enable one to choose further to cooperate with saving grace. By offering the will the restored capacity to respond to grace, the person then may freely and increasingly become an active, willing participant in receiving the conditions for justification." ~Thomas C. Oden
"...the first wish to please God, the first dawn of light concerning his will, and the first slight transient conviction of having sinned against him." (John Wesley, "On Working Out Our Own Salvation" (sermon #85))
And there is Arminianism and grace. God offers it to everyone, but the final result is in the choice of the individual.
Lutherans and Grace
Lutherans look at these two theological camps and assert that neither one gives us the whole picture. They're both in a way quite rationalistic from our point of view. The Calvinist view is rooted in the sovereignty of God and the eternal election of the Father. They surmise that since God elects certain persons, the Spirit must come to regenerate these persons alone and none else. The Arminians surmise that since God offers this grace to everyone, the final result is in the hands of the choice of the individual.
Lutherans assert that both of these are wrong and do violence to the biblical data. So how much do we agree or disagree with these camps? Simply put, we agree that grace all by itself is effective to save and indeed does regenerate, apart from the choice of the person making it effective. Yet we also affirm that this grace is universal. To put it in an easy format, this grace is monergistic and effective. it must be received (given by God to men), but it is not our 'acceptance' that receives it. It's God's giving that gives it. (Redundant, I know) Lutheranism is not a theology of decision making. Nor is it a theology that has its basis in decrees and unbiblical categories like the "non-elect." However, since this grace is universal and not everyone is saved, this means that this grace, while being effective and saving in a monergistic manner, is also resistible. The old Adam in us can resist and reject this grace. But to imply the opposite, that is, if we can reject it, we must be able to accept it, is not Lutheranism, or bible for that matter.
Lutheranism also affirms, with Scripture, that this grace so given is mediated; including regeneration. That is to say, the Word regenerates and pronounces effectual forgiveness of sins. How does this happen? Through Baptism, preaching the Gospel, and the Eucharist. Therefore, we can say, along with St. Peter, that "Baptism...now saves you" (1Pet 3:21). Along with St. Paul, we affirm that "having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." (Col 2:12) And, " he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:5-7)
Grace, in other words, saves us and is mediated. Regeneration is mediated. Sanctification is mediated. And so on. Grace works faith in the recipient. Regeneration is faith, and faith is a monergistic gift of God. Yet, our rejection of these causes us to be condemned. He saves us apart from our working or willing. He does this by Baptism, preaching the cross, and the Supper.
Epitome, XI, 12: However, that many are called and few chosen, Matt. 22:14, does not mean that God is not willing to save everybody; but the reason is that they either do not at all hear God's Word, but wilfully despise it, stop their ears and harden their hearts, and in this manner foreclose the ordinary way to the Holy Ghost, so that He cannot perform His work in them, or, when they have heard it, make light of it again and do not heed it, for which [that they perish] not God or His election, but their wickedness, is responsible. [2 Pet. 2:1ff ; Luke 11:49. 52; Heb. 12:25f.]
Epitome, XI, 17-21
Negative Theses
False Doctrine concerning This Article.
Therefore we reject the following errors:
1. As when it is taught that God is unwilling that all men repent and believe the Gospel.
2. Also, that when God calls us to Himself, He is not in earnest that all men should come to Him.
3. Also, that God is unwilling that every one should be saved, but that some, without regard to their sins, from the mere counsel, purpose, and will of God, are ordained to condemnation so that they cannot be saved.
4. Also, that not only the mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ, but also in us there is a cause of God's election, on account of which God has elected us to everlasting life.
All these are blasphemous and dreadful erroneous doctrines, whereby all the comfort which they have in the holy Gospel and the use of the holy Sacraments is taken from Christians, and therefore should not be tolerated in the Church of God.
Solid Declaration, II, 3-5, 7, 11, 16
3. For the one side has held and taught that, although man cannot from his own powers fulfil God's command, or truly trust in God, fear and love Him, without the grace of the Holy Ghost, nevertheless he still has so much of natural powers left before regeneration as to be able to prepare himself to a certain extent for grace, and to assent, although feebly; however, that he cannot accomplish anything by them, but must succumb in the struggle, if the grace of the Holy Ghost is not added thereto.
4. Moreover [On the other side], both the ancient and modern enthusiasts have taught that God converts men, and leads them to the saving knowledge of Christ through His Spirit, without any created means and instrument, that is, without the external preaching and hearing of God's Word.
5. Against both these parties the pure teachers of the Augsburg Confession have taught and contended that by the fall of our first parents man was so corrupted that in divine things pertaining to our conversion and the salvation of our souls he is by nature blind, that, when the Word of God is preached, he neither does nor can understand it, but regards it as foolishness; also, that he does not of himself draw nigh to God, but is and remains an enemy of God, until he is converted, becomes a believer [is endowed with faith], is regenerated and renewed, by the power of the Holy Ghost through the Word when preached and heard, out of pure grace, without any cooperation of his own.
7. Namely, that in spiritual and divine things the intellect, heart, and will of the unregenerate man are utterly unable, by their own natural powers, to understand, believe, accept, think, will, begin, effect, do, work, or concur in working anything, but they are entirely dead to what is good, and corrupt, so that in man's nature since the Fall, before regeneration, there is not the least spark of spiritual power remaining, nor present, by which, of himself, he can prepare himself for God's grace, or accept the offered grace, nor be capable of it for and of himself, or apply or accommodate himself thereto, or by his own powers be able of himself, as of himself, to aid, do, work, or concur in working anything towards his conversion, either wholly, or half, or in any, even the least or most inconsiderable part; but that he is the servant [and slave] of sin, John 8:34, and a captive of the devil, by whom he is moved, Eph. 2:2; 2 Tim. 2:26. Hence the natural free will according to its perverted disposition and nature is strong and active only with respect to what is displeasing and contrary to God.
11. Now, just as a man who is physically dead cannot of his own powers prepare or adapt himself to obtain temporal life again, so the man who is spiritually dead in sins cannot of his own strength adapt or apply himself to the acquisition of spiritual and heavenly righteousness and life, unless he is delivered and quickened by the Son of God from the death of sin.
16. And after God through the Holy Ghost in Baptism has kindled and effected a beginning of the true knowledge of God and faith, we should pray Him without ceasing that through the same spirit and His grace, by means of the daily exercise of reading and practising God's Word, He would preserve in us faith and His heavenly gifts, strengthen us from day to day, and keep us to the end. For unless God Himself be our schoolmaster, we can study and learn nothing that is acceptable to Him and salutary to ourselves and others.
Thus, we can see quite clearly from the Lutheran Confessions that grace alone saves and it is monergistic, with no credit given to the choice or will of man. It is 100% God. On the other hand, all the credit for condemnation is given to man. Grace alone monergistically saves, yet it is resistible by the old Adam who is sinful and despises the things of God and is unable to spiritually discern anything.
God saves us. By Himself.
Amen to that.
Depravity of Man
Predestination and Election
The Atonement of Christ
If you are looking for a quick, short, and spot-on Lutheran evaluation of the 5 points of Calvinism, my friend Pr. Jordan Cooper has done an excellent short work on this topic over at his blog. The work can be found here:
Lutheran Evaluation of the 5 Points of Calvinism - Pr. Cooper
The doctrine of irresistible grace, the I in the TULIP, is actually the first leg which caused the TULIP to fall for me. Once again, each of the three camps have differing doctrines regarding the grace of God. They all differ as to it's efficacy, it's administration, and it's resistibility.
Grace in Calvinism
Grace in Calvinism is irresistible; especially as it pertains to regeneration. This is to say a couple things. First, those who God elects will be regenerated or born again by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit, and them alone. No one else will be regenerated. Thus, the Holy Spirit only gives that special gracious inward call to the elect and the elect alone. No one else receives it. Second, in Calvinism, regeneration is an unmediated grace. That is to say, that although God works through Word and Sacrament in Calvinism, He does not do so absolutely. He only gives the inward call to believe the Gospel to the elect.
The Westminster Confession speaks of this irresistible grace in clear terms.
WCF, X, 1-4
I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.
II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.
III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.
We may gather, that in Calvinism, there is a difference between the outward call of the Gospel to everyone, which is gracious, and the inward call, which is true irresistible grace received by the elect alone.
Calvinist author (and rock star, in my opinion) Michael Horton states: The Bible "locates unbelief in the total inability of sinners to effect their own liberation from the bondage of the will, and ... locate faith in the unconditional election, redemption, and effectual calling of the triune God alone. God gives not only sufficient grace (that is, enough grace to enable sinners to respond positively to God if they choose to do so), but efficient grace (that is, regeneration as well as faith and repentance as gifts)." (Michael Horton, The Christian Faith, p. 562)
And Calvinistic Baptist Wayne Grudem says: "Regeneration is a secret act of God in which he imparts new spiritual life to us. As the gospel comes to us, God speaks through it to summon us to himself (effective calling) and to give us new spiritual life (regeneration) so that we are enabled to respond in faith. Effective calling is thus God that Father speaking powerfully to us, and regeneration is God that Father and God the Holy Spirit working powerfully in us, to make us alive.
Sometimes the term irresistible grace is used in this connection. It refers to the fact that God effectively calls people and also gives them regeneration, and both actions guarantee that we will respond in saving faith. The term irresistible grace is subject to misunderstanding, however, since it seems to imply that people do not make a voluntary choice in responding to the gospel - a wrong idea, and a wrong understanding of the term irresistible grace. The term does preserve something valuable, however, because it indicates that God's work reaches into our hearts to bring about a response that is absolutely certain - even tough we respond voluntarily. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology p. 699)"
Thus, Calvinism and grace. It is irresistible to the elect alone, who alone receive the secret inward call of God to eternal life. It is unmediated as well. This means that the Spirit works independently of means in this case; although He certainly does work in conjunction with the outward call of the Gospel, or in that arena, if you will.
Arminianism and Grace
The Remonstrants posited that grace is resistible by all men everywhere. They affirmed wholeheartedly the absolute necessity of grace preceding faith; a doctrine they refer to as prevenient grace. However, in Arminianism, God's grace is never enough in itself. As regeneration is concerned, it is the Spirit who regenerates, but the grace so given is given to put the person in a position to be able to choose positively for Christ or negatively against Him. Grace is given indiscriminately to everyone, and the Spirit always offers and brings grace through the preaching of the Word, while the final decision is left to the individual as to whether or not they will cooperate and accept that grace or not. The Remonstrants state:
Article IV: That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of an good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting, awakening, following, and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, in as much as it is written concerning many that they have resisted the Holy Ghost,—Acts vii, and elsewhere in many places.
"...the grace that begins to enable one to choose further to cooperate with saving grace. By offering the will the restored capacity to respond to grace, the person then may freely and increasingly become an active, willing participant in receiving the conditions for justification." ~Thomas C. Oden
"...the first wish to please God, the first dawn of light concerning his will, and the first slight transient conviction of having sinned against him." (John Wesley, "On Working Out Our Own Salvation" (sermon #85))
And there is Arminianism and grace. God offers it to everyone, but the final result is in the choice of the individual.
Lutherans and Grace
Lutherans look at these two theological camps and assert that neither one gives us the whole picture. They're both in a way quite rationalistic from our point of view. The Calvinist view is rooted in the sovereignty of God and the eternal election of the Father. They surmise that since God elects certain persons, the Spirit must come to regenerate these persons alone and none else. The Arminians surmise that since God offers this grace to everyone, the final result is in the hands of the choice of the individual.
Lutherans assert that both of these are wrong and do violence to the biblical data. So how much do we agree or disagree with these camps? Simply put, we agree that grace all by itself is effective to save and indeed does regenerate, apart from the choice of the person making it effective. Yet we also affirm that this grace is universal. To put it in an easy format, this grace is monergistic and effective. it must be received (given by God to men), but it is not our 'acceptance' that receives it. It's God's giving that gives it. (Redundant, I know) Lutheranism is not a theology of decision making. Nor is it a theology that has its basis in decrees and unbiblical categories like the "non-elect." However, since this grace is universal and not everyone is saved, this means that this grace, while being effective and saving in a monergistic manner, is also resistible. The old Adam in us can resist and reject this grace. But to imply the opposite, that is, if we can reject it, we must be able to accept it, is not Lutheranism, or bible for that matter.
Lutheranism also affirms, with Scripture, that this grace so given is mediated; including regeneration. That is to say, the Word regenerates and pronounces effectual forgiveness of sins. How does this happen? Through Baptism, preaching the Gospel, and the Eucharist. Therefore, we can say, along with St. Peter, that "Baptism...now saves you" (1Pet 3:21). Along with St. Paul, we affirm that "having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." (Col 2:12) And, " he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:5-7)
Grace, in other words, saves us and is mediated. Regeneration is mediated. Sanctification is mediated. And so on. Grace works faith in the recipient. Regeneration is faith, and faith is a monergistic gift of God. Yet, our rejection of these causes us to be condemned. He saves us apart from our working or willing. He does this by Baptism, preaching the cross, and the Supper.
Epitome, XI, 12: However, that many are called and few chosen, Matt. 22:14, does not mean that God is not willing to save everybody; but the reason is that they either do not at all hear God's Word, but wilfully despise it, stop their ears and harden their hearts, and in this manner foreclose the ordinary way to the Holy Ghost, so that He cannot perform His work in them, or, when they have heard it, make light of it again and do not heed it, for which [that they perish] not God or His election, but their wickedness, is responsible. [2 Pet. 2:1ff ; Luke 11:49. 52; Heb. 12:25f.]
Epitome, XI, 17-21
Negative Theses
False Doctrine concerning This Article.
Therefore we reject the following errors:
1. As when it is taught that God is unwilling that all men repent and believe the Gospel.
2. Also, that when God calls us to Himself, He is not in earnest that all men should come to Him.
3. Also, that God is unwilling that every one should be saved, but that some, without regard to their sins, from the mere counsel, purpose, and will of God, are ordained to condemnation so that they cannot be saved.
4. Also, that not only the mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ, but also in us there is a cause of God's election, on account of which God has elected us to everlasting life.
All these are blasphemous and dreadful erroneous doctrines, whereby all the comfort which they have in the holy Gospel and the use of the holy Sacraments is taken from Christians, and therefore should not be tolerated in the Church of God.
Solid Declaration, II, 3-5, 7, 11, 16
3. For the one side has held and taught that, although man cannot from his own powers fulfil God's command, or truly trust in God, fear and love Him, without the grace of the Holy Ghost, nevertheless he still has so much of natural powers left before regeneration as to be able to prepare himself to a certain extent for grace, and to assent, although feebly; however, that he cannot accomplish anything by them, but must succumb in the struggle, if the grace of the Holy Ghost is not added thereto.
4. Moreover [On the other side], both the ancient and modern enthusiasts have taught that God converts men, and leads them to the saving knowledge of Christ through His Spirit, without any created means and instrument, that is, without the external preaching and hearing of God's Word.
5. Against both these parties the pure teachers of the Augsburg Confession have taught and contended that by the fall of our first parents man was so corrupted that in divine things pertaining to our conversion and the salvation of our souls he is by nature blind, that, when the Word of God is preached, he neither does nor can understand it, but regards it as foolishness; also, that he does not of himself draw nigh to God, but is and remains an enemy of God, until he is converted, becomes a believer [is endowed with faith], is regenerated and renewed, by the power of the Holy Ghost through the Word when preached and heard, out of pure grace, without any cooperation of his own.
7. Namely, that in spiritual and divine things the intellect, heart, and will of the unregenerate man are utterly unable, by their own natural powers, to understand, believe, accept, think, will, begin, effect, do, work, or concur in working anything, but they are entirely dead to what is good, and corrupt, so that in man's nature since the Fall, before regeneration, there is not the least spark of spiritual power remaining, nor present, by which, of himself, he can prepare himself for God's grace, or accept the offered grace, nor be capable of it for and of himself, or apply or accommodate himself thereto, or by his own powers be able of himself, as of himself, to aid, do, work, or concur in working anything towards his conversion, either wholly, or half, or in any, even the least or most inconsiderable part; but that he is the servant [and slave] of sin, John 8:34, and a captive of the devil, by whom he is moved, Eph. 2:2; 2 Tim. 2:26. Hence the natural free will according to its perverted disposition and nature is strong and active only with respect to what is displeasing and contrary to God.
11. Now, just as a man who is physically dead cannot of his own powers prepare or adapt himself to obtain temporal life again, so the man who is spiritually dead in sins cannot of his own strength adapt or apply himself to the acquisition of spiritual and heavenly righteousness and life, unless he is delivered and quickened by the Son of God from the death of sin.
16. And after God through the Holy Ghost in Baptism has kindled and effected a beginning of the true knowledge of God and faith, we should pray Him without ceasing that through the same spirit and His grace, by means of the daily exercise of reading and practising God's Word, He would preserve in us faith and His heavenly gifts, strengthen us from day to day, and keep us to the end. For unless God Himself be our schoolmaster, we can study and learn nothing that is acceptable to Him and salutary to ourselves and others.
Thus, we can see quite clearly from the Lutheran Confessions that grace alone saves and it is monergistic, with no credit given to the choice or will of man. It is 100% God. On the other hand, all the credit for condemnation is given to man. Grace alone monergistically saves, yet it is resistible by the old Adam who is sinful and despises the things of God and is unable to spiritually discern anything.
God saves us. By Himself.
Amen to that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)