Oh the Calvinists. So much misinformation and bearing false witness. I'm not sure if their foolishness is intentionally misleading or just misinformed. I'll assume the latter to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Lutherans and Calvinists have been linked together in many ways since the days of the Protestant Reformation. Suffice it to say, from a Lutheran standpoint, we do not believe the same things as the Calvinists, nor are we very close to believing the same things; much less be in communion together.
Here is a prime example of Calvinist misinformation, which, if a person were to do an historical study of what actually happened, would immediately see that this misinformation is just plain wrong.
The recently deceased Reformed pastor and theologian R.C. Sproul stated the following:
While discussing the Reformed doctrine of predestination in his book Chosen by God, Sproul gives a list of theologians in history who affirm predestination and those who deny it. He states: "We cannot determine truth by counting noses. The great thinkers of the past can be wrong. But it is important for us to see that the Reformed doctrine of predestination was not invented by John Calvin. There is nothing in Calvin's view of predestination that was not earlier propounded by Luther and Augustine before him." (Sproul, p. 167) So far, so good. The early Luther, while as yet an Augustinian monk in the Roman Church, did hold to double predestination. No Lutheran should dispute that, since Luther is quite clear that he did. He (Luther) did, however, hold to a doctrine of single predestination later in life, which the Calvinists cannot bear to admit in many cases. However, that is not what this post is about. Rather, it is Sproul's next statement that throws up all sorts of misinformation.
He continues, "Later, Lutheranism did not follow Luther on this matter but Melanchthon, who altered his views after Luther's death. It is also noteworthy that in his famous treatise on theology, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin wrote sparingly on the subject. Luther wrote more about predestination than did Calvin." (Sproul, p. 167)
Nope. Wrong. Incorrect. The part of the statement to which I refer is Sproul's claim that Lutheranism followed Melanchthon and not Luther on this matter. This is simply false. It is well documented that this is not the case. The most important documentation that refutes Sproul's statement is actually our Lutheran Confessional documents the Epitome of the Formula of Concord and the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord. In fact, these documents were written in view of Melanchthon's compromising and synergism, among other controversies that had crept in to the Lutheran church.
Indeed, the Evangelical Catholic Church (Lutheran) did struggle with this issue in the 16th century. The same issue popped up in the United States in the 19th century, with the first president of the Missouri Synod, C.F.W. Walther, staunchly defending the classic and Confessional Lutheran stance on predestination and monergism.
Back to the 16th century. From the years 1555-1560, the synergistic controversy was fought in the Lutheran churches. The wavering and compromising Melanchthon had written that there are three reasons people are saved. Per Melanchthon, these three are the Holy Spirit, the Word of God, and the nonresistance of a person's will. It is this third reason put forth by Melanchthon that is a problem, since it teaches synergism.
Against Melanchthon, there were the Gnesio, or genuine, Lutherans, who espoused the biblical form of monergism, even opposing Melanchthon. Sadly, one of the Gnesio Lutherans in the monergism camp named Matthias Flacius, over-reacted and ended up teaching error regarding original sin, saying that original sin is the very substance of fallen humanity, which would cause God to be the author of sin.
Enter the Formula of Concord. The first two articles of both the Epitome and the Solid Declaration are on Original Sin and Free Will, respectively. The first article regarding Original Sin corrects Flacius' error while also strongly upholding the Biblical doctrine of Original Sin. The Epitome states, "We believe, teach, and confess that there is a distinction between man's nature and original sin. This applied not only when he was originally created by God pure and holy and without sin [Ge 1:31], but it also applies to the way we have that nature now after the fall. In other words, we distinguish between the nature itself (which even after the fall is and remains God's creature) and original sin. This distinction is as great as the distinction between God's work and the devil's work." (Ep: I, 2)
Here is a clear rejection of Flacius' error.
However, the Epitome also states, "On the other hand, we believe, teach, and confess that original sin is not a minor corruption. It is so deep a corruption of human nature that nothing healthy or uncorrupt remains in man's body or soul, in his inward or outward powers [Ro 3:10-12]" (Ep: I, 8)
The Epitome and the Solid Declaration have much more to say about Original Sin, but this will suffice for the purpose of this blog.
Likewise, the Formula of Concord also formally adopted Luther's -not Melanchthon's- view of the will of man.
"This is our teaching, faith, and confession on this subject: in spiritual matters the understanding and reason of mankind are <completely> blind and by their own powers understand nothing, as it is written in 1 Corinthians 2:14..." (Ep: II, 2)
"Likewise, we believe, teach, and confess that the unregenerate will of mankind is not only turned away from God, but also has become God's enemy. So it only has an inclination and desire for that which is evil and contrary to God, as it is written in Genesis 8:21, 'the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth.' Romans 8:7 says, 'The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.' Just as a dead body cannot raise itself to bodily, earthly life, so a person who by sin is spiritually dead cannot raise himself to spiritual life. For it is written in Ephesians 2:5, 'even when we were dead in our trespasses, He made us alive together with Christ.' And 2 Corinthians 3:5 says, 'Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God.'" (Ep: II, 3)
"For without his grace, and if He does not grant the increase, our willing and running, our planting, sowing, and watering (1 Co 3:5-7) -are all nothing. As Christ says <in John 15:5>, 'apart from Me you can do nothing.' With these brief words the Spirit denies free will its powers and ascribes everything to God's grace, in order that no one may boast before God (1 Co 1:29[2 Co 12:5, Jer 9:23]). (Ep: II, 6)
These Confessional statements are a clear rejection of Melanchthon's synergism and a clear affirmation of monergism. The Formula of Concord has much more to say on these topics, especially in the Solid Declaration. If the reader would like more information, go to http://www.bookofconcord.org or pick up a copy of the Book of Concord; the Epitome and the Solid Declaration are the last two Confessional documents in the book. I heartily recommend the Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord edited by Rev. Paul McCain. It can be found and purchased at http://www.cph.org.
Hence, it should be quite clear to the serious student of history and reader of the Lutheran Confessional statements that R.C. Sproul's statement that Lutherans follow Melanchthon and not Luther is in error. Frankly, we follow Scripture alone, but we happen to agree far more theologically with Dr. Martin Luther than we do with the wavering and compromising Philip Melanchthon after Luther's death.
I find it hard to believe that these statements and issues still exist in Calvinist circles and it makes me wonder why. Lutherans are not synergists, at least not Confessionally. Per Scripture, as well as the Book of Concord, we are monergists.
Not only that, but we also strongly affirm predestination. However, we affirm, with Scripture, that predestination and election pertain to believers, not unbelievers. If the reader would like to see what the Lutherans believe regarding predestination, read the Epitome XI and the Solid Declaration XI.
Nope, sorry R.C., we disagree with the post-Luther Melanchthon in the strongest manner possible.
+Pax+
Showing posts with label Free Will. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free Will. Show all posts
7/24/19
Objectivity of Christ > Baptist Decisional Theology
I was raised in a Baptist environment. The church(es) we attended were not necessarily Baptist in name, but certainly were hard line Baptist in theology. I was baptised as any good Baptist is - after I could properly articulate my faith and give a proper testimony. Thus, as numerous traditional church members can usually say; that they were baptised on the 2nd day, or the 8th or 10th day, I could say that I was baptised in about the 10th year, only after I could give a proper testimony. And of course after my baptism by full immersion in a lake, the congregation sang "I Have Decided to Follow Jesus." So, while my baptism is certainly valid, the underlying theology of baptism is in direct opposition to what the Scriptures teach about baptism.
Ultimately, when one's theology of the sacraments is completely emptied of their biblical import and meaning, defined by our Lord Jesus Christ, something else always rushes in to fill the void. So whereas a Lutheran can say "I was saved in my baptism," a Baptist would never say such a thing, because of the Baptist's theology of Baptism. In fact, to say such a thing would be paramount to heresy in a Baptist church. God forbid you were saved by your obedience! (Because baptism is nothing more than a work of obedience in baptist theology)
So what rushes in to replace the completely objective washing for the forgiveness of sins that is baptism? Why, it's my personal decision to choose Christ, of course! This is usually done by praying a certain prayer (the Sinner's Prayer or something like it), or walking forward at the end of the service to answer an "altar call" by submitting their life to Christ.
Far from being an isolated incident, I was asked, literally, numerous times: "If you don't know the moment you made a choice for Jesus, how do you know you're saved?"
Yes, this is really a common question in Baptist circles; especially those of a more fundamental baptist ilk. The problems with this sort of statement and theology are numerous. First and foremost, the Bible doesn't teach it anywhere. Nowhere does the Scripture ever exhort us to make a decision for Jesus, or ask Him into our heart, make Him our personal Savior, have a relationship with Him (everyone already has a relationship with Christ. They're either under grace and saved, or they're lost. Either one is a relationship), or other such ideas. Second, it actually rails against what Scripture actually says about the topic. Whereas Scripture repeatedly tells us that we are dead in sins (Eph 2), unable to obey God (Rom 8, 1Co 2), and that God alone saves us unilaterally apart from ourselves (Eph 2, Rom 8, etc), and not because of ourselves and our choice(s); this theology says the opposite; namely, that we are able to decide for ourselves with our free will.
In opposition to this wrong headed theology, which is utterly subjective and based upon something we must do and decide, the Scriptures give us pure objectivity. This objectivity is rooted in an unchanging God, who cannot lie (Tit 1). This objectivity is based on the Christ who created the world (Gen 1, Col 1). But where is this objectivity found? In our choice? Or elsewhere?
Since our choices and decisions are based on us, they are therefore subjective and fleeting. Christ, however, is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13). God, in His infinite wisdom, has given us objective means based solely on Himself, that are for the forgiveness of sins and the salvation of the world. As Luther reminds us in his Small Catechism: "For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation." (SC VI)
Thankfully, God has seen fit to actually tell us where this objectivity is found. He has bound Himself to His Word, and His Word tells us that Baptism, the Word itself, Absolution, and the Holy Supper are the places in which He forgives sins. Far be it from overriding the cross and resurrection of Christ, these are the actual places that Christ has said deliver these benefits of the cross to us. In baptism, we are buried and raised with Christ (Rom 6, Col 2). In the Holy Supper of Christ in which we receive the body and blood of our Lord, we receive the forgiveness of sins (Mat 26, Mar 14, Luk 22, 1Co 10, 11). In the creative power of the Word of God, we are saved (Rom 10). This is the same creative Word that spoke the universe into existence (Gen 1). Christ has given us these means, based upon Himself, so that we would not be stuck floundering in subjectivity, and our salvation would be based on something certain and sure - Christ Himself. The predestination of God and His election to salvation is carried out, in time, through these means, which are always for you.
I'll take the Scriptures and the objectivity of our unchangeable God over myself and my choices all day, every day, and right on into eternity.
Praise be to God for His infinite wisdom.
+Pax+
Ultimately, when one's theology of the sacraments is completely emptied of their biblical import and meaning, defined by our Lord Jesus Christ, something else always rushes in to fill the void. So whereas a Lutheran can say "I was saved in my baptism," a Baptist would never say such a thing, because of the Baptist's theology of Baptism. In fact, to say such a thing would be paramount to heresy in a Baptist church. God forbid you were saved by your obedience! (Because baptism is nothing more than a work of obedience in baptist theology)
So what rushes in to replace the completely objective washing for the forgiveness of sins that is baptism? Why, it's my personal decision to choose Christ, of course! This is usually done by praying a certain prayer (the Sinner's Prayer or something like it), or walking forward at the end of the service to answer an "altar call" by submitting their life to Christ.
Far from being an isolated incident, I was asked, literally, numerous times: "If you don't know the moment you made a choice for Jesus, how do you know you're saved?"
Yes, this is really a common question in Baptist circles; especially those of a more fundamental baptist ilk. The problems with this sort of statement and theology are numerous. First and foremost, the Bible doesn't teach it anywhere. Nowhere does the Scripture ever exhort us to make a decision for Jesus, or ask Him into our heart, make Him our personal Savior, have a relationship with Him (everyone already has a relationship with Christ. They're either under grace and saved, or they're lost. Either one is a relationship), or other such ideas. Second, it actually rails against what Scripture actually says about the topic. Whereas Scripture repeatedly tells us that we are dead in sins (Eph 2), unable to obey God (Rom 8, 1Co 2), and that God alone saves us unilaterally apart from ourselves (Eph 2, Rom 8, etc), and not because of ourselves and our choice(s); this theology says the opposite; namely, that we are able to decide for ourselves with our free will.
In opposition to this wrong headed theology, which is utterly subjective and based upon something we must do and decide, the Scriptures give us pure objectivity. This objectivity is rooted in an unchanging God, who cannot lie (Tit 1). This objectivity is based on the Christ who created the world (Gen 1, Col 1). But where is this objectivity found? In our choice? Or elsewhere?
Since our choices and decisions are based on us, they are therefore subjective and fleeting. Christ, however, is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13). God, in His infinite wisdom, has given us objective means based solely on Himself, that are for the forgiveness of sins and the salvation of the world. As Luther reminds us in his Small Catechism: "For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation." (SC VI)
Thankfully, God has seen fit to actually tell us where this objectivity is found. He has bound Himself to His Word, and His Word tells us that Baptism, the Word itself, Absolution, and the Holy Supper are the places in which He forgives sins. Far be it from overriding the cross and resurrection of Christ, these are the actual places that Christ has said deliver these benefits of the cross to us. In baptism, we are buried and raised with Christ (Rom 6, Col 2). In the Holy Supper of Christ in which we receive the body and blood of our Lord, we receive the forgiveness of sins (Mat 26, Mar 14, Luk 22, 1Co 10, 11). In the creative power of the Word of God, we are saved (Rom 10). This is the same creative Word that spoke the universe into existence (Gen 1). Christ has given us these means, based upon Himself, so that we would not be stuck floundering in subjectivity, and our salvation would be based on something certain and sure - Christ Himself. The predestination of God and His election to salvation is carried out, in time, through these means, which are always for you.
I'll take the Scriptures and the objectivity of our unchangeable God over myself and my choices all day, every day, and right on into eternity.
Praise be to God for His infinite wisdom.
+Pax+
Christ. Not the Christian.
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+
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+
2/1/16
The Idolatry of Choice
The church at large, especially in the United States, has become very much like the culture in which it finds itself. Our greatest virtue, so it seems, is our right and ability to choose. Self autonomy is the golden calf of the 21st century American church.
We hear it everywhere. Make good choices. Every person has a right to choose for themselves. People are the result of their choices. And so on. We see this everywhere in the culture around us, and without fail, it has trickled right into the theology of many churches; especially mainline evangelical ones.
Not only do we like to morally exhort our children to make good choices (which I am not saying is a bad thing), but many churches have also allowed this choice mentality to creep into everything in their theology. Make a decision for Christ is the rallying cry of numerous revivalist evangelical preachers. These techniques, needless to say, are anything but biblical. Regardless of the official theology held on paper or the involvement of the Holy Spirit prior to conversion, it is still an idolization of the choice of the will, not to mention a soft form of works righteousness.
We see this all around us in our society, particularly regarding sexual choices. The sexual revolution has succeeded far beyond its original beginnings. Not only must we now accept persons for the sexual choices they make, but to dissent and argue against those choices is the ultimate form of hatred. Or so our society tells us.
Not only this, but the biggest example of the idolatry of choice in our society is the whole brouhaha surrounding abortion. Pro-aborts biggest argument is that abortion is the woman's right to choose. Moreover, they have also adopted much of the same language as the sexual revolution. For instance, if you don't have a uterus (that is, if you're a male) you are unqualified to make any statement in the negative against abortion.
Pro-aborts go to great lengths to justify this as well. Many of them also argue that the infant in the womb is just a fetus, not a person or human. They then fall back on "science" to support their argument. But this just seems to me yet another attempt to justify a political pandering to the culture.
From where I stand, it's awfully simple. If the infant in the womb is not a human person, pardon my French, but what the hell is it? Instead of pandering to the culture and the pro-choice folks, we ought to simply call a spade a spade. This is a human person and they justify murdering them, all in the name of choice. Roman Catholic philosopher Dr. Peter Kreeft has written a very apropos article regarding this topic. It can be found here:
Apple Argument Against Abortion
So instead of dropping theology to an idolatrous level where freedom to choose is its greatest virtue and using many of the same tactics as the sexual revolutionaries and pro-choice murder crowd, give them something better. In fact, give them something that is biblical and Christian.
Give them the Christ, proclaimed in Word and Sacrament. A Savior who doesn't need our sneaky cultural works to save people from their sins. He does so without our freedom to choose. He did it at Calvary on the cross apart from an altar call given by the Apostle John or His Mother the Blessed Virgin Mary. And He continues to do it by His life giving Word, in the preaching of the Gospel, Holy Baptism, and His body and blood for the forgiveness of our sins.
Good thing that Christ is not bound to our idolatrous theology that puts us and our choices as paramount.
+Pax+
We hear it everywhere. Make good choices. Every person has a right to choose for themselves. People are the result of their choices. And so on. We see this everywhere in the culture around us, and without fail, it has trickled right into the theology of many churches; especially mainline evangelical ones.
Not only do we like to morally exhort our children to make good choices (which I am not saying is a bad thing), but many churches have also allowed this choice mentality to creep into everything in their theology. Make a decision for Christ is the rallying cry of numerous revivalist evangelical preachers. These techniques, needless to say, are anything but biblical. Regardless of the official theology held on paper or the involvement of the Holy Spirit prior to conversion, it is still an idolization of the choice of the will, not to mention a soft form of works righteousness.
We see this all around us in our society, particularly regarding sexual choices. The sexual revolution has succeeded far beyond its original beginnings. Not only must we now accept persons for the sexual choices they make, but to dissent and argue against those choices is the ultimate form of hatred. Or so our society tells us.
Not only this, but the biggest example of the idolatry of choice in our society is the whole brouhaha surrounding abortion. Pro-aborts biggest argument is that abortion is the woman's right to choose. Moreover, they have also adopted much of the same language as the sexual revolution. For instance, if you don't have a uterus (that is, if you're a male) you are unqualified to make any statement in the negative against abortion.
Pro-aborts go to great lengths to justify this as well. Many of them also argue that the infant in the womb is just a fetus, not a person or human. They then fall back on "science" to support their argument. But this just seems to me yet another attempt to justify a political pandering to the culture.
From where I stand, it's awfully simple. If the infant in the womb is not a human person, pardon my French, but what the hell is it? Instead of pandering to the culture and the pro-choice folks, we ought to simply call a spade a spade. This is a human person and they justify murdering them, all in the name of choice. Roman Catholic philosopher Dr. Peter Kreeft has written a very apropos article regarding this topic. It can be found here:
Apple Argument Against Abortion
So instead of dropping theology to an idolatrous level where freedom to choose is its greatest virtue and using many of the same tactics as the sexual revolutionaries and pro-choice murder crowd, give them something better. In fact, give them something that is biblical and Christian.
Give them the Christ, proclaimed in Word and Sacrament. A Savior who doesn't need our sneaky cultural works to save people from their sins. He does so without our freedom to choose. He did it at Calvary on the cross apart from an altar call given by the Apostle John or His Mother the Blessed Virgin Mary. And He continues to do it by His life giving Word, in the preaching of the Gospel, Holy Baptism, and His body and blood for the forgiveness of our sins.
Good thing that Christ is not bound to our idolatrous theology that puts us and our choices as paramount.
+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
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+
5/25/14
Makin' Choices
Much of Christianity puts an enormous emphasis on the will of man in their theology. The ability to make choices (generally referred to as freewill) is viewed as one gigantic blessing. Sometimes, it's seen as the biggest blessing God has given us; the ability to choose.
The Joy Quartet at Pensacola Christian College even canonized it in song...
The Joy Quartet at Pensacola Christian College even canonized it in song...
If you want to listen to the song, go ahead. But it's pretty brutal.
Anyhow, this notion of freewill is given primary importance in most of Christianity, especially American evangelicalism.
A few things can be said about this however. First, most of Christianity is flat wrong about this topic. The freedom of our will is not a blessing in the fact that our will is in bondage. To be sure, we all have the ability to make choices. I don't think anyone denies that. The problem is, we are sinful by nature, and we choose according to our nature. Since our nature is to be an enemy of God, our will never chooses God. We just don't. But why not? Well, it's precisely because we do not want to choose God.
Therefore, exhorting people to make a choice for Jesus really doesn't save people. Like at all. That's why we need a completely one-sided divine rescue, wrought by Christ at Calvary and His subsequent rising from the dead.
Given to you as a divine gift in Word and Sacrament. Hear the Gospel. Baptism now saves you. Take and eat, this is My body. Take and drink, this is My blood.
Not us. Not our choice. We choose wrongly.
+Pax+
Given to you as a divine gift in Word and Sacrament. Hear the Gospel. Baptism now saves you. Take and eat, this is My body. Take and drink, this is My blood.
Not us. Not our choice. We choose wrongly.
+Pax+
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+
9/20/13
AA is For Denial
A Confessional Lutheran blog about AA!!! What is the world coming to? But wait, isn't AA for people that aren't in denial anymore and have come to the realization that they are alcoholics?
OK, OK...AA doesn't stand for Alcoholics Anonymous in this instance. Here it stands for the Age of Accountability.
The Age of Accountability is a doctrine commonly found in baptist churches, or at least in baptist-type churches. The doctrine essentially states that a child or infant is guaranteed heaven due to innocence until they are old enough to understand who Christ is and make a decision one way or the other. Or, in more Calvinistic versions of this, the infant is saved by grace alone until they are old enough to make a choice to reject Christ. Therefore, all infants and children who die before the age of accountability are elect.
This doctrine sounds awesome. It really does. I would love to think that every single infant and child dying at a very young age is automatically elect and inherits the Kingdom. And I even hold out hope that they are elect and do inherit the Kingdom.
 |
| Baptism is for you and your children. And forgives sins. Acts 2:38 |
The first core Christian doctrine that the Age of Accountability denies is original sin.
The Augsburg Confession speaks to original sin in this way:
Augsburg Confession, II, 1-3
1 Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with 2 concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.
3 They condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ's merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason.
This is to say, that all humanity is conceived and born sinful and that original sin is something that makes us guilty. We are guilty in front of God because we are sinners.
This orthodox and catholic doctrine of original sin does not mesh with any sort of age of accountability doctrine. Yeah, pretty much not at all.
The age of accountability says young children (and the mentally infirm, I should add) who cannot yet understand who Christ is and cannot thus make a decision are innocent. Original sin says not so. These two doctrines cannot coexist. One is true, the other is false.
This doctrine also denies the depravity of man. Original sin is either outright denied or redefined to what amounts to a denial.
Holy Scripture has a few things to say to this topic as well, such as:
Psalm 51:5: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Romans 5:12: Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
Romans 5:18: Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
These three Scriptures, among others, teach original sin. We are a condemned race, not a race born innocent. Adam was created innocent, but we are not born good.
Get it? Your children are sinners. Even in the womb. They need grace just as much as every other person. Ever.
So, speak God's Words to them. Teach them. Baptise them. They need grace. They are not innocent, despite what we may think or how cute they are. They're sinners. Why invent a doctrine that gives them a free pass, contrary to biblical teaching, when the grace of God is right there to be administered to them at the font? That's just rank gambling with your children, based on your opinion that your children aren't sinners. I mean, come on! Stop being so dense, whip out your KJV, ESV, or NIV, (but you better not whip out The Message. That thing is a joke) read what baptism does, recognize what God's Word so clearly says it does, stop fighting the blatantly clear words of Scripture because of your tradition that you are afraid to say is wrong, stop being a heretic like the Anabaptists of the Reformation era who openly denied original sin, and bring your kids to Holy Baptism. The grace is the water! And your kids need it.
The second core Christian doctrine that is denied by the Age of Accountability is that faith is a gift of God's grace given to recipients thereof.
In short, to the Age of Accountability supporters, faith means two other things other than one-sided divine gift of grace. It means,
- A choice of the will.
The first thing the AA folks object to is that faith being a one-sided divine gift of God violates the will and the right to choose of the individual. Hmm...right to choose...where else have I heard that argument? Oh, never mind, off the topic. In short, unless the person can choose to be saved, they can't be saved by God giving faith.
The Age of Accountability has a natural bedfellow in this. Her name is decisional regeneration. Usually she consists of coercing the wills of sinners to make a choice for Jesus, try Him out, ask Him into your heart, or say the sinner's prayer.
This is more or less rationalistic humanism masquerading as Christianity in a sense. The cult of choice, the triumph of the human will, as it were.
So, to fill heaven and because they love babies (don't we all?), they concoct the Age of Accountability doctrine. Because they simply aren't old enough to choose to have faith. And they're just so cute. And innocent. And stuff. Which brings us to the next problem:
- Faith requires a certain amount of cognitive ability.
 |
| Gotta know enough to be able to choose. Said Scripture nowhere. |
This definition of faith is pure rationalism. Who are they to say that God cannot grant faith in Christ to an infant or a small child? Really? God can't do that? Because, you know, God actually created faith in infants in Scripture. There really are examples of that. But no, God can't possibly do that! It violates the infants freedom of choice! Those little sovereign infants. Just like us and our sovereign wills. See how foolish this gets?
In their scheme, no, He can't, because they don't have the necessary ability to choose Christ and God won't just give faith as a gift apart from the person making a choice. God's not allowed to violate the will, they say. Well, that's fair, sure. But what the heck is wrong with God doing the most loving and gracious thing for them possible and saving them by granting them faith as a gift of grace?
The third problem denied by the Age of Accountability doctrine is an invention of alternate ways of salvation.
The Holy Scriptures tell us that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. They don't even hint at any other way. Making a dogma out of something that is another way of salvation is silly when Scripture is silent. This is exactly what the Age of Accountability doctrine does. Infants, young children, and the mentally infirm are incapable of choosing to have faith. Thus they don't have faith. They are saved by ignorance and innocence. It may be grace, but ignorance and innocence are not faith. So why isn't grace giving what grace gives in this case, namely, faith in Christ?
In short, the Age of Accountability doctrine comes up with an alternative means of salvation for those who can't choose to have faith. Age of Accountability folks are banking on their children being saved by a manner of salvation that Scripture never talks about. That. Is. Super. Duper. Dangerous.
That's because, to be clear, the Age of Accountability doctrine is false teaching based on a humanistic misunderstanding of faith. ALL false teaching is dangerous, and this is no exception. As opposed to a gift of God, it becomes the triumph of the human will; of the choice of man.
I call it false teaching. Is that unfair? No, because it is false teaching and baptist churches are dead wrong for teaching this false doctrine. Does this mean our baptist brothers and sisters are unsaved? No, of course it does not mean that. Yet it is still important to get our doctrine correct. And in this case, they get it wrong in a large way.
Regarding the nature of faith, the Scriptures say:
Ephesians 2:8-9: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Philippians 1:29: For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.
Acts 11:18: When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”
Acts 5:31: God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.
2 Timothy 2:25b-26: God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
Faith in Christ is a gift of grace, as is repentance, which involves faith and contrition. As it is a one-sided divine gift, God can and does work it in whoever. Age is no obstacle for the Triune God, nor is cognitive ability or lack thereof.
This is the biggest reason why we baptise infants in the Lutheran Church. We hold to the orthodox and catholic doctrine of original sin. As such, your children stand condemned apart from faith in Christ. Grace, however, works faith as a gift of God. Baptism is a means of grace. Why stake your children's salvation on a doctrine that is nowhere taught in Scripture and gamble with their eternal salvation when Scripture tells us about all the glorious things baptism brings to us? Why would we ever want to deny our children that? Seriously. To deny our children baptism is to deny them grace, deny them Christ, and deny them God's good gifts given in the washing of regeneration; the washing of water with the Word.
Keep your fonts full and your infants wet.
9/3/13
Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Arminianism: Predestination and Election
The second of the five posts comparing Lutheranism to Calvinism and Arminianism will deal with the doctrine of election. In Calvinism, there is the U in the TULIP, which stands for unconditional election. The Arminian Remonstrants counted with Conditional Election.
The first blog in the series is found here:
Lutheranism, Calvinism, Arminianism: Depravity
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
This blog feels a bit redundant to me because I recently posted two other blogs pertaining to this topic. There is one that compares Lutherans to Calvinists that can be found here:
Predestination in Lutheranism and Calvinism
And the other one dealt solely with the Lutheran rejection of the Calvinism doctrine of reprobation, whch is found here:
Reprobation: All On You
The first link shows the clear differences between the Calvinist and Lutheran doctrines. For the sake of comparison though, I'll post some of the confessional statements here.
Calvinist Predestination
WCF, III, 3: By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.
WCF, III, 7: The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
Belgic Confession, Art. 16: We believe that all the posterity of Adam being thus fallen into perdition and ruin, by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest himself such as he is; that is to say, merciful and just: Merciful, since he delivers and preserves from this perdition all, whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable counsel of mere goodness, hath elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without any respect to their works: Just, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves.
John Calvin, Institutes, Book 3, 21.5: By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.
Therefore, in Calvinism, we can see that the overriding principle in predestination is the absolute sovereignty of God put forth in His immutable decree. Christ came to save those elect persons and them alone. As in clearly seen from the confessions, as well as the writings of John Calvin, God predestines the elect to heaven and passes over the rest of humanity, thereby foreordaining or predestinating them to hell. The controlling factor in everything is God. There is a real sense in which this is an admirable stance.
Predestination in Arminianism
Remonstrants, Article I: That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ, his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John iii. 36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," and according to other passages of Scripture also.
John Wesley, Predestination Calmly Considered:
XLII. Our blessed Lord does indisputably command and invite "all men everywhere to repent" [Acts 17:30]. He calleth all. He sends his ambassadors, in his name, "to preach the gospel to every creature" [Mk. 16:15]. He himself "preached deliverance to the captives" [Lk. 4:18], without any hint of restriction or limitation. But now, in what manner do you represent him while he is employed in this work? You suppose him to be standing at the prison doors, having the keys thereof in his hands, and to be continually inviting the prisoners to come forth, commanding them to accept of that invitation, urging every motive which can possible induce them to comply with that command; adding the most precious promises, if they obey; the most dreadful threatenings, if they obey not. And all this time you suppose him to be unalterably determined in himself never to open the doors for them, even while he is crying, "Come ye, come ye, from that evil place. For why will ye die, O house of Israel" [cf. Ezek. 18:31]? "Why" (might one of them reply), "Because we cannot help it. We cannot help ourselves, and thou wilt not help us. It is not in our power to break the gates of brass [cf. Ps. 107:16], and it is not thy pleasure to open them. Why will we die? We must die, because it is not thy will to save us." Alas, my brethren, what kind of sincerity is this which you ascribe to God our Saviour?
XLIII. So ill do election and reprobation agree with the truth and sincerity of God? But do they not agree least of all with the scriptural account of his love and goodness: that attribute which God peculiarly claims wherein he glories above all the rest? It is not written, "God is justice," or "God is truth" (although he is just and true in all his ways). But it is written, "God is love" [1 Jn. 4:8] (love in the abstract, without bounds), and "there is no end of his goodness" [cf. Ps. 52:1]. His love extends even to those who neither love nor fear him. He is good, even to the evil and the unthankful; yea, without any exception or limitation, to all the children of men. For "the Lord is loving" (or good) "unto every man, and his mercy is over all his works" [Ps. 145:9, B.C.P.].
Thus in Arminianism, God predestines the church as a whole. It is a corporate election. Who is part of that church depends on the individual responses of persons to God's grace. The Arminian view of election is commonly called 'Conditional Election' and Arminians of all stripes reject the Reformed view of unconditional election to salvation as well as the doctrine of reprobation. Therefore, the overriding principle in Arminianism regarding election is the response of the individual to the work of Christ. Very clearly, the Reformed and Arminian views are opposed ot each other. In Calvinism, God predestines the actual individuals through nothing else than His choice and grace. In Arminianism, God predestines those who accept Christ of their own free will in response to God's prevenient grace.
Predestination in Lutheranism:
Solid Declaration, XI, 8: The eternal election of God, however, not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect, but is also, from the gracious will and pleasure of God in Christ Jesus, a cause which procures, works, helps, and promotes our salvation and what pertains thereto; and upon this [divine predestination] our salvation is so founded that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, Matt. 16:18, as is written John 10:28: Neither shall any man pluck My sheep out of My hand. And again, Acts 13:48: And as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.
Solid Declaration, XI, 23: And [indeed] in this His counsel, purpose, and ordination God has prepared salvation not only in general, but has in grace considered and chosen to salvation each and every person of the elect who are to be saved through Christ, also ordained that in the way just mentioned He will, by His grace, gifts, and efficacy, bring them thereto [make them participants of eternal salvation], aid, promote, strengthen, and preserve them.
Solid Declaration, XI, 78-82: But the reason why not all who hear it believe, and some are therefore condemned the more deeply [eternally to severer punishments], is not because God had begrudged them their salvation; but it is their own fault, as they have heard the Word in such a manner as not to learn, but only to despise, blaspheme, and disgrace it, and have resisted the Holy Ghost, who through the Word wished to work in them, as was the case at the time of Christ with the Pharisees and their adherents.
Hence the apostle distinguishes with especial care the work of God, who alone makes vessels of honor, and the work of the devil and of man, who by the instigation of the devil, and not of God, has made himself a vessel of dishonor. For thus it is written, Rom. 9:22f : God endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory.
Here, then, the apostle clearly says that God endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath, but does not say that He made them vessels of wrath; for if this had been His will, He would not have required any great long-suffering for it. The fault, however, that they are fitted for destruction belongs to the devil and to men themselves, and not to God.
For all preparation for condemnation is by the devil and man, through sin, and in no respect by God, who does not wish that any man be damned; how, then, should He Himself prepare any man for condemnation? For as God is not a cause of sins, so, too, He is no cause of punishment, of damnation; but the only cause of damnation is sin; for the wages of sin is death, Rom. 6:23. And as God does not will sin, and has no pleasure in sin, so He does not wish the death of the sinner either, Ezek. 33:11, nor has He pleasure in his condemnation. For He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, 2 Pet. 3:9. So, too, it is written in Ezek. 18:23; 33:11: As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.
And St. Paul testifies in clear words that from vessels of dishonor vessels of honor may be made by God's power and working, when he writes thus, 2 Tim. 2:21: If a man, therefore, purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified and meet for the Master's use, and prepared unto every good work. For he who is to purge himself must first have been unclean, and hence a vessel of dishonor. But concerning the vessels of mercy he says clearly that the Lord Himself has prepared them for glory, which he does not say concerning the damned, who themselves, and not God, have prepared themselves as vessels of damnation.
What can we gather from the Lutheran Confessions here? First, it's very clear that grace in Lutheranism actually saves, apart from our 'acceptance.' We must receive it, to be sure. Yet this receiving is passive and is given by God alone (monergism) not in response to our willing (synergism). The main principle in Lutheranism regarding election is Christ crucified for us, given to us by grace alone in Word and Sacrament. Christ is all in all. Thus, in terms of election to salvation, we concur with the Calvinists. The elect are saved, by God's choice, by grace alone through faith alone. The Solid Declaration is clear that election is itself a cause. (SD, XI, 8)
We do not, however, accept the Calvinist doctrine of reprobation, as the Solid Declaration makes abundantly clear. (SD, XI, 78-82) Whereas election to salvation is all of grace and all of God, reprobation is all of sinful man and the devil, not of God. There is no reprobation to perdition in Lutheranism.
Nor do we agree with the Arminians here. We reject synergistic conditional election vehemently.
Overall, we once again agree much more with the Calvinists here as pertaining to salvation in a positive sense. But we just as strongly reject the doctrine of reprobation. In this way, salvation is accomplished by grace alone by God alone, apart from our merits altogether. Yet, grace is truly universal.
We are in effect neither Calvinists nor Arminians here in total; while agreeing with the Reformed on election to final salvation.
The first blog in the series is found here:
Lutheranism, Calvinism, Arminianism: Depravity
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
This blog feels a bit redundant to me because I recently posted two other blogs pertaining to this topic. There is one that compares Lutherans to Calvinists that can be found here:
Predestination in Lutheranism and Calvinism
And the other one dealt solely with the Lutheran rejection of the Calvinism doctrine of reprobation, whch is found here:
Reprobation: All On You
The first link shows the clear differences between the Calvinist and Lutheran doctrines. For the sake of comparison though, I'll post some of the confessional statements here.
Calvinist Predestination
WCF, III, 3: By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.
WCF, III, 7: The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
Belgic Confession, Art. 16: We believe that all the posterity of Adam being thus fallen into perdition and ruin, by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest himself such as he is; that is to say, merciful and just: Merciful, since he delivers and preserves from this perdition all, whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable counsel of mere goodness, hath elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without any respect to their works: Just, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves.
John Calvin, Institutes, Book 3, 21.5: By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.
Therefore, in Calvinism, we can see that the overriding principle in predestination is the absolute sovereignty of God put forth in His immutable decree. Christ came to save those elect persons and them alone. As in clearly seen from the confessions, as well as the writings of John Calvin, God predestines the elect to heaven and passes over the rest of humanity, thereby foreordaining or predestinating them to hell. The controlling factor in everything is God. There is a real sense in which this is an admirable stance.
Predestination in Arminianism
Remonstrants, Article I: That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ, his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John iii. 36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," and according to other passages of Scripture also.
John Wesley, Predestination Calmly Considered:
XLII. Our blessed Lord does indisputably command and invite "all men everywhere to repent" [Acts 17:30]. He calleth all. He sends his ambassadors, in his name, "to preach the gospel to every creature" [Mk. 16:15]. He himself "preached deliverance to the captives" [Lk. 4:18], without any hint of restriction or limitation. But now, in what manner do you represent him while he is employed in this work? You suppose him to be standing at the prison doors, having the keys thereof in his hands, and to be continually inviting the prisoners to come forth, commanding them to accept of that invitation, urging every motive which can possible induce them to comply with that command; adding the most precious promises, if they obey; the most dreadful threatenings, if they obey not. And all this time you suppose him to be unalterably determined in himself never to open the doors for them, even while he is crying, "Come ye, come ye, from that evil place. For why will ye die, O house of Israel" [cf. Ezek. 18:31]? "Why" (might one of them reply), "Because we cannot help it. We cannot help ourselves, and thou wilt not help us. It is not in our power to break the gates of brass [cf. Ps. 107:16], and it is not thy pleasure to open them. Why will we die? We must die, because it is not thy will to save us." Alas, my brethren, what kind of sincerity is this which you ascribe to God our Saviour?
XLIII. So ill do election and reprobation agree with the truth and sincerity of God? But do they not agree least of all with the scriptural account of his love and goodness: that attribute which God peculiarly claims wherein he glories above all the rest? It is not written, "God is justice," or "God is truth" (although he is just and true in all his ways). But it is written, "God is love" [1 Jn. 4:8] (love in the abstract, without bounds), and "there is no end of his goodness" [cf. Ps. 52:1]. His love extends even to those who neither love nor fear him. He is good, even to the evil and the unthankful; yea, without any exception or limitation, to all the children of men. For "the Lord is loving" (or good) "unto every man, and his mercy is over all his works" [Ps. 145:9, B.C.P.].
Thus in Arminianism, God predestines the church as a whole. It is a corporate election. Who is part of that church depends on the individual responses of persons to God's grace. The Arminian view of election is commonly called 'Conditional Election' and Arminians of all stripes reject the Reformed view of unconditional election to salvation as well as the doctrine of reprobation. Therefore, the overriding principle in Arminianism regarding election is the response of the individual to the work of Christ. Very clearly, the Reformed and Arminian views are opposed ot each other. In Calvinism, God predestines the actual individuals through nothing else than His choice and grace. In Arminianism, God predestines those who accept Christ of their own free will in response to God's prevenient grace.
Predestination in Lutheranism:
Solid Declaration, XI, 8: The eternal election of God, however, not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect, but is also, from the gracious will and pleasure of God in Christ Jesus, a cause which procures, works, helps, and promotes our salvation and what pertains thereto; and upon this [divine predestination] our salvation is so founded that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, Matt. 16:18, as is written John 10:28: Neither shall any man pluck My sheep out of My hand. And again, Acts 13:48: And as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.
Solid Declaration, XI, 23: And [indeed] in this His counsel, purpose, and ordination God has prepared salvation not only in general, but has in grace considered and chosen to salvation each and every person of the elect who are to be saved through Christ, also ordained that in the way just mentioned He will, by His grace, gifts, and efficacy, bring them thereto [make them participants of eternal salvation], aid, promote, strengthen, and preserve them.
Solid Declaration, XI, 78-82: But the reason why not all who hear it believe, and some are therefore condemned the more deeply [eternally to severer punishments], is not because God had begrudged them their salvation; but it is their own fault, as they have heard the Word in such a manner as not to learn, but only to despise, blaspheme, and disgrace it, and have resisted the Holy Ghost, who through the Word wished to work in them, as was the case at the time of Christ with the Pharisees and their adherents.
Hence the apostle distinguishes with especial care the work of God, who alone makes vessels of honor, and the work of the devil and of man, who by the instigation of the devil, and not of God, has made himself a vessel of dishonor. For thus it is written, Rom. 9:22f : God endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory.
Here, then, the apostle clearly says that God endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath, but does not say that He made them vessels of wrath; for if this had been His will, He would not have required any great long-suffering for it. The fault, however, that they are fitted for destruction belongs to the devil and to men themselves, and not to God.
For all preparation for condemnation is by the devil and man, through sin, and in no respect by God, who does not wish that any man be damned; how, then, should He Himself prepare any man for condemnation? For as God is not a cause of sins, so, too, He is no cause of punishment, of damnation; but the only cause of damnation is sin; for the wages of sin is death, Rom. 6:23. And as God does not will sin, and has no pleasure in sin, so He does not wish the death of the sinner either, Ezek. 33:11, nor has He pleasure in his condemnation. For He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, 2 Pet. 3:9. So, too, it is written in Ezek. 18:23; 33:11: As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.
And St. Paul testifies in clear words that from vessels of dishonor vessels of honor may be made by God's power and working, when he writes thus, 2 Tim. 2:21: If a man, therefore, purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified and meet for the Master's use, and prepared unto every good work. For he who is to purge himself must first have been unclean, and hence a vessel of dishonor. But concerning the vessels of mercy he says clearly that the Lord Himself has prepared them for glory, which he does not say concerning the damned, who themselves, and not God, have prepared themselves as vessels of damnation.
What can we gather from the Lutheran Confessions here? First, it's very clear that grace in Lutheranism actually saves, apart from our 'acceptance.' We must receive it, to be sure. Yet this receiving is passive and is given by God alone (monergism) not in response to our willing (synergism). The main principle in Lutheranism regarding election is Christ crucified for us, given to us by grace alone in Word and Sacrament. Christ is all in all. Thus, in terms of election to salvation, we concur with the Calvinists. The elect are saved, by God's choice, by grace alone through faith alone. The Solid Declaration is clear that election is itself a cause. (SD, XI, 8)
We do not, however, accept the Calvinist doctrine of reprobation, as the Solid Declaration makes abundantly clear. (SD, XI, 78-82) Whereas election to salvation is all of grace and all of God, reprobation is all of sinful man and the devil, not of God. There is no reprobation to perdition in Lutheranism.
Nor do we agree with the Arminians here. We reject synergistic conditional election vehemently.
Overall, we once again agree much more with the Calvinists here as pertaining to salvation in a positive sense. But we just as strongly reject the doctrine of reprobation. In this way, salvation is accomplished by grace alone by God alone, apart from our merits altogether. Yet, grace is truly universal.
We are in effect neither Calvinists nor Arminians here in total; while agreeing with the Reformed on election to final salvation.
9/2/13
Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Arminianism: Depravity
This is the first in a 5 part series I will be writing as a Lutheran response to the 5 points of Calvinism as well as the 5 points of the Remonstrants put forth at Dordt to challenge Reformed doctrine by those influenced by Reformed pastor Jacob Arminius. Other Pelagian views that deny original sin and reject the depravity of man are unbiblical and outside of the Christian faith, so I will not deal with them here.
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
From the outset, it is important to note that many Calvinists and Arminians see everything in non-Roman Catholic theology (sometimes Calvinists classify Roman Catholicism as 'Arminian' too) as falling into one of these two categories. So, in essence, when we say we are Lutherans, a Calvinist might first ask: "Are Lutherans Calvinists or Arminians?" The answer is neither, of course, as we shall see as the 5 points are looked at.
The first major point that the Remonstrants challenged was the Reformed doctrine of the depravity of man. I will start with the Arminian doctrine, although the Arminian doctrine is fuzzy depending on who you ask. For that reason, I will try to represent what is called "Classical" Arminianism. That is to say, the original teaching of Arminius and his direct followers.
Arminius, contrary to many of the Semi-Pelagian and Pelagian beliefs of today, did uphold total depravity for the most part. He states:
“In this state, the free will of man is not only wounded, maimed, infirmed, bent and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they are assisted by grace but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by divine grace… Exactly correspondent to this darkness of the mind and perverseness of the heart, is the utter weakness of all the powers to perform that which is truly good, and to omit the perpetration of that which is evil, in a due mode and from a due end and cause.” ~~~ (John D. Wagner, Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will and the Nature of God (2011), p.3).
John Wesley, the famous founder of Methodism and perhaps the most well-known Arminian pastor, states:
“But was there good intermingled with the evil? Was there not light intermixed with darkness? No; not at all: “God saw that the heart of man was only evil.”… For God, who “saw the whole imagination of his heart to be only evil,” saw likewise, that it was only the same, that is, it “was only evil continually;” every year, every day, every hour, every moment. He never deviated into good… From all these we learn concerning man in his natural state, unassisted by the grace of God, that “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is” still “evil, only evil” and that “continually.”” (Wesley, J., The Works of John Wesley, Third Edition: Complete and Unabridged, (2007), 14vols., 6:57.)
Savvy Calvinists such as R.C. Sproul have noted this. He said:
"He insists that is was “imprisoned, destroyed, and lost.” The language of Augustine, Martin Luther, or John Calvin is scarcely stronger than that of Arminius" (Sproul, R. C., Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will (1997), p.126"
So then, Classic Arminian theology affirms the absolute necessity of the grace of God before regeneration. The difference in Arminius' doctrine of total depravity actually lies more in his doctrine of resistible grace than it does in depravity. Nevertheless, Arminius' doctrine here of the depravity of man is that man needs grace in order to be able to make a choice for or against God. Man can only reject God apart from grace.
The doctrine of total depravity in Calvinism is summed up well here:
"Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature; therefore, he will not--indeed he cannot--choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance to bring a sinner to Christ--it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation--it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God. (Genesis 2:15-17, Romans 5:12, Psalm 51:5, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 3:10-18, Jeremiah 17:9, John 6:44, Ephesians 2:1-10) Steele and Thomas(1)" http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Reformed-Theology/The-Five-Points-of-Calvinism/
Presbyterian pastor and theologian R.C. Sproul offers up a brief article on total depravity found here: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul/depravity.html
And popular Reformed Baptist preacher John Piper writes this: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/depravity.html
Thus, in Reformed thought, man is depraved to the point of needing grace not only to put him in a position to make a decision, but to regenerate him. Man can do nothing apart from this. There is no synergism involved whatsoever. This is very similar to Arminian doctrine in one way: Both theologies stress that man is totally dead in sin and the will can do nothing of itself apart from divine grace that precedes regeneration. But the difference between the two is also quite large. The Arminian view puts man in a position by grace alone to respond of his own will to the offer given. In Calvinism, the grace actually regenerates and gives faith itself.
How do Lutherans respond to all of this? We certainly affirm the depravity of man, of course. Lutherans are also monergists like the Reformed; as opposed to synergists like the Arminians. Thus, the Lutheran doctrine of the depravity of man is nearly identical to the Calvinist doctrine of the depravity of man, and affirms, along with both Calvinism and Classic Arminianism, that the will can do nothing apart from grace and grace must precede. We do however agree with the Reformed that grace itself gives faith in the recipient. For Lutherans, regeneration is faith, regeneration gives faith, and regeneration results in faith. Yet we also affirm that this grace can be rejected, but that another topic for another day when we get to irresistible/resistible grace.
The Book of Concord states:
Epitome, I, 8-10: But, on the other hand, we believe, teach, and confess that original sin is not a slight, but so deep a corruption of human nature that nothing healthy or uncorrupt has remained in man's body or soul, in his inner or outward powers, but, as the Church sings: Through Adam's fall is all corrupt, Nature and essence human. This damage is unspeakable, and cannot be discerned by reason, but only from God's Word. And [we affirm] that no one but God alone can separate from one another the nature and this corruption of the nature, which will fully come to pass through death, in the [blessed] resurrection, where our nature which we now bear will rise and live eternally without original sin and separated and sundered from it, as it is written Job 19:26: I shall be compassed again with this my skin, and in my flesh shall I see God, whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold.
Epitome, II, 3-6: Likewise we believe, teach, and confess that the unregenerate will of man is not only turned away from God, but also has become an enemy of God, so that it only has an inclination and desire for that which is evil and contrary to God, as it is written Gen. 8:21: The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. Also Rom. 8:7: The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither, indeed, can be. Yea, as little as a dead body can quicken itself to bodily, earthly life, so little can man, who by sin is spiritually dead, raise himself to spiritual life, as it is written Eph. 2:5: Even when we were dead in sins, He hath quickened us together with Christ; 2 Cor. 3:5: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything good as of ourselves, but that we are sufficient is of God.
God the Holy Ghost, however, does not effect conversion without means, but uses for this purpose the preaching and hearing of God's Word, as it is written Rom. 1:16: The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Also Rom. 10:17: Faith cometh by hearing of the Word of God. And it is God's will that His Word should be heard, and that man's ears should not be closed. Ps. 95:8. With this Word the Holy Ghost is present, and opens hearts, so that they, as Lydia in Acts 16:14, are attentive to it, and are thus converted alone through the grace and power of the Holy Ghost, whose work alone the conversion of man is. For without His grace, and if He do not grant the increase, our willing and running, our planting, sowing, and watering, all are nothing, as Christ says John 15:5: Without Me ye can do nothing. With these brief words He denies to the free will its powers, and ascribes everything to God's grace, in order that no one may boast before God. 1 Cor. 1:29; 2 Cor. 12:5; Jer. 9:23.
Solid Declaration, II, 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.
Solid Declaration, II, 85: Accordingly, the man who is not regenerate resists God altogether, and is entirely a servant of sin, John 8:34; Rom. 6:16. The regenerate person, however, delights in the Law of God after the inward man, but nevertheless sees in his members the law of sin, which wars against the law of the mind; on this account he serves the Law of God with his mind, but with the flesh the law of sin, Rom. 7:25. In this way the correct opinion can and should be thoroughly, clearly, and discreetly explained and taught.
On the doctrine of total depravity (the T in the TULIP), although we Lutherans sometimes use different terminology (such as Bondage of the Will) we will shake hands with the Reformed on this one. Man is dead, completely and utterly, and it is God's grace alone that revives him - not just to be able to choose, but actually revives him and grants the gift of faith (cf. Eph 2:8-9).
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
From the outset, it is important to note that many Calvinists and Arminians see everything in non-Roman Catholic theology (sometimes Calvinists classify Roman Catholicism as 'Arminian' too) as falling into one of these two categories. So, in essence, when we say we are Lutherans, a Calvinist might first ask: "Are Lutherans Calvinists or Arminians?" The answer is neither, of course, as we shall see as the 5 points are looked at.
The first major point that the Remonstrants challenged was the Reformed doctrine of the depravity of man. I will start with the Arminian doctrine, although the Arminian doctrine is fuzzy depending on who you ask. For that reason, I will try to represent what is called "Classical" Arminianism. That is to say, the original teaching of Arminius and his direct followers.
Arminius, contrary to many of the Semi-Pelagian and Pelagian beliefs of today, did uphold total depravity for the most part. He states:
“In this state, the free will of man is not only wounded, maimed, infirmed, bent and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they are assisted by grace but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by divine grace… Exactly correspondent to this darkness of the mind and perverseness of the heart, is the utter weakness of all the powers to perform that which is truly good, and to omit the perpetration of that which is evil, in a due mode and from a due end and cause.” ~~~ (John D. Wagner, Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will and the Nature of God (2011), p.3).
John Wesley, the famous founder of Methodism and perhaps the most well-known Arminian pastor, states:
“But was there good intermingled with the evil? Was there not light intermixed with darkness? No; not at all: “God saw that the heart of man was only evil.”… For God, who “saw the whole imagination of his heart to be only evil,” saw likewise, that it was only the same, that is, it “was only evil continually;” every year, every day, every hour, every moment. He never deviated into good… From all these we learn concerning man in his natural state, unassisted by the grace of God, that “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is” still “evil, only evil” and that “continually.”” (Wesley, J., The Works of John Wesley, Third Edition: Complete and Unabridged, (2007), 14vols., 6:57.)
Savvy Calvinists such as R.C. Sproul have noted this. He said:
"He insists that is was “imprisoned, destroyed, and lost.” The language of Augustine, Martin Luther, or John Calvin is scarcely stronger than that of Arminius" (Sproul, R. C., Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will (1997), p.126"
So then, Classic Arminian theology affirms the absolute necessity of the grace of God before regeneration. The difference in Arminius' doctrine of total depravity actually lies more in his doctrine of resistible grace than it does in depravity. Nevertheless, Arminius' doctrine here of the depravity of man is that man needs grace in order to be able to make a choice for or against God. Man can only reject God apart from grace.
The doctrine of total depravity in Calvinism is summed up well here:
"Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature; therefore, he will not--indeed he cannot--choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance to bring a sinner to Christ--it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation--it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God. (Genesis 2:15-17, Romans 5:12, Psalm 51:5, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 3:10-18, Jeremiah 17:9, John 6:44, Ephesians 2:1-10) Steele and Thomas(1)" http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Reformed-Theology/The-Five-Points-of-Calvinism/
Presbyterian pastor and theologian R.C. Sproul offers up a brief article on total depravity found here: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul/depravity.html
And popular Reformed Baptist preacher John Piper writes this: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/depravity.html
Thus, in Reformed thought, man is depraved to the point of needing grace not only to put him in a position to make a decision, but to regenerate him. Man can do nothing apart from this. There is no synergism involved whatsoever. This is very similar to Arminian doctrine in one way: Both theologies stress that man is totally dead in sin and the will can do nothing of itself apart from divine grace that precedes regeneration. But the difference between the two is also quite large. The Arminian view puts man in a position by grace alone to respond of his own will to the offer given. In Calvinism, the grace actually regenerates and gives faith itself.
How do Lutherans respond to all of this? We certainly affirm the depravity of man, of course. Lutherans are also monergists like the Reformed; as opposed to synergists like the Arminians. Thus, the Lutheran doctrine of the depravity of man is nearly identical to the Calvinist doctrine of the depravity of man, and affirms, along with both Calvinism and Classic Arminianism, that the will can do nothing apart from grace and grace must precede. We do however agree with the Reformed that grace itself gives faith in the recipient. For Lutherans, regeneration is faith, regeneration gives faith, and regeneration results in faith. Yet we also affirm that this grace can be rejected, but that another topic for another day when we get to irresistible/resistible grace.
The Book of Concord states:
Epitome, I, 8-10: But, on the other hand, we believe, teach, and confess that original sin is not a slight, but so deep a corruption of human nature that nothing healthy or uncorrupt has remained in man's body or soul, in his inner or outward powers, but, as the Church sings: Through Adam's fall is all corrupt, Nature and essence human. This damage is unspeakable, and cannot be discerned by reason, but only from God's Word. And [we affirm] that no one but God alone can separate from one another the nature and this corruption of the nature, which will fully come to pass through death, in the [blessed] resurrection, where our nature which we now bear will rise and live eternally without original sin and separated and sundered from it, as it is written Job 19:26: I shall be compassed again with this my skin, and in my flesh shall I see God, whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold.
Epitome, II, 3-6: Likewise we believe, teach, and confess that the unregenerate will of man is not only turned away from God, but also has become an enemy of God, so that it only has an inclination and desire for that which is evil and contrary to God, as it is written Gen. 8:21: The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. Also Rom. 8:7: The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither, indeed, can be. Yea, as little as a dead body can quicken itself to bodily, earthly life, so little can man, who by sin is spiritually dead, raise himself to spiritual life, as it is written Eph. 2:5: Even when we were dead in sins, He hath quickened us together with Christ; 2 Cor. 3:5: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything good as of ourselves, but that we are sufficient is of God.
God the Holy Ghost, however, does not effect conversion without means, but uses for this purpose the preaching and hearing of God's Word, as it is written Rom. 1:16: The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Also Rom. 10:17: Faith cometh by hearing of the Word of God. And it is God's will that His Word should be heard, and that man's ears should not be closed. Ps. 95:8. With this Word the Holy Ghost is present, and opens hearts, so that they, as Lydia in Acts 16:14, are attentive to it, and are thus converted alone through the grace and power of the Holy Ghost, whose work alone the conversion of man is. For without His grace, and if He do not grant the increase, our willing and running, our planting, sowing, and watering, all are nothing, as Christ says John 15:5: Without Me ye can do nothing. With these brief words He denies to the free will its powers, and ascribes everything to God's grace, in order that no one may boast before God. 1 Cor. 1:29; 2 Cor. 12:5; Jer. 9:23.
Solid Declaration, II, 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.
Solid Declaration, II, 85: Accordingly, the man who is not regenerate resists God altogether, and is entirely a servant of sin, John 8:34; Rom. 6:16. The regenerate person, however, delights in the Law of God after the inward man, but nevertheless sees in his members the law of sin, which wars against the law of the mind; on this account he serves the Law of God with his mind, but with the flesh the law of sin, Rom. 7:25. In this way the correct opinion can and should be thoroughly, clearly, and discreetly explained and taught.
On the doctrine of total depravity (the T in the TULIP), although we Lutherans sometimes use different terminology (such as Bondage of the Will) we will shake hands with the Reformed on this one. Man is dead, completely and utterly, and it is God's grace alone that revives him - not just to be able to choose, but actually revives him and grants the gift of faith (cf. Eph 2:8-9).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)