F
Farsight001
Guest
Yes there most certainly is. Most of them are called atheists. Many of them are ex-Christians, devout and alive in their faith until one day they have an “epiphany”, set their bible down, and never look back.
- Status
B
bzkoss236
Guest
Alright, I guess it is time to say why I asked the question in the first place. It is a thought experiment, that as some have seen, Catholics (and I would venture to say Orthodox, Anglican, and a few others) have no problem dealing with.
I was essentially looking for a yes or no answer from someone with the two views of OSAS and Sola Fide to point out the problems with having both views, and possibly even just one of them.
Here are the issues I see given a yes or no answer.
If “Yes, he is still saved”:
If he is still saved, then you are either admitting he has faith, when he clearly has none (a dead faith), or you have to admit that you can be saved by something other than faith alone.
If “No, he isn’t saved”:
You can still hold to your beliefs, but you cannot admit to being able to be assured of salvation. If you claim that you are assured of salvation, then the man would be too, but it would be a lie if he wasn’t really saved, so he wasn’t really assured. This means that one can only have confidence or hope for salvation, even if they are Christian.
My real goal was to see if someone would answer, but I was also wondering if someone might catch themselves in this thought. I still don’t want this to become a debate thread, but I thought I should tell you what exactly I was curious about.
I was essentially looking for a yes or no answer from someone with the two views of OSAS and Sola Fide to point out the problems with having both views, and possibly even just one of them.
Here are the issues I see given a yes or no answer.
If “Yes, he is still saved”:
If he is still saved, then you are either admitting he has faith, when he clearly has none (a dead faith), or you have to admit that you can be saved by something other than faith alone.
If “No, he isn’t saved”:
You can still hold to your beliefs, but you cannot admit to being able to be assured of salvation. If you claim that you are assured of salvation, then the man would be too, but it would be a lie if he wasn’t really saved, so he wasn’t really assured. This means that one can only have confidence or hope for salvation, even if they are Christian.
My real goal was to see if someone would answer, but I was also wondering if someone might catch themselves in this thought. I still don’t want this to become a debate thread, but I thought I should tell you what exactly I was curious about.
P
PatriciusRex
Guest
The trouble comes from that there isn’t a single “Protestant” response on this question.
OSAS actually does make perfect sense within the classical Protestant tradition which teaches predestination. Maybe you’re familiar with the TULIP schema? Basically it teaches that we as fallen beings are Totally depraved, unable to work any good, and in fact every action we undertake is inherently sinful because of our complete corruption by Original Sin. Thus, one can only be saved Unconditionally, irrespective of any temporally good works or desire for salvation we may have. Instead we are saved only by God’s own pleasure for he “has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and hardens whom He will harden” The fact that not everyone goes to heaven demonstrates that salvation is Limited, restricting it only to the Elect. Those that are not chosen are doomed to Hell. Because grace (in keeping with Sola Gratia) thus is the only means of salvation, and because God is omnipotent, its workings are Irresistible. No one who is chosen for salvation can resist the workings of divine grace. Thus they will inexorably Persevere in grace-inspired faith, which saves (Sola Fide). So in this model OSAS works because it’s God’s work and God’s alone. Humans do not possess free will and can neither choose nor reject salvation, but rather merely passively receive the mercy and grace of God if it pleases God to give it to them.
This is the teaching of Luther, Calvin, and most first generation Protestants.
So according to someone who believed this, they would say that your theoretical person would NOT be saved, since their falling away from faith in the second course demonstrates that they lacked the perseverance which is evidence of Election. This is assuming of course that they are not slated to rediscover their faith later.
To another class of Protestant, who believes in free will and rejects the TULIP model above, they would say that your person would be saved in the first instance (assuming again that his faith up to that time was genuine), but since he freely chose to reject salvation in situation two, he would then not be saved. These would include the followers of Jacobus Arminius, and John and Charles Wesley.
Where it gets confusing is that many Protestants in the second category continue to chant the slogans of Sola Gratia and OSAS, even though they don’t actually believe in them.
OSAS actually does make perfect sense within the classical Protestant tradition which teaches predestination. Maybe you’re familiar with the TULIP schema? Basically it teaches that we as fallen beings are Totally depraved, unable to work any good, and in fact every action we undertake is inherently sinful because of our complete corruption by Original Sin. Thus, one can only be saved Unconditionally, irrespective of any temporally good works or desire for salvation we may have. Instead we are saved only by God’s own pleasure for he “has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and hardens whom He will harden” The fact that not everyone goes to heaven demonstrates that salvation is Limited, restricting it only to the Elect. Those that are not chosen are doomed to Hell. Because grace (in keeping with Sola Gratia) thus is the only means of salvation, and because God is omnipotent, its workings are Irresistible. No one who is chosen for salvation can resist the workings of divine grace. Thus they will inexorably Persevere in grace-inspired faith, which saves (Sola Fide). So in this model OSAS works because it’s God’s work and God’s alone. Humans do not possess free will and can neither choose nor reject salvation, but rather merely passively receive the mercy and grace of God if it pleases God to give it to them.
This is the teaching of Luther, Calvin, and most first generation Protestants.
So according to someone who believed this, they would say that your theoretical person would NOT be saved, since their falling away from faith in the second course demonstrates that they lacked the perseverance which is evidence of Election. This is assuming of course that they are not slated to rediscover their faith later.
To another class of Protestant, who believes in free will and rejects the TULIP model above, they would say that your person would be saved in the first instance (assuming again that his faith up to that time was genuine), but since he freely chose to reject salvation in situation two, he would then not be saved. These would include the followers of Jacobus Arminius, and John and Charles Wesley.
Where it gets confusing is that many Protestants in the second category continue to chant the slogans of Sola Gratia and OSAS, even though they don’t actually believe in them.
Source, please, that Luther taught the Calvinist TULIP.
Lutherans reject all but the T in the TULIP.
Jon
E
Edward_H
Guest
Doesn’t the whole question hinge on a presumption that one can be saved in this life, that is before one dies? What happened to the richer idea of “I am being saved”?
B
bzkoss236
Guest
I was trying to keep in with the Protestant definitions.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Right…fair enough. Sorry.
B
bzkoss236
Guest
No harm done
P
PatriciusRex
Guest
Giant response here is intended for Jon, the rest of you can feel free to skip it!
Jon, happy to discuss this with you. I’m going off my own readings of Lutheran writings. Feel free to correct me where you see fit.
I feel TULIP is arranged such that each point is built on the foundation created by the preceding ones, so even though you already agreed that Lutherans affirm Total Depravity, I’ll start there to build my case.
Total Depravity
Augsburg Confession Article II says:
“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 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.”
So here’s original sin defined as “without the fear of God etc” i.e. fallen man lacks even the capacity for faith.
To clarify the point, Melanchthon’s Apology of the Augsburg Confession on Article II declares:
“These were the reasons why, in the description of original sin, we made mention of concupiscence also, and denied to man’s natural strength the fear of God and trust in Him. For we wished to indicate that original sin contains also these diseases, namely, ignorance of God, contempt for God, the being destitute of the fear of God and trust in Him, inability to love God. These are the chief faults of human nature, conflicting especially with the first table of the Decalogue.”
and:
“For human nature has been delivered into slavery and is held captive by the devil, who infatuates it with wicked opinions and errors, and impels it to sins of every kind. But just as the devil cannot be conquered except by the aid of Christ, so by our own strength we cannot free ourselves from this slavery.”
Again, Man’s complete and utter inability to have faith or even desire for God unassisted by Divine grace.
Finally, demonstrating that even the “stuff” of Christianity without the independent action of the Holy Spirit is useless we have this from the Large Catechism:
“For where He does not cause it to be preached and made alive in the heart, so that it is understood, it is lost, as was the case under the Papacy, where faith was entirely put under the bench, and no one recognized Christ as his Lord or the Holy Ghost as his Sanctifier, that is, no one believed that Christ is our Lord in the sense that He has acquired this treasure for us, without our works and merit, and made us acceptable to the Father. What, then, was lacking? This, that the Holy Ghost was not there to reveal it and cause it to be preached; but men and evil spirits were there, who taught us to obtain grace and be saved by our works.”
Unconditional Election
Article IV of the Augsburg Confession declares:
“Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins.”
I read this as building on what was said about Original Sin, in that Man can do nothing to move himself toward salvation, but can only depend on being “freely” (i.e. God’s own action and only at His own discretion) justified.
From the Apology:
“Since, therefore, contempt of God, and doubt concerning the Word of God, and concerning the threats and promises, inhere in human nature, men truly sin, even when, without the Holy Ghost, they do virtuous works, because they do them with a wicked heart, according to Rom. 14:23: Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. For such persons perform their works with contempt of God, just as Epicurus does not believe that God cares for him, or that he is regarded or heard by God. This contempt vitiates works seemingly virtuous, because God judges the heart.”
At first glance this is a repeat of the declarations confirming Total Depravity, which is necessary because Unconditional Election is the logical conclusion. The point is made plain when Melanchthon goes on to say:
“Because, therefore, men by their own strength cannot fulfil the Law of God, and all are under sin, and subject to eternal wrath and death, on this account we cannot be freed by the Law from sin and be justified, but the promise of the remission of sins and of justification has been given us for Christ’s sake, who was given for us in order that He might make satisfaction for the sins of the world, and has been appointed as the [only] Mediator and Propitiator. And this promise has not the condition of our merits [it does not read thus: Through Christ you have grace, salvation etc., if you merit it], but freely offers the remission of sins and justification as Paul says Rom. 11:6: If it be of works, then is it no more grace.”
Note that he himself declares the promise “has not the condition of our merits” (i.e. is unconditional).
Jon, happy to discuss this with you. I’m going off my own readings of Lutheran writings. Feel free to correct me where you see fit.
I feel TULIP is arranged such that each point is built on the foundation created by the preceding ones, so even though you already agreed that Lutherans affirm Total Depravity, I’ll start there to build my case.
Total Depravity
Augsburg Confession Article II says:
“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 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.”
So here’s original sin defined as “without the fear of God etc” i.e. fallen man lacks even the capacity for faith.
To clarify the point, Melanchthon’s Apology of the Augsburg Confession on Article II declares:
“These were the reasons why, in the description of original sin, we made mention of concupiscence also, and denied to man’s natural strength the fear of God and trust in Him. For we wished to indicate that original sin contains also these diseases, namely, ignorance of God, contempt for God, the being destitute of the fear of God and trust in Him, inability to love God. These are the chief faults of human nature, conflicting especially with the first table of the Decalogue.”
and:
“For human nature has been delivered into slavery and is held captive by the devil, who infatuates it with wicked opinions and errors, and impels it to sins of every kind. But just as the devil cannot be conquered except by the aid of Christ, so by our own strength we cannot free ourselves from this slavery.”
Again, Man’s complete and utter inability to have faith or even desire for God unassisted by Divine grace.
Finally, demonstrating that even the “stuff” of Christianity without the independent action of the Holy Spirit is useless we have this from the Large Catechism:
“For where He does not cause it to be preached and made alive in the heart, so that it is understood, it is lost, as was the case under the Papacy, where faith was entirely put under the bench, and no one recognized Christ as his Lord or the Holy Ghost as his Sanctifier, that is, no one believed that Christ is our Lord in the sense that He has acquired this treasure for us, without our works and merit, and made us acceptable to the Father. What, then, was lacking? This, that the Holy Ghost was not there to reveal it and cause it to be preached; but men and evil spirits were there, who taught us to obtain grace and be saved by our works.”
Unconditional Election
Article IV of the Augsburg Confession declares:
“Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins.”
I read this as building on what was said about Original Sin, in that Man can do nothing to move himself toward salvation, but can only depend on being “freely” (i.e. God’s own action and only at His own discretion) justified.
From the Apology:
“Since, therefore, contempt of God, and doubt concerning the Word of God, and concerning the threats and promises, inhere in human nature, men truly sin, even when, without the Holy Ghost, they do virtuous works, because they do them with a wicked heart, according to Rom. 14:23: Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. For such persons perform their works with contempt of God, just as Epicurus does not believe that God cares for him, or that he is regarded or heard by God. This contempt vitiates works seemingly virtuous, because God judges the heart.”
At first glance this is a repeat of the declarations confirming Total Depravity, which is necessary because Unconditional Election is the logical conclusion. The point is made plain when Melanchthon goes on to say:
“Because, therefore, men by their own strength cannot fulfil the Law of God, and all are under sin, and subject to eternal wrath and death, on this account we cannot be freed by the Law from sin and be justified, but the promise of the remission of sins and of justification has been given us for Christ’s sake, who was given for us in order that He might make satisfaction for the sins of the world, and has been appointed as the [only] Mediator and Propitiator. And this promise has not the condition of our merits [it does not read thus: Through Christ you have grace, salvation etc., if you merit it], but freely offers the remission of sins and justification as Paul says Rom. 11:6: If it be of works, then is it no more grace.”
Note that he himself declares the promise “has not the condition of our merits” (i.e. is unconditional).
P
PatriciusRex
Guest
Limited Atonement
I’ll grant you that the Book of Concord doesn’t have anything to my knowledge, emphatically confirming or denying this position. Again I can’t say that this means the Lutherans who wrote it rejected the notion however, as in the discussions of Justification and the Church it was assumed to be speaking of course only of True Church (i.e. the Elect). However, I believe that it’s implicit in the acceptance of the preceding two, which the BoC most definitely does teach.
If Man is totally depraved and can do nothing to warrant salvation, and thus receives salvation only unconditionally, we are confronted with the scriptural fact that not everyone will be saved. Since if the two preceding principles are true, man can likewise do nothing to reject or lose salvation, that necessitates that Christ’s atonement was effective only for the Elect. To say otherwise (again assuming Total Depravity and Unconditional Election) would be to declare Christ’s sacrifice only partially effective, since it worked on some people while failing with regard to others.
I can however offer these words from Luther’s own commentary on Romans addressing this very question:
“But this objection and others like it can just as easily be refuted as the first one: because all these sayings must be understood only with respect to the elect, as the apostle says in 2 Timothy 2:10, “All for the elect.” Christ did not die for absolutely all, for he says: “This is my blood which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20) and “for many” (Mark 14:24) he did not say: for all “to the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28).” (This from the Library of Christian Classics edition translated by a Wilhelm Pauck)
Take that as you will, and I’ll be the first to concede the point if you want to make distinctions between what the original reformer taught and what was actually carried forth by his followers. However, again as I believe I’ve demonstrated that the Lutherans clearly held Total Depravity and Unconditional Election to be true, I don’t see any room to deny Limited Atonement.
Irresistible Grace
From the Apology, Article XII:
“This faith obtains the remission of sins. This faith justifies before God, as the same passage testifies: Being justified by faith. This faith shows the distinction between the contrition of Judas and Peter, of Saul and of David. The contrition of Judas or Saul is of no avail, for the reason that to this there is not added this faith, which apprehends the remission of sins, bestowed as a gift for Christ’s sake. Accordingly, the contrition of David or Peter avails, because to it there is added faith, which apprehends the remission of sins granted for Christ’s sake. Neither is love present before reconciliation has been made by faith. For without Christ the Law [God’s Law or the First Commandment] is not performed, according to [Eph. 2:18; 3:12 ] Rom. 5:2: By Christ we have access to God. And this faith grows gradually and throughout the entire life, struggles with sin [is tested by various temptations] in order to overcome sin and death.”
Speaking here of faith in Christ, which Total Depravity and Unconditional Election demonstrate to arise only from God’s sovereign grace, Melanchthon demonstrates that for Judas or Saul, though they repented of their sins, there was no forgiveness because they were not among the elect, and thus did not have the saving faith in Christ which is the fruit of grace. That Melanchthon would argue in this manner would seem to imply an acceptance of the Limited Atonement.
Perseverance of the Saints
From the Large Catechism, Luther writes:
“Everything, therefore, in the Christian Church is ordered to the end that we shall daily obtain there nothing but the forgiveness of sin through the Word and signs, to comfort and encourage our consciences as long as we live here. Thus, although we have sins, the [grace of the] Holy Ghost does not allow them to injure us, because we are in the Christian Church, where there is nothing but [continuous, uninterrupted] forgiveness of sin, both in that God forgives us, and in that we forgive, bear with, and help each other.”
Granted, this alone could easily be interpreted as meaning the Christian Church provides the means of salvation, and thus you can be assured. But the fact that Total Depravity and Unconditional Election are easily provable out of the Lutheran confessions seem to oblige one to interpret this as a consequence of the irresistibility of grace.
And just to reiterate, my interest here is just honest curiosity and I’ve made a point of trying to understand various Protestant theologies, something that has greatly enriched my own understanding of my Catholic faith. In my study though I came to conclusion that the primary difference between Lutherans and Calvinists is in regard to the sacraments, where Lutherans affirm baptismal regeneration and also the Real Presence in the Eucharist, two things emphatically denied by Calvinists. I welcome your feedback and would genuinely like to know what more nuanced divisions there are between the two schools.
I’ll grant you that the Book of Concord doesn’t have anything to my knowledge, emphatically confirming or denying this position. Again I can’t say that this means the Lutherans who wrote it rejected the notion however, as in the discussions of Justification and the Church it was assumed to be speaking of course only of True Church (i.e. the Elect). However, I believe that it’s implicit in the acceptance of the preceding two, which the BoC most definitely does teach.
If Man is totally depraved and can do nothing to warrant salvation, and thus receives salvation only unconditionally, we are confronted with the scriptural fact that not everyone will be saved. Since if the two preceding principles are true, man can likewise do nothing to reject or lose salvation, that necessitates that Christ’s atonement was effective only for the Elect. To say otherwise (again assuming Total Depravity and Unconditional Election) would be to declare Christ’s sacrifice only partially effective, since it worked on some people while failing with regard to others.
I can however offer these words from Luther’s own commentary on Romans addressing this very question:
“But this objection and others like it can just as easily be refuted as the first one: because all these sayings must be understood only with respect to the elect, as the apostle says in 2 Timothy 2:10, “All for the elect.” Christ did not die for absolutely all, for he says: “This is my blood which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20) and “for many” (Mark 14:24) he did not say: for all “to the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28).” (This from the Library of Christian Classics edition translated by a Wilhelm Pauck)
Take that as you will, and I’ll be the first to concede the point if you want to make distinctions between what the original reformer taught and what was actually carried forth by his followers. However, again as I believe I’ve demonstrated that the Lutherans clearly held Total Depravity and Unconditional Election to be true, I don’t see any room to deny Limited Atonement.
Irresistible Grace
From the Apology, Article XII:
“This faith obtains the remission of sins. This faith justifies before God, as the same passage testifies: Being justified by faith. This faith shows the distinction between the contrition of Judas and Peter, of Saul and of David. The contrition of Judas or Saul is of no avail, for the reason that to this there is not added this faith, which apprehends the remission of sins, bestowed as a gift for Christ’s sake. Accordingly, the contrition of David or Peter avails, because to it there is added faith, which apprehends the remission of sins granted for Christ’s sake. Neither is love present before reconciliation has been made by faith. For without Christ the Law [God’s Law or the First Commandment] is not performed, according to [Eph. 2:18; 3:12 ] Rom. 5:2: By Christ we have access to God. And this faith grows gradually and throughout the entire life, struggles with sin [is tested by various temptations] in order to overcome sin and death.”
Speaking here of faith in Christ, which Total Depravity and Unconditional Election demonstrate to arise only from God’s sovereign grace, Melanchthon demonstrates that for Judas or Saul, though they repented of their sins, there was no forgiveness because they were not among the elect, and thus did not have the saving faith in Christ which is the fruit of grace. That Melanchthon would argue in this manner would seem to imply an acceptance of the Limited Atonement.
Perseverance of the Saints
From the Large Catechism, Luther writes:
“Everything, therefore, in the Christian Church is ordered to the end that we shall daily obtain there nothing but the forgiveness of sin through the Word and signs, to comfort and encourage our consciences as long as we live here. Thus, although we have sins, the [grace of the] Holy Ghost does not allow them to injure us, because we are in the Christian Church, where there is nothing but [continuous, uninterrupted] forgiveness of sin, both in that God forgives us, and in that we forgive, bear with, and help each other.”
Granted, this alone could easily be interpreted as meaning the Christian Church provides the means of salvation, and thus you can be assured. But the fact that Total Depravity and Unconditional Election are easily provable out of the Lutheran confessions seem to oblige one to interpret this as a consequence of the irresistibility of grace.
And just to reiterate, my interest here is just honest curiosity and I’ve made a point of trying to understand various Protestant theologies, something that has greatly enriched my own understanding of my Catholic faith. In my study though I came to conclusion that the primary difference between Lutherans and Calvinists is in regard to the sacraments, where Lutherans affirm baptismal regeneration and also the Real Presence in the Eucharist, two things emphatically denied by Calvinists. I welcome your feedback and would genuinely like to know what more nuanced divisions there are between the two schools.
Irresitable Grace is also denied by the reformers.
Augsburg
In both highlighted parts, we see first implied, then specifically, that those once justified can indeed lose the Holy Ghost.
First, notice Augsburg above. Secondly, you misinterpret Unconditional Election, a Calvinist concept to fit the Lutheran view. As for irresistable grace, the confessions clearly deny it, as above, and the condemnation of the anabaptists’ claim that once converted, one cannot lose the Holy Ghost, clearly denies perseverance of saints.
Further, from the Epitome of the Formula of Concord:
Clearly, they are saying that one cannot retain faith (saving faith) if one perseveres in sin.
The sacraments in themselves would be enough keep me out of a Reformed church, but the ULIP also is a nonstarter for me, as they are unbiblical.
Finally, I offerthis, from Franz Pieper:
angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.whysome.html
Jon
P
PatriciusRex
Guest
Jon,
It was my understanding that Calvinists likewise believe that God would desire salvation for all, but that he nevertheless only chose the Elect. The Reprobate, the “vessels of wrath,” are still held to play a role as through their fate the salvation accorded to the Elect is made known. Calvinists usually use Romans 9:22-29 to prove this.
I also understood that the “double-predestination” which imagines God actively choosing the reprobate for damnation just as he actively chooses the Elect for salvation is not “orthodox” Calvinism (as much as we might speak of such a thing) but rather “Hyper-Calvinism” which exaggerated Calvin’s positions, even going so far as to adopt the “supralapsarian” view which says the Fall itself occurred by God’s decree.
The Canons of the Synod of Dordrecht, which were intended to be a bolstering of Calvinist orthodoxy in the face of challenges from the Arminian party declare:
Article 1: “Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had been his will to leave the entire human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn them on account of their sin.”
Thus the default state of mankind post-Fall is reprobation and damnation. If God were to take no action, all would be damned.
Article 5: “The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man. Faith in Jesus Christ, however, and salvation through him is a free gift of God.”
Here the fault of Man that results in his default state of reprobation is his own doing, via the sins of Adam and Eve, not as a result of God’s action or decree. This to me, invalidates the “supralapsarian” position, by establishing that the Fall and thus the human race’s default reprobate status is a result of man’s action alone, not God’s.
Article 6: “In accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us his act–unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just–of distinguishing between people equally lost. This is the well-known decision of election and reprobation revealed in God’s Word. This decision the wicked, impure, and unstable distort to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words.”
Here we see it declared that God actively chooses the Elect for salvation, but passively leaves the Reprobate to damnation.
This point is reaffirmed very strongly in Article 15:
“Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God’s eternal election-- those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision: to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice. And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.”
My purpose in this is to prove that I don’t think the majority of Calvinists ever espoused “double-predestination” in the manner it looks like LCMS thinks they do. That is, they deny that God played any active role in the damnation of Reprobate, but at the same time (due to their ubiquitous insistence on God’s sovereignty) they do acknowledge that God indirectly causes their reprobation through his sovereign choice to forego action. But again, as these passages show, the fault and direct cause of their damnation, lies soley in human nature, not God.
So when I understand it like this, I don’t see much difference between the predestination taught by Calvinists and that taught by Lutherans. The Lutheran objection seems primarily due to a misunderstanding of the Calvinist school, which is only natural since Luther and Calvin overall approached the problem from different angles.
I don’t think Double-predestination in that “hyper-Calvinist” format I mentioned before (and the version that I believe LCMS is objecting to in your confession statement) was known in the time of Calvin, but arose later especially in response to the Arminian controversy. Indeed, in the 16th century Lutheran world to be a “crypto-Calvinist” was to reject the Lutheran understanding of the sacraments, and had nothing to do with soteriology.
Likewise at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529, Luther diverged with Zwingli not over the doctrine of grace but rather over the nature of the sacraments. Zwingli’s successor Bullinger was able to reach agreement with Calvin (adopting the Calvinist “pneumatic” Presence in favor of Zwinglian memorialism) in 1549, and apart from that resolved conflict, both Zwingli and Bullinger are regarded as very orthodox in Calvinist circles.
It was my understanding that Calvinists likewise believe that God would desire salvation for all, but that he nevertheless only chose the Elect. The Reprobate, the “vessels of wrath,” are still held to play a role as through their fate the salvation accorded to the Elect is made known. Calvinists usually use Romans 9:22-29 to prove this.
I also understood that the “double-predestination” which imagines God actively choosing the reprobate for damnation just as he actively chooses the Elect for salvation is not “orthodox” Calvinism (as much as we might speak of such a thing) but rather “Hyper-Calvinism” which exaggerated Calvin’s positions, even going so far as to adopt the “supralapsarian” view which says the Fall itself occurred by God’s decree.
The Canons of the Synod of Dordrecht, which were intended to be a bolstering of Calvinist orthodoxy in the face of challenges from the Arminian party declare:
Article 1: “Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had been his will to leave the entire human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn them on account of their sin.”
Thus the default state of mankind post-Fall is reprobation and damnation. If God were to take no action, all would be damned.
Article 5: “The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man. Faith in Jesus Christ, however, and salvation through him is a free gift of God.”
Here the fault of Man that results in his default state of reprobation is his own doing, via the sins of Adam and Eve, not as a result of God’s action or decree. This to me, invalidates the “supralapsarian” position, by establishing that the Fall and thus the human race’s default reprobate status is a result of man’s action alone, not God’s.
Article 6: “In accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us his act–unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just–of distinguishing between people equally lost. This is the well-known decision of election and reprobation revealed in God’s Word. This decision the wicked, impure, and unstable distort to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words.”
Here we see it declared that God actively chooses the Elect for salvation, but passively leaves the Reprobate to damnation.
This point is reaffirmed very strongly in Article 15:
“Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God’s eternal election-- those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision: to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice. And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.”
My purpose in this is to prove that I don’t think the majority of Calvinists ever espoused “double-predestination” in the manner it looks like LCMS thinks they do. That is, they deny that God played any active role in the damnation of Reprobate, but at the same time (due to their ubiquitous insistence on God’s sovereignty) they do acknowledge that God indirectly causes their reprobation through his sovereign choice to forego action. But again, as these passages show, the fault and direct cause of their damnation, lies soley in human nature, not God.
So when I understand it like this, I don’t see much difference between the predestination taught by Calvinists and that taught by Lutherans. The Lutheran objection seems primarily due to a misunderstanding of the Calvinist school, which is only natural since Luther and Calvin overall approached the problem from different angles.
I don’t think Double-predestination in that “hyper-Calvinist” format I mentioned before (and the version that I believe LCMS is objecting to in your confession statement) was known in the time of Calvin, but arose later especially in response to the Arminian controversy. Indeed, in the 16th century Lutheran world to be a “crypto-Calvinist” was to reject the Lutheran understanding of the sacraments, and had nothing to do with soteriology.
Likewise at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529, Luther diverged with Zwingli not over the doctrine of grace but rather over the nature of the sacraments. Zwingli’s successor Bullinger was able to reach agreement with Calvin (adopting the Calvinist “pneumatic” Presence in favor of Zwinglian memorialism) in 1549, and apart from that resolved conflict, both Zwingli and Bullinger are regarded as very orthodox in Calvinist circles.
P
PatriciusRex
Guest
Thank you for point that out. Though that muddies the waters for me somewhat. Perhaps because I’m coming from a Catholic perspective, I have a hard time rectifying unconditional election with free will.
Let me propose this alternate way of understanding Lutheran theology:
Let’s say that Lutherans like Calvinists believe in Total Depravity.
But, (and indeed I’m starting to think this makes sense given the Lutheran affirmation of baptismal regeneration) let’s say that Lutherans believe that at Baptism, when the stain of Original Sin is wiped away, that Total Depravity disappears with it, and is replaced by a “partial depravity”, which would be in accordance with the classical notion of concupiscence – the tendency to sin that survives after Baptism. So, in distinction from Calvinism which would argue that the sinner remains fully stewed in Original Sin even after baptism (which indeed they teach is merely a “sign and seal” of the promise of Election but in no means in itself efficacious), Lutherans would teach that through the waters of baptism the soul is cleansed and the “Bondage of the Will” (as Luther famously called it) is removed, enabling the Christian to freely choose or reject salvation.
Would you agree with this statement?
However, that doctrine seems to then leave the maintenance of salvation in the hands of the human, thus elevating the importance of Good Works, not for attaining but rather maintaining salvation. How can this be rectified?
I have always regarded Luther as a sympathetic figure even if I can’t necessarily say I agree with his actions. The apparent similarity between his doctrines and Calvin’s always bugged me, so I’m happy to have this opportunity to dig deeper!
B
BrianGular
Guest
You have described a mechanism by which we can thwart God’s will. If God wants Edward H in heaven, He is at Edward’s mercy. If Edward doesn’t walk through the door, God’s will is not satisfied. Do you really believe that God’s will can be thwarted? Do you really believe that if God calls someone they can resist Him? I think God is irresistible and that His will is always accomplished.
B
BrianGular
Guest
You suggest that God can be resisted. You have described a situation where God drew someone to Himself, the person was persuaded for a time, then the person decided to reject Him. Do you think that is really possible? I don’t. I think that when the Holy Spirit breaks through to a rebellious heart there is no turning back for the person.
The person you have described convinced himself through circumstance that they were Christian but their heart was never transformed. A transformed heart is given to Jesus Christ who will not lose it. We serve a God who does not fail.
F
Farsight001
Guest
I never said anything about God being resisted. You have extracted that from my post when it was never there.
And yes, it is possible for people to reject God. God loves us and he wants us to be with him, but it is our choice because we have free will. If we want to reject him, he lets us do so. He didn’t fail. Those who turn their back on him fail.
Close, but you bring something to mind here that I had forgotten to mention, and that is the role of Baptismal regeneration. thanks. I would say that we take more of a one way view of free will, and that being the ability of the regenerate to reject it. Freely choosing is a but too active from my sense, at least when it comes to justification. But yes, perhaps when you made a distinction concerning the sacraments and soteriology in the Lutheran reformed debate, we may have both allowed it to stand too pat. There is indeed a link between not only baptism, but also Absolution and Eucharist, and our take on soteriology.
that’s why I said your statement regarding the freedom to choose in the affirmative, not on our only at least, isn’t exactly our view. Our view of good works is that they are necessity of the regenerate, but we cannot claim merit for salvation in them. Salvation is by grace, which is a free gift, in our view. The necessity of good works, therefore, is in what the confessions call the new obedience to God’s call and will. While good works do not merit salvation, failure to do them is sin, and repeated, unrepented sin leads to a loss of faith.
What bu me is the influence of Reformed thiking in American Lutheranism. for example, one might at times hear Lutherans speak of our belief in the real presence as “consubstantiation”, which is a Calvinist charge against us that historically Lutheranism has always rejected. Personally, I would be Catholic in an instant if the other choice was Reformed.
Jon
- Status