In past posts I’ve sought to differentiate myself from resurgent Calvinism, essentially arguing that there are other Reformation positions. (The position I hold is very similar to that held by Lutherans.)
In this post I want to highlight the point of commonality between Calvinists and these other Reformation positions.
The key shared Reformation insight is divine monergism. Kenneth Keathley, a southern Baptist theologian who is not a Calvinist (but is a monergist) explains:
“Monergism is the view that God’s grace alone is the efficient cause of our salvation; that salvation is the work of God from beginning to end” (Salvation and Sovereignty, 100).
Arminianism holds (in opposition to monergism) divine-human synergism. Synergism means that salvation involves a working together between God and man (if ever so slightly).
I reject synergism as being unbiblical and a dangerous doctrine. It undermines simple trust in Christ. It gets our eyes (if ever so slightly) off of Christ and on ourselves.
I have argued, following the Lutherans, that Calvinism in its own way tempts us to look away from Christ and at ourselves. The doctrine of limited atonement especially undermines simple trust in what Christ has done, but that is for another post.
Can you clarify here for me please:
ReplyDelete"I reject synergism as being unbiblical and a dangerous doctrine. It undermines simple trust in Christ. It gets our eyes (if ever so slightly) off of Christ and on ourselves.
I have argued, following the Lutherans, that Calvinism in its own way tempts us to look away from Christ and at ourselves. The doctrine of limited atonement especially undermines simple trust in what Christ has done, but that is for another post."
So are you saying "Calvinists" are synergists?
Earlier you had noted "In this post I want to highlight the point of commonality between Calvinists and these other Reformation positions." Thus I am asking for clarification.
Bill,
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm NOT saying Calvinists are synergists. Far from it! The point of commonality between Lutherans and Calvinists is their monergism.
However, because of the "L" in TULIP, Calvinists cannot rest in the knowledge that Christ died for them because Christ may not have since he only really died for a select group of people. Because of this they must look for signs of their election within themselves (a subtle move away from looking at Christ alone).
I heartily recommend Theodore Mueller's CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS for a clear presentation of the Lutheran differences with Calvinism.
In future posts I will link to Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod explanations of the differences, as well as some quotes from Mueller's Dogmatics.
The German Evangelicals leaned Lutheran as did the German Reformed theologian John Nevin.
Peace!
David
David - I concur with we believe in Monergism ...completely the work of God...ie, nothing in my hand I bring simply to the Cross I cling (Rock of Ages).
ReplyDeleteRegarding Limited Atonement: what we say is Christ's atonement was sufficient for all, but efficient only for those whom God foreknew. I'm not sure where you see this as "signs of their election within themselves (a subtle move away from looking at Christ alone)."
What we say regarding the election and atonement is that we are amazed that God "Has Touched Me"...that God would actually know us and send the Holy Spirit to us - we are brought to humility because of His actions, not ours...we poor sinners fell into God's merit not because of anything we've done but because of the Person and Work of Christ, Alone...by Grace Alone, Thru Faith Alone. Ephesians 2:8-9 even tells us that Faith in Christ is a gift from God...not of man.
Hence, I am not sure where Mr Mueller's views are coming out of. It is certainly nothing I've ever read from any person of the reformed faith.
The Evangelicals had both camps - Lutheran and Reformed. Our church was started from the Basel Missionhaus (Swiss Reformed, ie, Calvinist).
Blessings
Bill
Just a quick reply (getting ready for church).
ReplyDeleteThe difference between Lutherans and Calvinists is where they find comfort.
The Lutheran answer to "how do I know I am elect?" is
Look at the cross; Jesus died for everyone in exactly the same way. There is no hidden will in God. Christ died for you because he died for everyone; so trust that. (No sufficient for all, efficient for some talk, and therefore possibly not for you.)
The Calvinist can't answer that question in the same way. God is not reaching out to all people in the same way in their understanding. Therefore, they have to begin looking for signs of their election in their changed life (in themselves). The Puritans were famous for writing books on assurance and how you can know you're elect (and becoming legalistic). You don't find Lutherans doing that (looking in themselves and becoming legalistic).
Brother David, I believe many people misunderstand Reformed theology. This for instance: "The Calvinist can't answer that question in the same way. God is not reaching out to all people in the same way in their understanding. Therefore, they have to begin looking for signs of their election in their changed life (in themselves)." Are you saying people's lives are not changed after becoming a Christian? I would think their lives would change at least according to Scripture. Is their salvation in their own moving towards Sanctification? No ... the Bible absolutely doesn't teach this.
DeleteI think any denomination or any local church can become legalistic. To say that Calvinists are even generally legalistic in this or that as compared to MS Lutherans or WS Lutherans should be cause for their own recoil. For instance, I don't know too many Reformed churches that serve closed communion...our Lutheran friends don't fence the table, they close it. I could go on but they are our brothers and it doesn't do much good to tear down the body of Christ over the non-essentials.
But let me clarify from my understanding of what you are attempting to critique.
Calvinism/Reformed Theology properly taught and explained does not look inwardly for anything other than our own need for a Savior from our own self. Thus I am highly confused by your reference "The Puritans were famous for writing books on assurance and how you can know you're elect (and becoming legalistic)."
If someone asks if they are saved or not, I've never heard of anyone (in ANY protestant church) saying to rely on their own works or look inwardly for salvation. To ask people to examine themselves (especially at communion time) is exactly what God's Word admonishes us in 1 Cor 11 - to see if we are in Christ. If you are not, and you are not sure, then one should not take communion...but they are to EXAMINE THEMSELVES before partaking of it. Thus I'm not sure what you are getting at. I'm sure that you are NOT denying Scripture but I remain confused.
To fully understand the Limited Atonement view, one must fully come to grips with the entirety of Scripture. For instance: Christ said He is the ransom for "many" (Matt 20:28) according to His own words not the entire world.
When Christ gave the parable of the Wedding Feast (Matt 22) it looked like everyone was invited, but how does the parable end? "Many are called, but few are chosen".
Who is among the many? Who are the chosen? He died for "all" who believe in the Person and Work of Christ. How many is that? Who are they, how do they know? Those are questions for God and those who have been born again.
What do we do with Romans Chp 9: "Jacob have I love, Esau have I hated." "He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy" "...and He hardens whomever He wills"
Or the ever dreadful "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory"
(con't)
It is clear from Scripture, including our Lord's own words, that some people are not destined for glory. Christ's atonement was "limited" to and for the "vessels of mercy"..who are they? I don't have a clue and that's not my business, but God is all knowing. My job is to be faithful with the message of the Gospel Jesus Christ and share it.
DeleteI believe your question is according to Scripture is the Atonement of Christ limited or not, can it be supported or not? The main question as I perceive it: Is it Biblical? It is. I have given you some of the Scriptures that support the Reformed view of Limited Atonement.
I was once where you sit theologically. I had to come to grips with what God was and is trying to instruct His people with His Word. I did initially try to come up with "work arounds" but in the end - I felt I had to honestly wrestle with the texts. We are called to teach and preach the Entire Counsel of God. Jas 3 says that we will face the stricter judgement. Knowing all these things, I had to come to grips with perhaps the most difficult concepts and Scripture passages I had run into. I came down on the Reformed side.
Finally, as I read the historical German Evangelical and (E&R) documents, it wasn't a matter if one was a Calvinist or Lutheran...the Scriptures were the norm for answering any differences in theology and allowances were made for either camp and using either of the Catechisms.
Grace and Peace to you
Bill
Bill,
ReplyDeleteI'll address some of the issues you've raised in future posts.
I encourage you to read some Lutheran theology. Mueller's Dogmatics is a shortened version of Pieper's 3 volume (which is a standard among confessional Lutherans). I've read both Lutheran dogmatics through.
I've also read Calvin's Institutes through (I have 2 translations), I've read much of Hodges Systematic Theology, Louis Berkhof's standard (Reformed) Systematic theology, Henreich Heppe's summary of Reformed theology, Reformed Dogmatics, as well as others (Grudem, Sproul, etc). I'm very familiar with Reformed thought.
I happen to be more convinced by the Lutheran interpretation of Scripture and am convinced that they preserve the gospel in a way Calvinists do not.
I find Calvinists focus primarily on Arminians and ignore the Lutheran perspective. Lutherans address all the Bible passages you cite in ways I find much more convincing than the Calvinists.
On the Evangelical churches: their 3 confessional documents, cited in the doctrinal paragraph of the Synod were the Augsburg Confession, Luther's Small Catechism, and the Heidelberg Catechism. The one Reformed symbol (Heidelberg) is the most Lutheran like of the Reformed confessions (no mention of limited atonement and other doctrines that come to define English and Dutch Calvinism). (Very different from the Westminster Standards, for example.)
German Reformed theologian John Nevin makes this case in his book "The History and Genius of the Heidelberg Catechism", which can be read here(http://books.google.com/books?id=M5oCAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=john+nevin&ei=jvJNSL2DI4GkjgGOr43lDQ).
I have no idea if there were 5 point Dortian (Dutch-type) Calvinists in the Evangelical Synod. The book Evangelical Fundamentals and early versions of the Evangelical Catechism are strongly Lutheran (following Andreas Irion).
Of course, I believe we should allow freedom of conscience on these things even as the doctrinal paragraph of the Evangelical Synod states.
Grace and Peace!
I might mention I don't follow the Lutherans on everything and am much more Reformed on some things (like the Sacraments, for example). I highly value Reformed theology. I believe in things like Common Grace, Covenant theology, etc. I'm not anti-Reformed. I'm just not a Calvinist in my understanding of atonement, grace as irresistible, the inability to fall away, etc. Here I follow Luther and the Lutherans.
ReplyDeleteIn short, I'm not a pure Lutheran or Reformed. I consider myself a Reformation Christian and use that label. That's the reason I'm drawn to the German Evangelical approach.
ReplyDelete