ALutheran Response to Arminianism

ALutheran Response to their adoption into an Arminian system. Ribbed vaulting and massive gargoyles sit splendidly on the top of a cathedral whose Arminianism stone columns and flying buttresses are design ed to support their weight, but these same items can crush a building whose The issues at stake have concerned more walls are not designed massive weight. to uphold their than Calvinists RICK RITCHIE • CURE STAFF WRITER Arminian Principles Rejected The best way to compare two theological positions is to compare their un

Since the 17th century, Calvinism has would allow that, but that the Arminians derlying principles. According to J.1. been identified with its five-point reply to never issued to the Lutherans a five-point Packer, the theological position of the the Arminian party at the Synod of Dort. refutation of their supposed errors. LuthRemonstrants came from two philosophiCalvinists often complain that this sumeran pastors andtheologians had enough to cal principles: mary of their theology, though accurate in keep them busy in teaching their doctrine expressing the Calvinists' disagreement rightly and refuting those who directly ... fIrst, that divine sovereignty is not comwith their Arminian opponents, presents a attacked them. Little would have been patible with human freedom, nor therefore truncated view ofwhat Calvinism really is. ,---------------------, with human responsibility; second, that Where in the five points do we hear of the ability limits obligation. (The charge of semicovenant or of union with Christ? To Pelagianism was thus fully justified.) From properly understand a theology, we must these principles, the Arminians drew two not only know what itsays to its opponents, deductions: first, that since the Bible regards but we need to know how it is to be prefaith as a free and responsible act, it sented on its own terms. cannot be caused by God, but is exercised

If a five-point summary is an awkindependently ofHim; second, that since the ward way to present Calvinism, it is Bible regar9s faith as obligatory on the part downright foreign to Lutheranism. This is ofall who hear the gospel, ability to believe not because Lutheranism lacks a defined must be universal? doctrine of election (it certainly has one). God's gracious election of certain indiLuther's "Arminius" was Erasmus ofRotterdam Lutheranism lines up behind Packer and viduals to salvation was affirmed in Article fmds these principles to be abhorrent. X ofthe Formula ofConcord, the last ofthe gained by refuting the errors of somebody While Lutheranism never had the occasion Lutheran confessions. The darker side of else's opponents. to come up against the five points of predestination has also been considered. Today the story is different While Arminianism, it had several opportunities As the great Lutheran theologian Hermann presenting its doctrine according to a fiveto fight against the underlying Arminian Sasse wrote, point system is not the most natural way to principles. present the Lutheran doctrines ofgrace, it At first glance, Lutheranism might

Lutheran theology ... knows ... about the God is almost necessitated by the fact that appear to be an amalgamation of Calvinof Predestination: This God who makes us American evangelicals have come of age ism and Arminianism because, with regard responsible for demands which we cannot in an environment where the theological to the five points, it seems to agree with fulfill, who asks us questions which we cannot categories have been defined by others, Calvinism on some points and answer, who created us for good and yet and most of those "others" have been Arminianism on others. .We must be leaves us no other choice than to do evilArminians. careful, however, to look at the underlying this is the Deus absconditus. This is the God Unless our doctrines are presented in principles that motivated the positions. of absolute Predestination. This is the God a way such that the contrasts with When we do this, we will find that who hardened Pharaoh's heart, who hated Arminianism are easily seen, even an Lutheranism is not in fundamental

Esau even before he was born, the Potter who otherwise clear presentation ottheLutheran agreement with the Remonstrants on any fashions pots and before whom one shrinksdoctrines will produce confusion. For one of the five points. To demonstrate this, I and who, nevertheless, thunders in pitiless thing, superficial similarities between the have put the positions side-by-side (see sovereignty at these unhappy creatures, 'Tua two systems could easily be mistaken for chart on page 12). culpa!' Thine is the gUilt!1 areas of agreement In addition, there are The two positions of Lutheranism doctrines that have a fit within the whole and Arminianism are clearly different at

The reason Lutheranism has never structure of Lutheranism but will at first each point, even where there are some been presented according to a five-point glance appear disastrous on account of the scheme is not that it lacks the doctrines that logical implications that would result from Continued on next page

Continued from previous page

similarities. The guiding motif in Arminianism is the free will of man, but in Lutheranism this is rejected. God is the main actor in Lutheranism. While the diagram above ought to be sufficient to show that Lutheranism and Arminianism are incompatible, there are two points which it will be especially profitable to look into more deeply: apostasy and unconditional election.

The Problem ofApostasy

Both the Arminians and the Lutherans believe that a true Christian can fall from the faith. When two groups of Christians hold to the same doctrine, we usually are inclined to guess that they hold the ir position for the same reasons, that a common principle leads them to a common conclusion. In the case ofapostasy, both the Arminians and the Lutherans would cite some of the same biblical passages in support oftheir position (e.g., Heb. 6:4ff, 2 Pt. 2:1), but the Lutheran would reject the philosophical baggage concerning the glories offree will, which would be the stronger element in the Arminian case for apostasy.

For the Arminian, the ability to fall away from grace is merely the flip side of the individual's ability to decide for Christ If we can decide to accept him, it stands to reason that we must also have the power to reject him.

For the Lutheran, the ability to fall from grace is not the flip side of the ability to decide for Christ, f or we do not hold that man has that abilit y. The use of the term "ability" is even somewhat misleading in this context We might as well speak of the ability of an unconscious man to drown in water. The ability to drown is n ot a special branch of swimming, and neither is apostasy a special branch of spiritual ability.

The Unconditional Election of Grace

Around the tum of the century, the matter ofpredestination became the subject of furious debate within the American Lutheran church. If you have heard that predestination is not a Lutheran issue, you have heard wrong. The controversy erupted over the question of whether election was a cause of faith, or faith a cause ofelection. Hundreds ofarticles on the nature of election appeared in the theological journals ofthe Lutheran church bodies involved in the dispute. People were even barred from communion over it In short, the debate concerned the doctrine that the Calvinists refer to as unconditional election.

The Missouri-Synod theologians claimed that the cause of God's election was his graciousness toward not any faith, goodness, receptiveness, or 1. After the fall, man retained the power to accept or reject God's grace. foresaw would come to faith to final salvation. 3. Christ took upon himself the sins of the whole world and made it possible for individuals to decide whether to be saved. foresees will use their own free choice to accept and not resist his offer. 5. Any Christian may use his or her free choice to fall away from the faith. even lack of resistance that he saw in them. The theologians of the other Lutheran church bodies said that this view of election was in conflict with the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The Missouri-Synod theologians claimed that the opposite was true. Election and justification by faith alone together guarantee that salvation is all of grace. Both tell us that salvation does not come to us on the basis of merit. Just as receiving salvation by means of faith guarantees that we do not contribute to salvation (as faith is a gift from God and we are merely receptive), so also, knowing that God predestined us to salvation before we had done anything good or evil guarantees the same thing-unless we say that God chose us because he saw that we would come to faith.

A Comparison Chart

Arminian Position

Some ofthe theologians who claimed

Lutheran Position

1. After the fall, man is bynature hostile to God. By his own power, he is only

2. God predestined those whom he able to reject God. 2. Godpredestinedthosewhomhe loved from all eternity to come to faith and

4. God's grace can be resisted by man's free choice. Theelect arethose whomGod

salvation. 3. Christ took upon himself the sins of the whole world and provided a perfect redemption. God himself provides the faith that grasps the redemption offered.

4. God'sgraceisresistiblewhenheworks through means. Nevertheless, his eternal choice to save his chosen will not be thwarted; the elect will not succeed in resisting to the end.

5. While some true Christians believe for atime and later fall away, the elect will be brought to faith and kept in faith until

God brings them to glory. that election took place in view of foreseen faith wanted to make election into a form of justification that took place in eternity. Just as God reckoned a person righteous in time when a person trusted him, these theologians said that God would make this declaration in eternity when he looked into the future and saw this faith . .

The "Missourian" theologians said that they did not so much object to the content of this view as much as the language. Perhaps this was the case, they concluded, but this was not what the Scriptures meant when they talked about election.

What was more insidious was that some theologians saw faith to be a human contribution to salvation. It was not a work ofGod the Holy Spirit'who brought a person to faith through the message of the Gospel, but a work of man-man's small contribution to his salvation. This resembled the Arminian ,argument that God had lowered the cost of salvation to bargain-basement prices; instead ofkeeping the law, now God just required faith. This type offaith was no faith at all. It was a hindrance to faith!

This matter had come up in the Lutheran church more than once before. Philip Melanchthon, Luther's co-reformer and one of the authors of the Lutheran confessions, had in his later career said that there were three causes of election, man's non-resistance to grace being one. Later theologians sometimes fell into speaking ofconversion being the result of "new powers imparted by grace," or "right conduct over against grace." This al ways tumeq, out to be the grossest form of moralism. The "faith" that is required bears an uncanny resemblance to works. In each case the sinner is thrown back onto himself for deliverance.

A person's stand on unconditional election is indicative ofhis true adherence to salvation by grace alone through faith alone. If non-resistance or right conduct become the grounds of election, you can bet that the "faith alone" which is being talked about is not faith at all, but a work of man. Credit may be given to God after the fact for giving us this power, but who could see in this type of faith the empty hand of which the reformers spoke? A new power from God may sound like a gracious gift, but beware! If the new power is the ability to save oneself by following the right principles, it is best left unwrapped. The Missouri-Synod theologians were very careful to ensure that gifts remained gifts and good news remained good news. Ifwe wish to do the same, we had better guard our doctrine of unconditional election. Concluding Advice·

For those who have grown up under the prevailing teaching in American churches (Arminianism), Reformation theology often comes across as unusual. Even when it does not, it is often passed offas a peripheral issue. "Idon'tcare how I was saved, I just care that I was saved," is a common response from those who assume that they can know that they were · saved when they don't know how. This is no side issue, however. Wrong principles

Aperson's stand on u nconditional election is indicative of his true adherence to salvation by grace alone through faith alone

on this issue will always lead to disaster in this life, if not in the next.

If you want to discover just how pervasive Arminian principles are, just check to see how many clear biblical . passages you have been systematically taught to misinterpret. How many times has the verse "Behold I stand at the door and knock ... " (Rev. 3:20) been taken to be

Christ standing at the door of our hearts asking us if we will let him save us, when it is Christ standing at the door to the church in Laodicea? How often have we heard that "God has voted for us, Satan has voted against us, and we cast the deciding vote" when Romans 8:31 teaches that ifGod is for us who can be against us?

We are told to make a decision for Christ, but we say that we do not want to be bothered with hearing about what he has decided about us.

If the introduction to Reformation theology is causing some distress, do not be surprised. That is normal. To find out that God has no interest in allowing our destiny to remain in our hands is a scary thought when we trust ourselves more than God. It might cause sleepless nights. It might inspire heated arguments. We might wish to avoid these for the sake of love-but love of what? Certainly not God. God is the primary one to whom we relate, and he will not have one of his creatures loved above himself. To avoid dealing with central questions concerning salvation out of love is not spiritual, it is carnal. Any time spent on these issues will be worthily spent.

Read about these things. Do not assume that since these arguments have been going on for centuries, there must be no solution. You might be surprised to find that, at least at the level of basic principles, the Bible is quite clear. The fact that the debate has run on for centuries does not mean that equally clear minded Christians could not come to agreement, but that there are spiritual factors that prevent Reformation principles from being accepted. The old Adamic nature loves itself above God and wants to be captain of its own destiny. This, and not God's lack ofclarity on vital issues, is why the conflict continues. Ifyou wish to become convinced of this, take and read.

For Further Reading Luther, Martin. The Bondage ofThe Will A must for those interested in the Arminian controversy. Pieper, F. Conversion and Election: A P leafor aUnitedLutheranism inAmerica. This book gives probably the best overview available ofthe Lutheran position on election. Tappert, Theodore G., ed. Lutheran Confessional Theology in America 18401880. Several of the chapters are articles written by theologians during Lutheranism's predestinarian controversy. Sasse, Hermann. Here We Stand: TheNature and Character ofLutheranism. This book, among other things, puts the doctrine of predestination into its Lutheran context. Watson, Phillip. Let GodBe God! Another work which gives an overview ofLutheran theology. This one, however, deals more specifically with Luther than the Lutheran church.