I am soliciting the opinions of Church Mouse and Extra Nos on this, because both know Calvinism well. Unfortunately, most of the "conservative" Lutherans addressing these issues do not go beyond the talking points they learned at seminary.
Otto W. Heick's History of Christian Thought was in print for a long time and used by WELS pastors. There was nothing else quite like his work. He was our friend at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary. He took us out to eat and to his wife's grave. He ate at our home more than once. He would come up to me after a chapel and express alarm or amusement at what was said. For instance, one young woman called herself a backslider but also claimed, "Once God has touched you, He never lets you go." He quoted her and grinned. When I used the seminary library, I found his markings in the reference works - tiny pencil notes for the revision of his book.
I was reading Heick's History at the doctor's office when I came across the section on Calvinism versus Arminianism. In a few words, Arminius provoked a break in Calvinism, which culminated in the Synod of Dort. Calvinism defined itself at Dort as TULIP:
1. Total depravity.
2. Unconditional election.
3. Limited atonement.
4. Irresistible grace.
5. Perseverance of the saints.
Heick:
"Arminius, then, considered faith not primarily as the instrument by which man accepts the grace of God, but rather as the first cause of justification. The faith which resides in man as a potential quality is what is imputed to the sinner as righteousness...This view flatly contradicts what Melanchthon said in the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, - 'For faith does not justify or save because it is a good work in itself, but only because it accepts the universal mercy.'"
History of Christian Thought, II, pp. 73ff. Emphasis in original.
Notice that Calvinism never taught the efficacy of the Word or the Means of Grace. Rock-ribbed Calvinists are opposed to the efficacy of the Word and treat the sacraments as empty labels - ordinances to be obeyed, following Zwingli. In fact, a Calvinist sermon could be utterly useless unless the Holy Spirit decides to stop by. The same is true for communion. That is why Calvinists pray "Sovereign Lord." The term reflects their separation of the Holy Spirit from the Word. For them, God works independently of the Word and Sacraments, although not utterly apart from them. Naturally, the Real Presence is denied. So is baptismal regeneration.
The Arminians were also called Remonstrants. My advisor at Notre Dame was a Dutch Remonstrant. The Remonstrants began as the minority in Holland and eventually became the majority opinion. I studied Calvin and modern manifestations of Calvinism under him. He wrote his Harvard dissertation on a conservative Calvinist, under H. Oberman.
Calvinism necessarily has a strange concept of faith. The Synodical Conference MDivs do not understand this because they hardly understand Lutheran doctrine. They do not comprehend the foundation (the efficacy of the Word) so they satisfy themselves with repeating their seminary talking points.
The Heart of the Matter
This is the part where the UOJ Enthusiasts need to slow down and read out loud, to aid their reading comprehension.
1. Calvin denied that the Holy Spirit always works exclusively through the Word, rejecting the efficacy of the Word and Sacraments. He made fun of the Real Presence in his Institutes. Calvin - the "finite is incapable of the infinite." That motto renders the Incarnation impossible. Calvin locutus est, causa finita est. (Calvin has spoken, the case is closed).
2. Calvin was confused about the Two Natures of Christ, thinking that Jesus had to come in a secret entrance to be in the locked room after the Resurrection. That is also why Calvinist art shows the angels letting Jesus out of the tomb by opening it.
3. Calvin simply declared his ideas to be true, in defiance of clear Scriptural passages.
4. Calvin created a rationalistic approach, which inevitably leads to Unitarianism, Universalism, and atheism. Two WELS Church Growth pastors have followed that path already. Curtis Peterson's essays are still in the sanctum sanctorum, the WELS Essay Files.
5. ELCA also teaches UOJ because of its common heritage of Pietism.
UOJ is Calvinism
The classic statement of double-justification came from Knapp, a Halle University professor, in lectures and in print before Walther landed in America.
UOJ is the concept--alien to most Christians--that God has already declared every single person forgiven of sin. That appeals to people who have no grasp of the efficacy of the Word in the Means of Grace.
Most Christians know from the Word that faith comes from preaching the Gospel.
UOJ continues to be taught because many Lutheran clergy do not understand the basics of the Faith. They have been trained to worship their synod, so any departure from that veneration is known to be dangerous.

9 comments:
I've listened to the Reformed Baptist apologist Dr. James White (www.aoming.org) a far amount, and what you say about the Calvinists mocking the Means of Grace is true.
Thank you, Dr Jackson, for the kind invitation to respond to your post on Calvinism!
First, excerpts on the Sacrament from 'A Short Treatise on the Supper of Our Lord':
http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/the-sacrament-of-the-lords-supper-for-non-calvinists/
Here are a few excerpts (much more at the link):
'We have only to receive in faith the grace which is there presented to us, and which resides not in the sacrament, but refers us to the cross of Jesus Christ as proceeding therefrom.'
But he was at odds with Martin Luther on the idea of sacramental union — consubstantiation — where Christ is ‘in, with and under’ the elements of bread and wine.
'I only wished to observe, in passing, that to fancy Jesus Christ enclosed under the bread and wine, or so to conjoin him with it as to amuse our understanding there without looking up to heaven, is a diabolical reverie.'
Calvin said that, with the help of the Holy Spirit, the Sacrament of the Last Supper was ‘a secret too sublime for my mind to understand or express. I experience it rather than understand it.’ That seems so unlike John Calvin — who normally framed a reasoned argument for all things Reformed. However, he also wrote:
'Our Lord, wishing to give a visible appearance to his Spirit at the baptism of Christ, presented him under the form of a dove. St. John the Baptist, narrating the fact, says, that he saw the Spirit of God descending. If we look more closely, we shall find that he saw nothing but the dove, in respect that the Holy Spirit is in his essence invisible.'
Therefore, to a Calvinist, the bread and wine are symbols. Yet, when partaking of the Sacrament, Christ comes to the communicant and is truly present in them thanks to the gift of faith.
'We must confess, then, that if the representation which God gives us in the Supper is true, the internal substance of the sacrament is conjoined with the visible signs; and as the bread is distributed to us by the hand, so the body of Christ is communicated to us in order that we may be made partakers of it. Though there should be nothing more, we have good cause to be satisfied, when we understand that Jesus Christ gives us in the Supper the proper substance of his body and blood, in order that we may possess it fully, and possessing it have part in all his blessings.'
Finally, he urged frequent Communion — more frequent than that of the Catholics of the day, some of whom received it only once a year. (They did not believe they needed to receive it often.) Calvin wrote:
'However, if we duly consider the end which our Lord has in view, we shall perceive that the use should be more frequent than many make it: for the more infirmity presses, the more necessary is it frequently to have recourse to what may and will serve to confirm our faith, and advance us in purity of life; and, therefore, the practice of all well ordered churches should be to celebrate the Supper frequently, so far as the capacity of the people will admit.'
In order to receive the Supper properly, the communicant must:
* Have ‘a desire and an ardent longing to be fed’
* Conform his life to ‘the example of Jesus Christ’
* Be united with one’s neighbour in ‘indissoluable friendship’
* Recognise that our imperfections should encourage him to frequent Communion.
Link to original document in the post and here:
http://www.the-highway.com/supper1_Calvin.html
I think I have an irate comment from a Catholic following the post.
More soon
Churchmouse
Hello, Dr Jackson -- Many thanks for your kind invitation to post a comment on your post about Calvinism.
Have just cut and pasted several paragraphs, but they were too long to go through.
Whilst I locate more information, here is my link on Calvin's writings about the Lord's Supper (what I would refer to as Holy Communion):
http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/the-sacrament-of-the-lords-supper-for-non-calvinists/
Questions or opinions welcome.
Many thanks
Churchmouse
Hello, again!
A summary of Calvin's beliefs for the non-Calvinist here (supporting docs in the post):
http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/calvins-beliefs-for-the-non-calvinist/
An excerpt:
'# Justification by faith: Good works alone will not be enough for us to enter into God’s Kingdom. We must also have faith, which is the chief work of the Holy Spirit. On this point Calvin and Martin Luther agree.
'# Predestination: Calvin would be upset with so many of us for misinterpreting this doctrine. I have met no one outside the Calvinist faith who can explain it. It does not mean that the elect or predestined can do whatever they want in life — e.g. go on crime sprees — and still enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Election is not a selection based on merit but on God’s gratuitous grace. This means two things: a) not all will be saved and b) no one knows who the predestined are.'
Qualifier: I was still just a beginner there, but it was around Calvin's 500th anniversary, so wanted to start to get to grips with all the posts I had been reading at the time.
Churchmouse
Hello!
Excerpted thoughts on TULIP from Dr R Scott Clark, Westminster Seminary California:
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/the-trouble-with-tulips/#more-6258
'For “the non-Reformed, TULIP provides a wonderfully convenient box into which Reformed theology can be placed—and criticized.” He raises the question whether the TULIP provides an “adequate or even accurate distillation of Reformed theology.” He reminds us that the TULIP is a modern summary of the Canons of the Synod of Dort, which were “never intended as a summary of Reformed theology.” Further, he argues, the TULIP acronym does not “not provide an accurate summary of Dort itself. While acronyms work well as memory aids, in this case the acronym is misleading on key points within the canons themselves.” He notes that the phrase “total depravity” tends to communicate misanthropy rather than the Reformed doctrine of sin. He charges that the expressions “limited atonement’ and “irresistible grace” are also liable to serious misunderstanding.
'The greatest problem of the acronym TULIP is that it “perpetuates a basic misunderstanding about the Reformed tradition: that predestination is the center of Reformed theology from which all else flows.” Here Todd is echoing the criticism by Richard Muller and others against the “Central Dogma” theory of the history of doctrine, i.e., that the Lutheran “Central Dogma” was justification and the Reformed “Central Dogma” was predestination and that two distinct, parallel systems were deduced from these dogmas. This historiography has been thoroughly debunked but it continues to undergird the way many evangelicals and mainliners (and too many sideliners!) think about Reformed theology, piety, and practice.'
Solas explained and contrasted with TULIP here:
http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/the-5-solas-of-calvinism-for-non-calvinists/
Churchmouse (only a layperson!)
Pr. Greg,
You are right in your posts here. Calvin is confusing that is why it is a lost cause to defend him. Case in point - take any two Calvinists, one Paedobap and another Credobap, and both will find support from Calvin on their positions!
Why? It is because Calvin as you said separated the Means of Grace from the Holy Spirit - as a guarantee. For Calvin, it is a hit or miss proposition when it comes to the sacrament. For example in Baptism, only the elect is regenerated. Many lines of categorical deviations did he make from Lutheran doctrine which he himself once signed - the Augsburg Confession. For example he deviated on his understanding of faith, repentance, the nature of regeneration from Luther as well.
His idea of repentance for example was somewhat a compromise with Rome.
Take this example of a testimony I have heard - "I got saved looking at a beautiful sunset". In general both Arminians and Calvinists will accept this testimony of salvation. Lutherans will not!
Both Calvinists and Arminians think that Baptism and Supper are not related to JBFA! Yet for the Lutheran, they are absolutely JBFA in action.
I could have stayed in Calvinism and listened to the defense of people of how Calvin really did not believe in for example Limited Atonement etc etc. However, my reading of him is that he fails too low in precision compared to Luther who never swayed with regards to the Sacraments. Luther was thorough going and not double tongued on this issue.
LPC
continued...
UOJ at the end of the day is like Calvinism in principle. Here is my argument, take the case of Eph 2:8-9.
The passage reads: 8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
This passage is actually truncated in practice and in exposition by UOJ and Calvinists Dogmatics... to
8For by grace are ye saved it is the gift of God:
UOJ speaks this way because people have been saved before faith already.
Calvinists Dogmatics should not have a problem with this if one looks at their ordo saludis because for them regeneration comes prior to faith in logical order. For them regeneration is the seizing of the elect irresitably by the HS. To Calvinism, faith is actually an after thought since salvational decree is the main thing.
Does not that ring a bell? For in UOJ faith is an after thought too ie, one just has to believe he is justified already and so he is but if he does not believe, then he is not.
Lutheran exegetes in that passage point to FAITH as that gift whereby one is saved by grace.
I like to know if any Calvinist reading this could spot where I misrepresented general Calvinist expositions on this issue.
LPC
LPC,
Thank you for using the phrase "salvational decree". It sounds like it gets to the heart of the matter when we try to wrap our minds around Calvinism. I had one Crypto-Calvinist refer to "salvific knowledge". The context of his comment was what important for the believer to have. So, the emphasis was not faith received through grace. Working the logic backwards, it could be consistent with Calvinism. Perhaps, it is a circuitous path. Either way, we can see that it is the result of Calvin separating the work of the Holy Spirit from the Word.
rlshultz,
There is indeed circuitous reasoning which is quite fallacious if you ask me.
I worshiped in a Presby church for a while when I was looking for a faith I can agree with and confess. No matter how I turn the Westminister Confession around, I see in many places where I could not agree with it. Also I looked at what Calvinists did with Limited Atonement, mainly from John Owen. Even the Presby pastor where I attended church wrote his MTh thesis as critique of John Owen's pecuniary way at looking at the Atonement.
Calvinism equates Justification with the Atonement which the UOJ does as well except they come up with different conclusions. For Calvinism, the Atonement is Limited because Justification is. For UOJ Justification is universal because the Atonement is.
In Calvinism, you are the people Jesus died for if you believe, but in what? Since he did not die for all as their thesis says? So the answer is, if you believe Jesus died for you then he did and so you are one of the elect; believe that he did not, then so you are the non elect that Jesus did not die for. On surface, that seems logical but it is not accurate with Scripture even in experience. For a while no one believed there was a black swan but today you can see them in Australia; elderly people who did not believe in its existence did not negate the truth of its existence.
Notice how you are what you believe? Notice how circular this is?But this is the same as UOJ doctrine! In UOJ, believe you are already justified and so you are; don't believe you are justified and so you are not.
Both school of thoughts, do not distinguish the object of faith from the effects or benefits of faith. In JBFA, the object of faith is the Atonement, the benefit of that faith is Justification.
Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.
Romans 3:21-26 specially v 25 and 26. There the object of faith is the death of Jesus but that faith receives the benefit of that atonement, the free gift of justification.
LPC
Post a Comment