Presbyterian blogger Donovan praises some Lutheran doctrines and criticizes others. He writes, “. . . though I love the first part of the section on Election (and think that the best Calvinist practice is in line with its cautions), find the second part (which teaches the doctrine of resistable grace) to be in conflict with the FoC’s own teaching earlier on, in the section on Free Will. And not in a paradoxical sort of way either, just an out-and-out contradictory sort of way.”
You don’t have to thank me for bringing this to your attention. I blog because I care.
My own impression, arising from some experience in a Presbyterian church, is that the Calvinists tend to sacrifice some of the mysteries and paradoxes in scripture, in order to preserve a coherent doctrinal framework. Lutherans are more comfortable saying, “Well, there seem to be scripture passages that support both sides of this question, so we’re going to have to affirm both things, even if they appear to contradict one another.”
I can understand that type of argument. There are plenty of theologians and would-be scholars who have strained at the deep meaning in a passage only to cause problems with other passages. I think many of us are uncomfortable with mysteries in God’s Word, so some of us ignore the plain meaning of some verses and imagine the meaning of others.
I think Lars is right. The Lutherans affirm something illogical: if anyone is saved it is because of something in God, His unmerited, elective favor and love; if anyone is damned it is because of something in himself, his sin.
Dale, Calvinists affirm the same thing. That would be good, old-fashioned paradox. I wonder if Lars and I should point out a few doctrines on which we differ–we being Lutherans and Calvinists.
I don’t know, Phil. When I talked about the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty as explained to me by a Presbyterian pastor I knew in Florida, you said that wasn’t the Presb. view. So maybe I don’t understand where we differ.
Was that a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) pastor? Not that it really matters, he could still be wrong. *grin* I suppose if we took matters to task, we would have to define our postions.
Part of my position is the traditional TULIP.
1. Total Depravity of Man
2. Unconditional Election by God
3. Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption
4. Irresistible Grace
5. Perseverance of the Saints
That’s straight Calvinism as I understand it.
Yes, he was PCA.
And now that I face the TULIP again… my enthusiasm for this discussion (never great) rapidly diminishes.
Yeah, well, I didn’t think we’d really go round about it anyway. That’s not what we do here.
Phil, I don’t want to get into a debate about the matter, but I understood Calvinism to say that some are elected for damnation. There’s a text in one of St. Peter’s epistles that gets cited to support this, and passages in Romans. Lutherans, as I understand it, believe election is only and entirely a Gospel matter. It does not come into the picture when one is dicussing Judgment. But for Calvinists it does (as I understand it).
I’m not familiar with the Peter verses, but I know Paul’s argument in Romans, and you’re right. Calvinists do present it that way Paul states that if God makes some vessels for wrath, then who are men to question him. I prefer to think of this in terms of Ephesians discussion of election. It isn’t that some are selected for damnation; it’s that some of selected for salvation, leaving the rest for the judgement every would receive without God’s intervening salvation.
I don’t think Calvinism necessarily entails believed that people are elected for wrath. The decrees are not parallel – some are elected to life “in Christ,” others are “passed by” (as the WCF says).