10 – The Contrast
Between Calvinism & Arminianism – The Providence of God – Predestination
(Part Four)
The Providence of God – Predestination (Part
Four)
8. Predestination in Lutheranism: Luther and the Lutheran church at first
shared the doctrine of predestination and election, Luther in his treatment of
free will reproducing the Augustinian form of the doctrine in a strict
manner. The predestination of Luther and
Melanchthon proceeded, not from their conception of God, but rather from the
doctrine of sin and grace. Melanchthon
was less disposed than Luther to press the doctrine of absolute predestination,
and, in his “synergistic” tendencies, laid increasing stress on human freedom,
until he at length rejected the doctrine of absolute predestination. He was blamed by strict Lutheranism for
yielding too much to Pelagianism. But
the Lutheran “Formula of Concord,” prepared in 1577, was not a very logical and
consistent presentation of the case, for, opposed at points to Augustinianism,
it fell back, in the end, on election in the Augustinian spirit. Or, to put the matter in another form, the
“Formula of Concord” may be said to have held with Augustinianism, but to have
differed by maintaining a Universal call along with a particular election, and
it rejected the decree of reprobation.
Later Lutheranism adopted a moderate form of doctrine, wherein
predestination was often identified with prescience. But Lutheranism ought not, in strictness, to
be identified, as is sometimes done, with the Arminian theory. The Lutheran doctrine of predestination was
further developed by Schleiermacher, who emphasized the efficiency of grace,
while adopting its universality in the Lutheran sense.
9. The Arminian View: Arminianism, in its earliest assertion,
maintained simply universal grace and conditional election. But in the five articles it formulated its
opposition to Calvinism, though Arminius does not appear to have been more than
moderately Calvinistic, as we would account it.
Arminius gave grace supreme place, and made it, when welcome, pass into
saving grace. He made election depend on
faith, which latter is the condition of universal grace. Arminiansim rejects the so-called common
grace of the predestination theory, and its effectual grace for the elect, for,
in the Arminian view, saving grace can in no case be missed save by resistance
or neglect. Arminianism holds the
awakened human will to cooperate with divine grace, in such wise that it rests
with the human will whether the divine grace is really accepted or
rejected. It is the claim of Arminianism
to do more justice than Calvinism to faith and repentance, as conditions of
personal salvation, and precedent thereto.
The Arminian standpoint admits the foreknowledge of God, but denies
foreordination, though it must seem difficult to reduce the foreknowledge of
God to such a bare knowledge of the future.
But it is, of course, freely to be granted that foreknowledge in God,
simply as knowledge, does not carry any causal energy or efficiency with
it. But it may still be doubted whether
the prescience of God can be nothing more fruitful and creative than such a
position implies, and whether its relation to predestination may not be a more
necessary one. Theory seems to fail of
giving satisfactory account of the divine activity in its relation to human
activity, in the sphere of grace. The
shortcoming of Arminianism lies in its failing also to do justice to the spirit
of Scripture with its emphatic assertion of the doctrine of God as the one
absolute will, which, in its expression, is the sole originative power of the
universe. (International Standard Bible
Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright © 1996 by Biblesoft)
Next we’ll look at “The Providence of God –
Election”
Doug
Comments