While in graduate school many years ago I subscribed briefly to the journal of the Mercersburg Society, which claims to carry on the legacy of the 19th-century Mercersburg movement. This movement was named for the city in Pennsylvania where the German Reformed Church in the United States had its seminary. Two of its faculty, John Williamson Nevin and church historian Philip Schaff, spearheaded an effort within that denomination to recover something of the catholic roots of the Reformed churches, emphasizing, among other things, the place of the institutional church and its means of grace in the lives of believers, the “mystical presence” of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, and the need for a prescribed liturgy rooted in the ancient patterns of worship.
The German-born Schaff is, of course, known for his multivolume History of the Christian Church and his three-volume Creeds of Christendom, a handy source book for even a nontheologian like me. Virtually all of his works can be read online at Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
Nevin was born and raised a Presbyterian, studied at Princeton Seminary and later affiliated with the German Reformed Church. He was early confronted by the revivalistic “New Measures” that had swept through American protestantism at the turn of the 19th century. He wrote his Anxious Bench as a critique of these measures and as an affirmation of the institutional church and its ordinary means of grace.
Contemporary evangelicals would do well to familiarize themselves with Mercersburg, a school that stands in contrast to the revivalist strain that has dominated the evangelical movement (at least in the US) for some 200 years. In so doing they might stand a chance of immunizing themselves against the various forms of evangelical Christianity revolving around strong personalities and the techniques of communication at the expense of the institutional church with its divinely-mandated task of preaching the Word and administering the sacraments.
November 8th, 2009 | 3:11 pm | #1
(As a fan of the Nevin and Schaff) I wish we could have churches that both allowed for charismatic expressions and had a liturgical, sacramental structure. There’s no logically necessary reason, as far as I can see, why these traditions have to be divided.
I’m a big fan of Richard Foster and Dallas Willard’s Renovaré materials, precisely because they intentionally try to foster balanced Christians and churches, which integrate all the strengths of all branches of Christendom.
My $.02
November 8th, 2009 | 9:39 pm | #2
This is one of the most difficult issues for me. I totally sympathize with the desire to have liturgy, a visible church, etc. I try do all I can for both ecumenism AND dogma and authority. The problem to me is Calvinism. I just cannot see how it can be viewed as a valid expression of Christianity. It is counter to everything prior to its inception. This does not mean I believe everything Calvin said was wrong. It means the theology of TULIP is antithetical to Christianity. It is, without question, theological determinism.
November 8th, 2009 | 10:22 pm | #3
odj: There’s no reasonable way to rule out Calvinism and not rule out Augustine and Thomas. I suppose some EO’s would be happy with that, but it’s not what most everyone else would recognize as ecumenical, ISTM.
Also, TULIP is only one form of Calvinism, descending historically from the “High Calvinists”. See here for a better kind (and for the breadth of the Reformed tradition): http://calvinandcalvinism.com/
November 8th, 2009 | 10:47 pm | #4
I’m no expert on Augustine, but I have heard that the seeds of Calvinism are found in him. I have no idea whether or not that is true. Certainly the Augustinian view of sin can be used by both Calvinists and non-Calvinists. The problem with Calvinism (and I have read Calvin where he says this) is that God is one who elects people for either Heaven or Hell. Some ARE picked for Heaven. Some ARE picked for Hell. How is that not heresy? I’m sure the response will be “Because it’s in the Bible.” That gets us nowhere.It’s an interpretation of the Bible. Calvinism cannot be found in Church history prior to Calvin (and I don’t mean that in the obvious sense, such as “Of course you cannot find Calvin before Calvin. I mean the view of particular redemption).
Calvinism makes God the author of evil. That’s totally inconsistent with God’s good and holy nature. If Calvinism is true, then the song “Amazing Grace” has no meaning (I know, it was written by a Calvinist). After all, “I was once was lost but now I’m found” cannot be accurate if indeed people are elected prior to having done anything good or bad, prior to being born, prior to even the creation of anything. The categories of “elect” and “non-elect” are static. there is no chance of changing camps. thus, if one is elect, one has always been in that category. Therefore, being lost is not an ontological reality. It is a subjective experience only.
November 9th, 2009 | 12:00 am | #5
Saying “it’s in the Bible” may get us nowhere, but so does “that’s just an interpretation of the Bible”. In fact moreso, since the former is at least trying to make an argument, while the latter is just making an appeal to human fallibility, which cuts against any judgment whatsoever. And for certain the kind of predestination found in Calvin is also found in Augustine and Thomas and their followers.
You’re confusing the categories of election/reprobation with those of saved/lost. The former refer to God’s eternal plan, the latter to that plan executed in history. People really pass from being lost into being saved, even though God planned eternally that they would do so. Obviously this is not an argument for Calvinism, but I think if you’re going to criticize it you need to accurately represent it first.
November 9th, 2009 | 7:32 am | #6
What John Newton meant by being lost and found was not being non-elect and then elect. That would be nonsense. What he meant is that he had not yet experienced regeneration and then he had. He was apart from God and then he was found in God. That’s completely orthogonal to the issue of whether God predestined him to salvation.
Anyone who insists that Calvinism makes God the author of sin has not read a single Calvinist on that issue. The only way you could end up thinking this is if you assume that Calvinists are adopting the hyper-Calvinist view that contemporary philosophers call hard determinism, when the reality is that Calvinists have typically been compatibilists, who recognize the distinction between primary and secondary causation from the medievals and affirm both biblical truths that God is absolutely sovereign even over matters of salvation and that human beings are morally responsible.
If you reject the second, then this criticism is fair. But Calvinists do not. Any who do have traditionally been called hyper-Calvinists and heretics.
November 9th, 2009 | 9:23 am | #7
“I once was lost but now am found.” Note that John Newton does not claim himself to have found salvation but to have been found by, he implies, God in Christ. One need not engage in speculation about God’s eternal decrees (which fall outside what God has chosen to reveal to us) to recognize that our salvation comes, not from ourselves in even a small part, but from the sacrifice and resurrection of God’s Son on our behalf. The mystery of the relationship between God’s electing grace and our act of repentance is precisely that: a mystery. Even our capacity to repent of our sins and believe comes from God himself.
November 9th, 2009 | 12:21 pm | #8
We can dress this up all we want, but in the end Calvinism says two things: One) people go to Heaven solely on the basis that God has ELECTED them; faith is only a fruit of that election. Two) people go to Hell because either God did not elect them for Heaven or because He directly elected them for Hell.
The above demonstrate that man does not have genuine libertarian free will. Thus, one’s eternal destiny is not about having chosen the right path but about being in a category. Being in either category is not about works, faith, repentance, etc. Faith, works, repentance, etc. are merely the fruits of election.
“You’re confusing the categories of election/reprobation with those of saved/lost.”
Are the elect eventually “saved”? A Calvinist would say yes. Can an elect person ever be ultimately lost? A Calvinist would say no. Are those who are ultimately lost also the exact same group who are in the category of “reprobate”? A Calvinist must say yes. I don’t believe I have played any word games.
In the Calvinist schema, only an elect person can be saved. Therefore, salvation is only for the elect. The question is, “From what are they saved?”. One cannot say from Hell since it is fact that on the basis of divine decree no elect person can go to Hell. Therefore, the only thing an elect person can be saved from is the subjective experience of being lost, but not the actual reality since there was never a possibility of being lost given the person’s static position of being one of the elect.
November 9th, 2009 | 12:49 pm | #9
“The above demonstrate that man does not have genuine libertarian free will. ”
You’ve done nothing to establish belief in libertarian free will is essential to orthodoxy. Apart from whether Calvinism is true or not, you haven’t done the argumentative work to put it in the category of a damnable error rather than just an error.
“The question is, “From what are they saved?”. One cannot say from Hell since it is fact that on the basis of divine decree no elect person can go to Hell.”
By the decree of God they are prevented from ending up in hell. Ontologically speaking they were lost, and if God had not intervened they would have continued that path to its final destination.
And again, you are narrowing the Reformed field (or rather assuming that the narrowing that has gone on is the only form Calvinism can exist in, which is relevant to ecumenical discussion). Some early Reformed Anglicans believed in temporary justification/salvation (and thus two kinds of election, like Augustine: election to grace and election to glory; see: http://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2007/12/14/the-view-of-the-english-delegates-at-dort-regarding-apostasy-and-the-loss-of-justification/). The Synod of Dordt deliberately refused to condemn this position because Augustine, the Lutherans, and some Reformed divines held to it.
“the actual reality” of being lost *just is* the subjective ontological state of being separated from God. They are certainly saved from that. Obviously being lost, in the Bible, does not imply that the lost are necessarily going to hell.
November 9th, 2009 | 1:08 pm | #10
ODJ: Maybe I could put my response a different way:
Gal 1:13-16 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. ***But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace,*** was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;
Was Paul ever “lost” by your definition?
November 9th, 2009 | 1:32 pm | #11
Yes, Paul was lost in sin.
“…if God had not intervened they would have continued that path to its final destination.”
The above statement contradicts the concept of election. People are elected prior to even existing, i.e. “the eternal decrees of God.” They are not saved from Hell if Hell by definition is even a possibility. If the elect CANNOT go to Hell, then they are not saved from it.
As for establishing orthodoxy with regard to free will, you are right, I have not done that. However, the Church has done that. The Living Tradition of the Church has consistently found novel concepts of man not having genuine free will to be inconsistent with the message of the Gospel.
Simply because God is sovereign does not mean He decides man’s ultimate fate. Who can blame God for Hell?
November 9th, 2009 | 1:43 pm | #12
I would prefer to know that my salvation is in the hands of God than in my own hands, sinner that I am.
November 9th, 2009 | 1:54 pm | #13
“The Living Tradition of the Church has consistently found novel concepts of man not having genuine free will to be inconsistent with the message of the Gospel.”
OK, so before the ecumenical discussion even begins, it is over. EO doctrine is the standard of essential doctrine.
“Yes, Paul was lost in sin.”
Yet, he was also clearly “set apart from birth” to be saved.
“They are not saved from Hell if Hell by definition is even a possibility. If the elect CANNOT go to Hell, then they are not saved from it.”
Things can be possible and impossible in various ways. If you just consider their nature/condition, lost people will end up in hell. It is impossible, again just considering the powers of their fallen nature excluding grace, for lost people to end up in God’s eternal presence. However, when you factor in the possibility of God’s gracious intervention, spending eternity with God is a possibility for the lost. It depends on the perspective you take.
November 9th, 2009 | 1:58 pm | #14
Also “The above statement contradicts the concept of election” is not correct. God’s election is his eternal plan about individuals. That is not the same thing as his action to regenerate a certain person at a certain moment.
November 9th, 2009 | 4:31 pm | #15
Well, of course Calvinists don’t think we have libertarian free will. Duh. That doesn’t mean they deny compatibilist free will, though, which is all I was claiming they hold to.
In the ultimate big picture, you’re not going to find reprobate people getting saved and elect people getting damned. In that sense, it’s not possible for someone to be predestined to one thing but end up in the other.
Nevertheless, I happen to agree with most Calvinists that the way people ordinarily use terms such as ‘possible’ or ‘ability’ in a more restricted way. There’s a passage in Jonathan Edwards’ On the Free Choice of the Will that explicitly affirms a compatibilist understanding of such terms and thus defends the use of expressions like “the ability to do otherwise” despite his Calvinist metaphysic, because what those terms usually mean is just whether you have anything opposing what you choose according to your own desires. We don’t usually require some kind of metaphysical halo around our choice such that we can resist the very sovereign will of God to be legitimate in using ability-language or possibility language, according to the standard Calvinist view (and there’s no arguing that Edwards is no Calvinist to try to justify the claim that Calvinists are all hard determinists).
November 9th, 2009 | 5:45 pm | #16
God’s will and man’s will are not mutually exclusive. God is free; man is free. Both make choices. The fact that God is all-powerful does not mean man cannot have genuine free will. If beings can do only what they are internally wired to do, then I do not see how such a being can be considered a true person.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact