O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!
This has often been a verse used to argue against a Calvinistic understanding of limited atonement and reprobation. Jesus here seems to be saying that he wanted to gather these men to themselves though they, through their own disobedience, rejected his offer.
Unfortunately, this argument has been weakened by Dave Hunt and the like. Arminians have often misquoted this verse saying, "how often I would have gathered you together". This would change the meaning of the verse so that Jesus is telling those whom he is speaking to that he wanted to gather them together.
However, despite this verse being often misquoted, I still think it can be used to argue for a universal saving will in God. Jesus is here talking to the leaders of Jerusalem rather than Jerusalem itself. He is saying that he wanted to gather the people of Jerusalem together, but their corrupt leaders would not allow him.
James White and others have argued that because Jesus is talking to the leaders rather than the people of Jerusalem themselves, this verse cannot be used to support a universal saving will in God. I, however, disagree. The fact still remains that Christ wept because these people were not saved, and longed for them to be saved. The fact that he is talking to their leaders rather than the people themselves makes no difference.
There is a clear instance in this verse of Christ stating that he longed to save those who were not saved, and even wept at their lack of salvation. Though God has from eternity elected specific men unto salvation, he has a will to truly offer salvation to all.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Practical implications of limited atonement
I at one time believed in the Calvinistic doctrine of limited atonement. This doctrine states that Christ died solely for his elect. Christ offers the gospel to all yet did not actually die for all. I have struggled through this doctrine for many years now. Despite the fact that this doctrine is exegetically unfounded, it has many negative practical implications.
First of all, with this doctrine one can never be sure if Christ actually died for him. I, for example, have doubted my election at times. How do I know if I am elect? And if I am not elect then Christ did not die for me! Ultimately then, the doctrine pushes me into looking at the eternal decree of God for my assurance. How can I tell if I am among the elect? The answer usually given is that I know by my faith. However, there is true and false faith, and I must test myself to see whether or not my faith is real faith. According to a reformed exegesis of Hebrews chapter 6, a false faith can still cause one to repent, taste the heavenly gift and share in the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, I must look at the quality of my works and see if they are Spirit wrought. My assurance is in my inner transformation, not in the gospel. There is simply no way around it; I ultimately never know if Christ actually died for me except for the amount and quality of my good works. I know that when I look inward, as when reading Jonathan Edwards' Religious Affections, I see my sin and simply doubt my faith.
A Calvinist will object that they believe in a "free offer of the gospel" because they are not hyper Calvinists. Thus, I can trust in this universal offer. However, I must ask: Is this really a universal offer? How can God offer something he has not actually paid for? Can he really tell me I can accept the death of Christ while it in fact has never been paid for me?
The other hard issue to deal with is in Evangelism. As a Calvinist I could not freely offer the death of Christ to unbelievers. I would make my way around it by saying "believe on Christ's death because he has died for believers". While this is true I could never look at an unbeliever and say "trust in Christ's work accomplished on your behalf!" If I were to see my brother in despair I cannot look them in the eyes and say "do not despair! His righteousness is yours! He has fulfilled the law and its curse on your behalf!" However, as an adherent of the Book of Concord I can proclaim to all men "believe upon Christ who has paid the penalty for your sin!"
First of all, with this doctrine one can never be sure if Christ actually died for him. I, for example, have doubted my election at times. How do I know if I am elect? And if I am not elect then Christ did not die for me! Ultimately then, the doctrine pushes me into looking at the eternal decree of God for my assurance. How can I tell if I am among the elect? The answer usually given is that I know by my faith. However, there is true and false faith, and I must test myself to see whether or not my faith is real faith. According to a reformed exegesis of Hebrews chapter 6, a false faith can still cause one to repent, taste the heavenly gift and share in the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, I must look at the quality of my works and see if they are Spirit wrought. My assurance is in my inner transformation, not in the gospel. There is simply no way around it; I ultimately never know if Christ actually died for me except for the amount and quality of my good works. I know that when I look inward, as when reading Jonathan Edwards' Religious Affections, I see my sin and simply doubt my faith.
A Calvinist will object that they believe in a "free offer of the gospel" because they are not hyper Calvinists. Thus, I can trust in this universal offer. However, I must ask: Is this really a universal offer? How can God offer something he has not actually paid for? Can he really tell me I can accept the death of Christ while it in fact has never been paid for me?
The other hard issue to deal with is in Evangelism. As a Calvinist I could not freely offer the death of Christ to unbelievers. I would make my way around it by saying "believe on Christ's death because he has died for believers". While this is true I could never look at an unbeliever and say "trust in Christ's work accomplished on your behalf!" If I were to see my brother in despair I cannot look them in the eyes and say "do not despair! His righteousness is yours! He has fulfilled the law and its curse on your behalf!" However, as an adherent of the Book of Concord I can proclaim to all men "believe upon Christ who has paid the penalty for your sin!"
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
1 John 2:2 and limited atonement
1 John 2:2 is one of the foundational texts which speaks against a Calvinistic understanding of the atonement. "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." The reformed position is that Christ's death was only for the elect, with the possible exception of common grace being bought through the cross.
So how does the Calvinist respond to a text like this? It is not as though reformed commentators have ignored this verse, but they attempt to fit it into their theology. First they ask, "what does world mean?" One discovers that "world" can have multiple meanings. We do this today even. For example we talk about "the world, the flesh and the devil." We also talk about the world as all ethnicities. We could speak of the world as the planet earth itself. In the same way, the Biblical writers used kosmos in several different ways.
I do agree with reformed commentators in this. Words certainly can have multiple meanings. However, we must look at the context of the passage, how the author uses this word himself, and take the most obvious meaning of the text unless there is substantial evidence to interpret it differently from the plain meaning. So what could the author here mean when he says that Christ died for the sins of the whole world? Reformed will take this text, as well as several others and state that "the whole world" refers to people of all nations, though only the elect of all nations, rather than simply Jews. They go to a similar instance in John's gospel. In John 3:16, Jesus is talking to a Jew explaining that salvation is for the whole world, not simply for the Jews. Regardless of whether or not I agree with this interpretation of John 3:16, it is an understandable interpretation in context. However, John 2:2 is a different text, spoken to a different audience and does not have the same meaning.
Yes, Jesus when speaking to ethnocentric Jews talked about the universality of salvation its' primary implication is that salvation is for all nations (though this certainly does not preclude the possibility that this universality refers to every individual in these nations as there is no implication in the context that he only means the elect of these nations).
However, there is no reason to believe that 1 John is written to ethnocentric Jews. This epistle is among the last to be written in the New Testament. At the end of the first century, surely the problem of Jew-Gentile relations had been dealt with. After all, the council of Jerusalem was 40 years before this and Paul's epistles had been widely circulated for some time now. Thus, one is hard pressed to find this meaning in the text. The only other meaning of the text must be that he died for all men. The other meanings of kosmos would make no sense in this passage. John is certainly not saying that he died for the sins of the earth or the soil.
In this same chapter, John uses the word kosmos several times. "Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever." (1 John 1:15-17) John uses the term "world" in this epistle to refer to sinful humanity and the corruption of the present age. Thus, what John seems to be saying in the beginning of this epistle is "Christ died not only for our sins (the sins of believers) but also for the sins of the world (unbelieving mankind)." Who is the "our" being spoken of here? This is a catholic epistle, not written to specifically Jewish believers or even one specific church, thus the "our" must refer to Christians in general. Therefor, the "world" is someone other than the "us" being referred to. Thus, if the "us" is the church, the "world" must be those outside of the church.
If one is to take the most obvious meaning of this text, he must admit that Christ died for every man. We must not force our preconceived theological views upon God's word. Let God speak for himself.
So how does the Calvinist respond to a text like this? It is not as though reformed commentators have ignored this verse, but they attempt to fit it into their theology. First they ask, "what does world mean?" One discovers that "world" can have multiple meanings. We do this today even. For example we talk about "the world, the flesh and the devil." We also talk about the world as all ethnicities. We could speak of the world as the planet earth itself. In the same way, the Biblical writers used kosmos in several different ways.
I do agree with reformed commentators in this. Words certainly can have multiple meanings. However, we must look at the context of the passage, how the author uses this word himself, and take the most obvious meaning of the text unless there is substantial evidence to interpret it differently from the plain meaning. So what could the author here mean when he says that Christ died for the sins of the whole world? Reformed will take this text, as well as several others and state that "the whole world" refers to people of all nations, though only the elect of all nations, rather than simply Jews. They go to a similar instance in John's gospel. In John 3:16, Jesus is talking to a Jew explaining that salvation is for the whole world, not simply for the Jews. Regardless of whether or not I agree with this interpretation of John 3:16, it is an understandable interpretation in context. However, John 2:2 is a different text, spoken to a different audience and does not have the same meaning.
Yes, Jesus when speaking to ethnocentric Jews talked about the universality of salvation its' primary implication is that salvation is for all nations (though this certainly does not preclude the possibility that this universality refers to every individual in these nations as there is no implication in the context that he only means the elect of these nations).
However, there is no reason to believe that 1 John is written to ethnocentric Jews. This epistle is among the last to be written in the New Testament. At the end of the first century, surely the problem of Jew-Gentile relations had been dealt with. After all, the council of Jerusalem was 40 years before this and Paul's epistles had been widely circulated for some time now. Thus, one is hard pressed to find this meaning in the text. The only other meaning of the text must be that he died for all men. The other meanings of kosmos would make no sense in this passage. John is certainly not saying that he died for the sins of the earth or the soil.
In this same chapter, John uses the word kosmos several times. "Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever." (1 John 1:15-17) John uses the term "world" in this epistle to refer to sinful humanity and the corruption of the present age. Thus, what John seems to be saying in the beginning of this epistle is "Christ died not only for our sins (the sins of believers) but also for the sins of the world (unbelieving mankind)." Who is the "our" being spoken of here? This is a catholic epistle, not written to specifically Jewish believers or even one specific church, thus the "our" must refer to Christians in general. Therefor, the "world" is someone other than the "us" being referred to. Thus, if the "us" is the church, the "world" must be those outside of the church.
If one is to take the most obvious meaning of this text, he must admit that Christ died for every man. We must not force our preconceived theological views upon God's word. Let God speak for himself.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Can Calvinists really be concidered Augustinian?
Calvinists often claim that their theology is not something which arose through the writings of John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli. To support this thesis, they usually cite St. Augustine, the doctor of grace. Here are five reasons why I do not believe Calvinists are truly Augustinian in their soteriology. Though they can certainly cite him as an influence, the theology of Concord is much closer to that of Augustine and his early predecessors.
1. Augustine saw baptismal regeneration as essential for his soteriology. In some ways, baptism is the foundation of Augustine's theology. Read for example, his treatise On the Forgiveness of Sins and Baptism. His entire defense of original sin was through its remedy in baptism. Within his anti-Pelagian writings, Augustine constantly refers back to baptism as a primary means God uses to give his free grace, and free man's will. There is no immediate operation of the Spirit in Augustine. The Spirit works through word and Sacrament. The Lutheran church from the beginning held to baptism as the means which God uses to give grace and overcome our Adamic state.
2. Augustine denied the "P" of Tulip. In his treatise On the Perseverance of the Saints, Augustine defends the perseverance of the elect, but defends at length that those who are truly regenerated and saved can fall away from the faith. This both Luther and the Lutheran Confessions confessed.
3. Augustine did not believe in limited atonement- at least not in the Calvinistic sense of the term. Yes, there are times when he talks about the particularity of the death of Christ. However, it would not do justice to Augustine to say that he only talked of particular grace. He believed that God gave true grace to non-elect men. His discussions of baptism and the means of grace make it clear that there is universal grace. This is more than mere common grace which only restricts the wicked actions of men and gives some outward blessings men do not deserve. None elect men are truly forgiven through baptism, though they will eventually reject it.
4. The Augustinian definition of double predestination, at least as explained by later writers, is not Calvinistic. Augustine himself did not focus much on the double aspect of predestination and explain what the predestination of the reprobate means. However, the later Augustinian tradition as developed by Prosper of Aquitaine, Fulgentius of Ruspe, and ultimately the Council of Orange, when defining double predestination always made the point that when men are predestined unto death, they are only predestined based upon foreseen future demerits. This goes against not only a supralapsarian view, but also an infralapsarian view which would argue that the reprobate were predestined in view of Adam's sin but not necessarily their own. The Augustinian tradition would thus argue that is man is saved it is unconditional, though if he is damned it is conditional.
5. Augustine started his discussions of predestination from Biblical anthropology and the greatness of God's grace to fallen sinners. Calvinism has often, though not always, discussed predestination under the realm of God's sovereignty. This is secondary for Augustine, and for the Lutheran Confessions.
1. Augustine saw baptismal regeneration as essential for his soteriology. In some ways, baptism is the foundation of Augustine's theology. Read for example, his treatise On the Forgiveness of Sins and Baptism. His entire defense of original sin was through its remedy in baptism. Within his anti-Pelagian writings, Augustine constantly refers back to baptism as a primary means God uses to give his free grace, and free man's will. There is no immediate operation of the Spirit in Augustine. The Spirit works through word and Sacrament. The Lutheran church from the beginning held to baptism as the means which God uses to give grace and overcome our Adamic state.
2. Augustine denied the "P" of Tulip. In his treatise On the Perseverance of the Saints, Augustine defends the perseverance of the elect, but defends at length that those who are truly regenerated and saved can fall away from the faith. This both Luther and the Lutheran Confessions confessed.
3. Augustine did not believe in limited atonement- at least not in the Calvinistic sense of the term. Yes, there are times when he talks about the particularity of the death of Christ. However, it would not do justice to Augustine to say that he only talked of particular grace. He believed that God gave true grace to non-elect men. His discussions of baptism and the means of grace make it clear that there is universal grace. This is more than mere common grace which only restricts the wicked actions of men and gives some outward blessings men do not deserve. None elect men are truly forgiven through baptism, though they will eventually reject it.
4. The Augustinian definition of double predestination, at least as explained by later writers, is not Calvinistic. Augustine himself did not focus much on the double aspect of predestination and explain what the predestination of the reprobate means. However, the later Augustinian tradition as developed by Prosper of Aquitaine, Fulgentius of Ruspe, and ultimately the Council of Orange, when defining double predestination always made the point that when men are predestined unto death, they are only predestined based upon foreseen future demerits. This goes against not only a supralapsarian view, but also an infralapsarian view which would argue that the reprobate were predestined in view of Adam's sin but not necessarily their own. The Augustinian tradition would thus argue that is man is saved it is unconditional, though if he is damned it is conditional.
5. Augustine started his discussions of predestination from Biblical anthropology and the greatness of God's grace to fallen sinners. Calvinism has often, though not always, discussed predestination under the realm of God's sovereignty. This is secondary for Augustine, and for the Lutheran Confessions.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Rereading Pieper Volume I. Part 2
It is interesting that Lutheran dogmaticians use different categories for classifying the attributes of God than do the reformed. The reformed typically discuss the communicable and incommunicable attributes of God. Pieper however classifies them as positive and negative attributes. Those attributes which are positive things which we have in part such as love, holiness, justice etc. Negative attributes are those attributes of God which are known negatively, or as opposed to our own attributes. These would include omnipresence, omniscience, etc. Pieper is correct in saying that how one classifies these attributes is not particularly important. Theologians are free to use different categories to discuss biblical truths.
Pieper then discusses the doctrine of creation. He opposes the doctrine of Augustine and other fathers who claim that the six days are a mere literary device to describe God's creation. He argues that those Christians who subscribe to evolutionary theories are putting the truths of science over God's word. Here is where I think Pieper goes too far. Science can find legitimate truths. When science finds something which disagrees with scripture, either the result of science is wrong, or one's interpretation of scripture is wrong. Pieper does not seem to be able to admit that perhaps his interpretation of scripture is wrong. He goes so far as to argue for geocentrism in a footnote. (pg. 473) I do not buy into evolutionary theory, however, I do not have a problem seeing the days as a literary device. The problem is never with scripture but with our interpretation of it. We must admit our interpretation as fallible.
Pieper's section on divine providence admits that God's providence extends over all things that happen. He deals with the problem of God's sovereignty over sin in a particularly good way. He states that God is sovereign over man's sinful actions so far as they are actions, but not so far as they are sin. This protects God from causing sin, but preserves his sovereignty. Pieper at this point leaves it to mystery.
Pieper then discusses the doctrine of creation. He opposes the doctrine of Augustine and other fathers who claim that the six days are a mere literary device to describe God's creation. He argues that those Christians who subscribe to evolutionary theories are putting the truths of science over God's word. Here is where I think Pieper goes too far. Science can find legitimate truths. When science finds something which disagrees with scripture, either the result of science is wrong, or one's interpretation of scripture is wrong. Pieper does not seem to be able to admit that perhaps his interpretation of scripture is wrong. He goes so far as to argue for geocentrism in a footnote. (pg. 473) I do not buy into evolutionary theory, however, I do not have a problem seeing the days as a literary device. The problem is never with scripture but with our interpretation of it. We must admit our interpretation as fallible.
Pieper's section on divine providence admits that God's providence extends over all things that happen. He deals with the problem of God's sovereignty over sin in a particularly good way. He states that God is sovereign over man's sinful actions so far as they are actions, but not so far as they are sin. This protects God from causing sin, but preserves his sovereignty. Pieper at this point leaves it to mystery.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Rereading Pieper Volume I.
When I first read through F. Piper's Christian Dogmatics, I was a Calvinist. By the time I had finished volume III, I was convinced that there was simply no exegetical foundation for many core Presbyterian beliefs, primarily in reference to the two natures of Christ and the sacraments. These volumes were one of the most important factors in my decision to join Lutheranism. I decided to reread them now as a convinced Lutheran. I am going to put up reviews of each of the three volumes, as I have no noticed several things I both agree and disagree with as a Confessional Lutheran within his Dogmatics.
Pieper spends a considerably large portion of the first volume on Prolegomena. The main point he gets across is that scripture itself is the sole authority of all theology. He argues against 19th century liberalism, which was prominent during his writing. Neither reason nor experience is above scripture. He sees both the reformed and Roman churches as flawed in similar ways. The Roman church places it's own tradition and magisterium above scripture. The reformed church, though they profess sola scriptura, too often make doctrinal formulations based upon logical deduction. For example; some men are saved and not others. Those that are saved are only converted by God's own choosing, therefore, those who are damned are only damned due to God's own choosing. When first reading this, it made me think about two books in particular which have been staples of Reformed theology for years: John Owen's the Death of Death, and Jonathan Edwards' the Freedom of the Will. Ultimately, much of Reformed theology, specifically the doctrine of limited atonement is not based upon clear exegesis but logical argumentation. When I was reading through Hodge's systematics (at the same time I read Pieper) I noticed that his whole argument against the Lutheran doctrine of the communication of attributes of Christ's divine to his human nature, was based on the fact that he had decided that to be human means to be present in one place at one time.
The next section in the book is on Holy Scripture. Here he defends the older orthodox theologians who had been attacked so often by 19th century liberalism. He spends much of his time defending the fact that Luther also taught Biblical inerrancy. Pieper discusses the Homoleugomena, Antileugomena distinction taught by the Lutheran fathers. This distinction comes Eusebius. The books of the New Testament are categorized by acceptance in the early church. Some books have been universally recognized: the 13 epistles of Paul, the four gospels, Acts, 1 John and 1 Peter. There was doubt in some areas about: 2, 3 John, Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation. The first books listed are primary. All doctrine should be decided chiefly by books about which there is no doubt. The Antileugomena have been accepted as inspired by most in the Lutheran church (though there have been times when one has doubted one of these books), however they take a secondary place in establishing doctrine. I think that this distinction is valid, however, it seems that because God has led his church with these specific books for most of the 2000 years of church history, it would be acceptable to get rid of this distinction. It can be confusing and unhelpful.
The next section of volume I is on the doctrine of God. He begins this section by discussing the natural knowledge of God. He believes that man knows the existence of God a priori, through the conscience, and a posteriori, through creation. This knowledge however is never a saving knowledge which comes only through the gospel. Pieper then moves on to discuss the trinity. He defends the Nicene and Athanasian creeds. All who deny this are heretics. It is refreshing to read Pieper's blatant refusal to claim those who deny the trinity as Christians. In our day of relativism, barely anyone is willing to affirm that knowing even an essential truth like the Trinity is necessary for salvation. This is one of the highlights of the Dogmatics. Peiper's theology is thoroughly trinitarian. He defines concisely and clearly the false explanations of, and denials of the trinity which have arisen through out history and refutes them with scripture.
One thing which I found particularly interesting is the Pieper denies Augustine's explanation of the trinity. Augustine explains the trinity by describing the Father as love. The Father, as love, must have an object of love, thus the Son is eternally begotten as that object. The love itself between the two persons is the Holy Spirit. This always seemed too speculative to me, though I love Augustine. I agree with Pieper that this is not clearly taught in scripture. He also denies Melancthon's idea that God the father, when reflecting upon Himself creates in reality what he is reflecting upon. This is how the son is eternally begotten.
Pieper also has a very good section on the trinity in the Old Testament. He says, contrary to modern theology, that one can produce the doctrine of the trinity from the Old Testament, particularly in reference to the angel of the Lord and the Spirit at creation.
Pieper spends a considerably large portion of the first volume on Prolegomena. The main point he gets across is that scripture itself is the sole authority of all theology. He argues against 19th century liberalism, which was prominent during his writing. Neither reason nor experience is above scripture. He sees both the reformed and Roman churches as flawed in similar ways. The Roman church places it's own tradition and magisterium above scripture. The reformed church, though they profess sola scriptura, too often make doctrinal formulations based upon logical deduction. For example; some men are saved and not others. Those that are saved are only converted by God's own choosing, therefore, those who are damned are only damned due to God's own choosing. When first reading this, it made me think about two books in particular which have been staples of Reformed theology for years: John Owen's the Death of Death, and Jonathan Edwards' the Freedom of the Will. Ultimately, much of Reformed theology, specifically the doctrine of limited atonement is not based upon clear exegesis but logical argumentation. When I was reading through Hodge's systematics (at the same time I read Pieper) I noticed that his whole argument against the Lutheran doctrine of the communication of attributes of Christ's divine to his human nature, was based on the fact that he had decided that to be human means to be present in one place at one time.
The next section in the book is on Holy Scripture. Here he defends the older orthodox theologians who had been attacked so often by 19th century liberalism. He spends much of his time defending the fact that Luther also taught Biblical inerrancy. Pieper discusses the Homoleugomena, Antileugomena distinction taught by the Lutheran fathers. This distinction comes Eusebius. The books of the New Testament are categorized by acceptance in the early church. Some books have been universally recognized: the 13 epistles of Paul, the four gospels, Acts, 1 John and 1 Peter. There was doubt in some areas about: 2, 3 John, Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation. The first books listed are primary. All doctrine should be decided chiefly by books about which there is no doubt. The Antileugomena have been accepted as inspired by most in the Lutheran church (though there have been times when one has doubted one of these books), however they take a secondary place in establishing doctrine. I think that this distinction is valid, however, it seems that because God has led his church with these specific books for most of the 2000 years of church history, it would be acceptable to get rid of this distinction. It can be confusing and unhelpful.
The next section of volume I is on the doctrine of God. He begins this section by discussing the natural knowledge of God. He believes that man knows the existence of God a priori, through the conscience, and a posteriori, through creation. This knowledge however is never a saving knowledge which comes only through the gospel. Pieper then moves on to discuss the trinity. He defends the Nicene and Athanasian creeds. All who deny this are heretics. It is refreshing to read Pieper's blatant refusal to claim those who deny the trinity as Christians. In our day of relativism, barely anyone is willing to affirm that knowing even an essential truth like the Trinity is necessary for salvation. This is one of the highlights of the Dogmatics. Peiper's theology is thoroughly trinitarian. He defines concisely and clearly the false explanations of, and denials of the trinity which have arisen through out history and refutes them with scripture.
One thing which I found particularly interesting is the Pieper denies Augustine's explanation of the trinity. Augustine explains the trinity by describing the Father as love. The Father, as love, must have an object of love, thus the Son is eternally begotten as that object. The love itself between the two persons is the Holy Spirit. This always seemed too speculative to me, though I love Augustine. I agree with Pieper that this is not clearly taught in scripture. He also denies Melancthon's idea that God the father, when reflecting upon Himself creates in reality what he is reflecting upon. This is how the son is eternally begotten.
Pieper also has a very good section on the trinity in the Old Testament. He says, contrary to modern theology, that one can produce the doctrine of the trinity from the Old Testament, particularly in reference to the angel of the Lord and the Spirit at creation.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Luther on the atonement
I have heard it argued by some reformed Christians, including Timothy George, that Luther taught limited atonement. Clearly, in his later writings he teaches a universal atonement. However, in his lectures on Romans in 1515 he seems to teach that the atonement was only for the elect. While I had previously thought this was the only time Luther made such a statement, I have found something in an early sermon which teaches something similar. In an exposition of Hebrews chapter 1 Luther states that Christ "has poured out his love for us and made purification for our sins. The apostle says "our," "our sins;" not his own sin, not the sins of unbelievers. Purification is not for, and cannot profit, him who does not believe." (Complete Sermons of Martin Luther volume 3.1 pg. 180) Unfortunately, this sermon does not have a date in the volume, though it his clear in his discussion of the two natures of Christ that he has not yet engaged the issue of the communication of attributes of the divine to the human nature. Thus, it is one of his earlier sermons. It seems that Luther did hold to a limited atonement at the beginning of his reformational career. He did eventually abandon this and clearly teach a universal atonement while still retaining the doctrine of predestination.
With this in mind, I am curious as to the reasons Luther abandoned this older teaching. I wonder if the writing of St. Prosper "The Call of All Nations" had an influence in changing his view, since it is a work he refers to several times in his writings and letters. Prosper himself taught limited atonement and abandoned it for the paradox that God predestines specific men unto salvation yet also gives universal grace to all mankind. Luther would not have known this as he thought the work to have been written by Ambrose, however.
Has anybody else run across these kinds of quotes in Luther's older works, or know when this sermon was written?
With this in mind, I am curious as to the reasons Luther abandoned this older teaching. I wonder if the writing of St. Prosper "The Call of All Nations" had an influence in changing his view, since it is a work he refers to several times in his writings and letters. Prosper himself taught limited atonement and abandoned it for the paradox that God predestines specific men unto salvation yet also gives universal grace to all mankind. Luther would not have known this as he thought the work to have been written by Ambrose, however.
Has anybody else run across these kinds of quotes in Luther's older works, or know when this sermon was written?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)