C.B. Moss
In his most excellent treatise, “The Christian Faith: An Introduction to Dogmatic Theology,” C.B. Moss, D.D., makes the excellent point, remarked upon by numerous other authors also, that heresy is often the one-sided expression of truth that ignores the other side of the truth. That is, the heretic often refuses to recognize that Christian Revelation contains truths that sometimes have two sides irreconcilable by human reason. One example of a Christian antinomy is the truth that God is almighty, or omnipotent, and yet that men also have been given free-will by their creator. Not surprisingly, either side of this antinomy, if pushed to its logical extreme, will lead to grave dogmatic error.
On one hand, the over emphasis of man’s free-will leads to the heretical doctrine of Pelagius Brito, who helds that, even after the Fall, mankind remains as free as Adam was to choose or reject obedience to God and, by implication, retains the capacity to choose his own salvation by his own power. The obvious defect of this peculiar doctrine is that it leaves God’s grace in Christ Jesus, as playing both a real role in the economy of salvation, with an entirely optional character: only those who chosen to follow Adam need recourse to Christ, his Church, and his Sacraments or Mysteries. Therefore, the Pelagian heresy, though it appeals to our sense that we seem completely free choose between this and that, leaves a dangerously high impression and estimation of the dignity fallen man and relegates Christ to secondary role.
Calvin
On the other hand, it is not human free-will, but rather divine sovereignty that has been over-empathized by the Continental Reformation. For example, Calvin developed theories that, in essence, denied human free-will any real or ontological role to play in the economy of salvation, putting all soteriological action exclusively in divine hands. In so doing, Calvin and his progeny theorized that, not only does God choose to save some, he also unilaterally chooses to reprobate others to eternal damnation. Apart from failing to give an satisfactory account of the obvious role of that individual free-will must play in the great drama of salvation, the obvious objection to Calvin’s double-predestination theory is that it makes God the author of evil and damnation.
Despite the obvious flaws in Calvin’s double-predestination theory, many have argued that the English Reformation adopted Calvin’s teaching, enshrining it in the Article XVII of the 39 Articles of Religion. But this is a great calumny that all formulary Anglicans must stand against. The claim that Article XVII, which touches upon Predestination and Election is manifestly Calvinist, though oft repeated, cannot be borne out by even a cursory reading of the text and constitute an extremely tendentious and revisionist construction of the Article.
Indeed, as William Baker, D.D., notes in his most excellent volume, “A Plain Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England,” “the language of [Article XVII] is guarded and cautious. It makes no mention of the doctrine of reprobation. It declares predestination to life to be the everlasting purpose of God, whose will is that all should be saved. God has decreed from the foundation of the world that, through the atonement made by Christ, everlasting life should be freely offered to all mankind.” Baker further explains that, far from deciding against the real role of individual free-will having in salvation, “the Article does not attempt to solve the problem of how to reconcile God’s foreknowledge with man’s free-will. It rather sets bounds to curious speculation on the subject. God alone knows who will ultimately be saved. As far as men are concerned, all who are baptized into Christ are thereby elect, and the fact of their election is the pledge of their receiving sufficiency of divine grace to enable them to work out their salvation. This consideration is full of comfort to those who are conscientiously using that grace. The Calvinistic doctrine of reprobation, on the other hand, is dangerous as it ignores man’s free-will altogether, and tending to immorality.”
Indeed, the position of the English Reformation, which merely echoes that of the consistent voice and mind of the early Fathers in antiquity, upholds both the truth that man has free-will and that fallen man is very much in need God’s grace to obtain salvation, is enshrined in the Articles of Religion and the Book of Common Prayer. Article X, On Free-Will, states that, “The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing [that is “going before”] us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.” Indeed, the doctrine of prevenient or preventing grace, which is also expressed in Book of Common Prayer, perhaps most prominently in the Collect of Easter, upholds the antinomy: without God’s assistance, a man cannot save himself, and, though God desires the salvation of all men, he compels the salvation of no man against his own free-will.
This doctrine of co-operating grace, this synergetic soteriology, which is so very Anglican, yet not particular to Anglicanism, does not rob God of his omnipotence as it recognizes that, in exercising his unlimited might, God has chosen to give man free-will. At the same time, this doctrine to not create uber-men without need for divine grace, as it recognizes that, to obtain salvation and eternal Life, fallen man still must receive and cooperate with God’s universal and free offer of grace in Jesus Christ.
ALMIGHTY God, who through thine only-begotten Son Jesus Christ hast overcome death, and opened unto us the gate of everlasting life; We humbly beseech thee that, as by thy special grace preventing us thou dost put into our minds good desires, so by thy continual help we may bring the same to good effect; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost ever, one God, world without end. Amen.
River Thames Beach Party 
Calvin developed theories that, in essence, denied human free-will any real or ontological role to play in the economy of salvation, putting all soteriological action exclusively in divine hands
Every Reformed theologian, that I’m acquainted with, would have some strong objections to this assessment. This is how I understand Reformed orthodoxy:
During the process of regeneration, the human will remains fully human and, thus, free. The awakening that occurs, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, capacitates the human will to choose, freely and without coercion, the object of faith: Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. The individual could not do otherwise, but this does not mean that he was not free. In accordance with the free gift of regeneration, the individual does not desire to do otherwise; his desire is for Christ and, thus, he accepts the love of Christ. This choice is never against his will, desires, personality, or affections. Rather, the entirety of the human person is regenerated and, thus, wholly desiring to repent and receive forgiveness. There is no dilemma between choosing and not choosing; such a dilemma only exists prior to regeneration, not after. As long as rejecting Christ is a possibility for the person, that person is not awakened and made new. Once the person is awakened and made new, he receives Christ — and gladly so — because the awakening itself is nothing other than the reception of Christ. In other words, regeneration and salvation is the same thing; you cannot have one without the other.
As a Barthian (of some sort) I would have some quibbles about limited atonement, but, otherwise, I think the Reformed position is sound.
Mr. Davis, thanks for dropping in. I think the only thoughtful response I can make is by way of quoting you:
“The individual could not do otherwise, but this does not mean that he was not free.”
In my opinion, this sort of re-defining of “free-will” to mean, in effect, “not free-will,” is not at all atypical or misrepresentative of Reformed thought. And, I think, it well illustrates the difficultly that Reformed thinkers find themselves in when they embrace divine sovereignty with there typically unbalanced and scripturally unwarranted passion. It is also the reason that the non-Reformed pay no attention to Reformed protestations that Calvinistic thought protects the integrity of human free-will.
In sum, because of their imbalanced theology, which comes from disregarding the plain sense of the scripture and disregarding the consistent mind and voice of the early Fathers, the Reformed resolve the antinomy of human free-will and divine foreknowledge by resorting to rank contradiction. Free-will, for them, does not involve real choice, which to the rest of us is simply double-speak designed to save face for innovative and bad theology.
Good thoughts, Death
Antimony, of course, is something of an intellectual Charlie-horse, to the more rationalistic of our Calvinist brethren; but, for this Anglican- who in spirit, if not in intellectual capacity, revels with Chesterton in fact of antimony or paradox-it is a saving grace which rescues the faith from a deadening rationalism, and preserves for it the element of wonder.
Calvin definitely goes beyond a mere passing-over the non-elect; moreover, he repspectfully and ever so gently upbraids the Fathers, including Augustine, for their unwillingness to acknowledge God as having positively ordained the fall (the “Decretum horrible”) to the end of manifesting His greatness.
To his credit, though, Calvin maintains the necessity of the Church, the sacraments and the ordained ministry, and he echoes Cyprian’s dictum “He cannot have God for his Father, who will not have the Church for his Mother.” That itself, is something of an antimony, perhaps, within his own system. He also confesses the mystery of the Eucharist as too high for his understanding. Good for him.
Iv’e been pouring through some of the works of Maximus the Confessor recently. And while Iv’e got to give myself adequate time to digest his lofty positions (being slow-of-mind) I’m wondering if the Western position of God’s utter simplicity (His will, for instance, seen as identical with his essence, etc.), led the West in some cases to deny free-will in the face of God’s sovereignty?
And then there also seems to be in Calvin a reluctance to include God the Son in the eternal decrees. Because of this, Bart, I have read, actually accused Calvin of semi-Arianism.
Food for thought.
Maximus the Confessor is indeed a very important later Father because he fought so valiantly for the orthodox consensus that the early Father had already achieved and because he stood against excessive rationalism.
The point you raise about the Augustinian doctrine that God as nothing more than absolute simplicity itself, a doctrine that Augustine rationalistically appropriated directly from pagan Neoplatonism, touches on another great Antinomy of Faith–namely that God is simultaneously transcendent and immanent. Of course, you might guess from my post that the trick for an orthodox Christian is to avoid affirming one at the cost of the other.
In my opinion, the Augustinians went to far in protecting divine transcendence against the real and present danger of pantheism, and essentially devolved into a form of Deism, which historically has plagued the English mind. In contrast, by reclaiming the subtle energy-essence distinction of the early Fathers, St. Maximus the Confessor, and later St. Gregory Palamas, manage to keep a careful balance between the twin perils of pantheism and deism while protecting the important doctrine of deification as a lived reality, rather than an abstract theory.
[…] There’s an excellent piece on the Anglican doctrine of freewill and divine sovereignty on the River Thames blog. […]
An excellent exposition of Anglican soteriology. Though Lutheranism is monergist, it has, in my view, correctly balanced the sovereignty of God, justification, and the means of grace (sacraments) in a way quite similar to Anglicanism. It is this “single barreled predestination” that Anglicanism and Lutheranism share in opposition to the excesses of Calvinism.
deathbredon, I am wondering how much of this difference you would place on the Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement expressed at the Synod of Dort? In my mind, the real point of disagreement, or collision, is at the Cross and this issue.
In my opinion, while the Anglican formularies do not expressly condemn the five points of Calvinism by name as they do with certain aspects of Medieval Latin Scholasticism and Anabaptist teachings, it is simply impossible to read Calvinism into the Articles and the Book of Common Prayer. The mental gymnastics required are simply too much. I think this is true with the theory of Limited Atonement too. I hope to write another post soon addressing all five-points and their incongruity with Anglican teaching.
As for the “single-barrel” doctrine of unconditional predestination to life, I think that it too is incongruous with the general sense of the Scripture, the Anglican Formularies as a whole (though not Article XVII standing alone), and the consistent mind and voice of early Fathers. This is why, I believe, the Caroline divines were so keen on reemphasizing the synergistic teaching that preceded Augustine. Indeed, St. Vincent coined his three-fold test for orthodoxy to resist Augustine’s innovative doctrine of unconditional predestination.
That then leads to an interesting question for thought: what is the proper role of Augustinian thought in theology? Calvinists, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics all have a more or less defined place for St. Augustine. Is it your understanding then that he is perhaps incorrectly evaluated and that Anglicanism has a modified view of him?
Thanks in advance for indulging my questions deathbredon – I greatly appreciate your thoughts on these matters.
I believe that Jaroslav Pelikan famously states that Latin theology is but a footnote to Augustine. Or maybe Pelikan was quoting an even sharper-tongued wag. In any case, though an intentional exaggeration, it illustrates the massive role that Augustine played in the formation of Medieval Latin theology.
What makes the English Reformation peculiar in comparison to the Continental Reformation and the Counter-Reformation is the sense that the “consensus patrum,” or “the consistent mind and voice of the most early Fathers,” as Queen Elizabeth put it, is of great weight. Thus, after a generation of Elizbethan Anglican divines such as Jewel and Hooker defended the English Reformation from without (Papalism) and often from within (Puritanism), the Caroline Divines had the leisure to expound more thoroughly on the consensus of the early Fathers and recognize those instances in which Augustine spoke for the Church and those in which he cut from whole cloth. And, the idea of unconditional predestination of any kind, is one of those ideas that is outside of the consensus of the Fathers of the first five centuries, and one that Anglicans proper ought reject.
As much as I respect Moss, there are a number of acute difficulties with his position as expressed in this article. Since this debate has existed since man first attempted to exercise autonomy over his Sovereign Lord, I obviously will not resolve the dilemma here. I do, however, want to point out some problems with Moss’ article. I will attempt to avoid technical philosophical and theological terms where possible.
1) Moss and others continually speak of free-will without ever defining what they mean by the term. They simply assume that everyone knows and understands what that term means. Unfortunately it is not as simple as that. Whenever one uses that term one must always explain whether they believe that freedom of the will is either antecedently non-contingent or whether it is antecedently contingent. In other words, is the will completely “free” from anything that acts upon it and therefore behaves in a manner totally unaffected by any influence; or, is there something that always acts upon the will which motives the will to chose. For those of us who follow Calvin’s interpretation of Augustine’s understanding of the Apostle Paul, we will always argue that the will NEVER behaves independently of its greatest motivation which is man’s nature. And as we all know man’s nature, according to Eph 2, is fallen and dead in sin. So sin will always motivate man’s choices, which will motivate man’s will, which, therefore, can not be a “free-will” in the sense of uninfluenced choice.
2) Moss uses the unfortunate term “antinomy” in his article. For the Brit, antinomy is a perfectly valid term; however, for the American it creates some confusion for, where the Brit will use the term to mean “paradox,” in America the term has come to mean contradiction. Webster’s defines it as “a contradiction between two, apparently valid principles….” This choice of terminology has created and continues to create unnecessary confusion. God’s sovereignty and man’s will are not EQUAL in principle. God’s sovereignty will always and must always have preeminence and prominence, regardless of how we define man’s “free-will.” As R.C. Sproul has pointed out, ‘if there is one molecule in the universe that is outside or beyond God’s sovereign control, then God IS NOT SOVEREIGN.’ So we must reassess the relationship and interaction between these two doctrines – especially as presented by Moss (et al).
3) Moss mischaracterizes Calvin’s position as “double predestination.” This point is the MOST frustrating, personally, for me. Here I must take a second, in order to clarify this error, and use some technical theological concepts. When speaking of predestination, theologians often distinguish between asymmetrical and symmetrical predestination. Calvin’s position was asymmetrical; Augustine’s position was symmetrical. Augustine argued for, what contemporary theologians, “equal ultimacy.” Calvin’s view was this – God in His eternal decrees (and I’m abbreviating this argument considerably), “saw” if you will, all of fallen, sinful, dead humanity. Given His holy, righteous, just nature, God would have been in His right to simply judge and condemn all mankind to eternal torment without the possibility of redemption. However, out of that fallen, dead humanity, He in His mercy, love, and the beneficence of His will, chose some for salvation. Of these whom He has chosen, He has acted to call, atone for, and regenerate their hearts of stone making them hearts of flesh. The others – AND HERE IS THE KEY DIFFERENCE – He left to their sinful natures; NOT ACTING ACTIVELY IN THEIR FALLEN HEARTS BUT LEAVING THEM TO THEIR OWN FALLEN WILLS.
This is asymmetrical in the sense that, what God does for one group – actively works in their lives; He doesn’t do for the second group. God, according to this view, DOES NOT ACTIVELY WORK UNBELIEF in the lives of fallen, dead sinners. To put it simply, He just leaves them alone. This is Calvin’s view (and yes I recognize there is an in house disagreement over this, but, the majority report which I believe is the correct view, presents Calvin’s view as asymmetrical).
Augustine’s view on the other hand has been called ‘symmetrical.’ So, where Calvin argued that God only works in the lives of those whom He has chosen, and this work leads to belief in Him; HE DOES NOT WORK UNBELIEF IN THEIR HEARTS. Augustine, however, argued that God, does in fact work in the unbelievers life to harden their hearts IN ORDER THAT THEY WILL NEVER BELIEVE – Pharoah is used as an example and Rom 9 is also used as proof.
4) Lastly, Moss’ argument that man cooperates in (with?) grace is dangerously close to Pelagianism. If man is dead, which Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Jewel, Whitgift, Edwards, Toplady, et al, argued Scripture clearly teaches, then man CAN NOT, IN ANY WAY COOPERATE IN OR WITH UNLESS FIRST, GOD REGENERATES MAN’S HEART. Dead men respond to nothing! Here’s a simply test. Take a million dollars and drive to your nearest cemetery. Place the million dollars at the entrance gates to the cemetery and then offer the money to all the dead people in the cemetery and see how many respond. They first would have to be made alive, THEN they could respond.
There is so much more that could be said about this article but I’m guessing this will cause enough controversy as posted. The difficulty that undergirds this article by Moss is the imprecision and vagueness of the terms he uses and arguments he presents. Unless we know what we mean by what we say, we’ll never be able to come to any agreement on any position; especially one as complex and intricate as this.
Fr. Castellano,
That was a very thoughtful comment. As I am not familiar with Moss and only passingly familiar with Calvin, I am a bit at a loss, but when you say, “Of these whom He has chosen, He has acted to call, atone for, and regenerate their hearts of stone making them hearts of flesh” you are in fact stating that the Cross was not effective for the “whole world” (1 John 2:2), but only for the elect?
It is precisely this [limited] view of the atonement that I find the most confusing and troublesome (perhaps because I do not fully understand it, I admit) aspect of Calvinism. If I have misread you, then I apologize.
Fr. Castellano,
The consistent mind and voice of the early Fathers make it fairly clear that, fallen man, without God’s preventing grace, cannot do anything towards their salvation at all. This is what the Articles say and what Moss says. Thus, I fail to see how it can be Pelagian or near to Pelagianism to agree with the consistent mind and voice of the early Fathers in stating that preventing grace is granted to all thorough Christ and that it in no way overcomes human freedom to reject or accept, without any divine prejudice, whether active or passive, God’s free offer of grace. To the contrary, this is simply Christian orthodoxy.
As for your assessment of Calvin, if what you are saying is that Calvin did not believe in the five-points attributed to him by Moss, and that instead he really was a Lutheran or, better yet, an Anglican, but not a Calvinist, then I am truly glad. If on the other hand, you are trying use special pleading in the definition of simple English words, as Mr. Davis seems to do above, then my response to Mr. Davis serves here also.
D.B.,
Well, I’m not sure exactly how to respond. You use the term “preventing grace” yet you never define what that is supposed to be. Is it prevenient grace? Is it common grace? Unless I understand what you mean by your terms I can’t, responsibly address your statement.
As far as the early Church Fathers are concerned, they are helpful guides but not infallible. Be that as it may, my previous paragraph applies to your mentioning their alleged use of the term you cite.
However, in reference to Moss, he specifically used the phrase ‘co-operating grace.’ This argument lies at the core of the debate between monergistic soteriology and synthetic soteriology. The latter, which is what Moss “apparently” is advocating, is dangerously close to Pelagianism. That is, to what I was referring.
Your assessment of Moss’ assessment of Calvinism is skewed at best. The so-called “Five points” which was not specifically formulated by Calvin but was formulated at the Synod of Dordt in response to the five articles of the Dutch Remonstrance, isn’t advocating any form of “double predestination” as Moss asserts.
You accuse me of the fallacy of special pleading yet you cite no example or instance of the fallacy. And, since I teach philosophy and theology, I will tell you that if you reference any Logic text, Hurley, Solomon, Copi, et al, you will see that the fallacy of Special Pleading is committed when one INITIALLY offers an argument without reference to data or facts that count against said argument. Since I was responding to the post listed, I was responding to a direct distortion of a specific position. This is an affirmative defense and not Special Pleading. So, I don’t see the validity of your accusation.
If you’re referring to my definition of “antinomy”, that was in an attempt to avoid confusion and definitely not an example of Special Pleading. So, again, I don’t see where you get this charge.
If you’re referring to my attempt to define free-will, that certainly isn’t an example of Special Pleading because:
1) No one in this debate every defines their terms before engaging in these debates.
2) The definition of terms falls under the lexical category in standard Logic texts, so it categorically doesn’t fall under Special Pleading.
3) Clarification is absolutely essential in these discussions to avoid vagueness and equivocation – which is what I was trying to avoid and what Moss was involved in necessitating my clarification.
4) Your so-called “plain reading of scripture” is naive at best. Free-will is one of the most disputed and misunderstood terms in theological and philosophic discourse. The very fact that there is disagreement and has been disagreement going all the way back to Augustine and Pelagius demonstrates that this term is anything but plain.
Terminological clarification is the bedrock of philosophic/theologic discourse; if we can’t be clear on our terms there is no discussion.
Fr. Castellano,
I think we are coming at theology from two very different points of view.
First, as an Anglican, the consensus of the ancient Fathers is much more than a helpful guide, it is an authority. If you won’t take Queen Elizabeth I’s word for it, read the Act of Uniformity. Indeed, the authority of the “consensus patrum” in interpreting Scripture and propounding an orderly statement of Christian orthodoxy.
Second, theology that looks to the consensus patrum of the early Church to clarify matters of controversy, in turn, does not employ a rigorously dialectical, theological methodology because the Fathers did not do so. Rather, in rejecting the Schoolmen, by analogy Anglican also rejects any other theology that reaches different conclusions from the Schoolmen but uses their methodology.
Eric,
Thank you for the kind response. I appreciate your disagreeing without being disagreeable! 😉
As I mentioned, there was no way I would be able to resolve this issue here. But since you asked such a succinct question in such a respectful manner I will attempt to briefly provide you an answer.
There are a number of different ways to approach the question of the nature of the atonement. Let me begin with this – everyone limits the atonement otherwise they fall into universalism, which all agree is unbiblical. The question dealing with the atonement is its intent not its extent. For whom was it intended?
If we begin in the earliest chapters of Scripture we see God making a distinction between groups and individuals based totally on His Sovereign divine will. God makes distinctions. Americans seem to have problems with this concept.
In Gen. God separates light from darkness, the sky from the ground, and water from dirt. He separates the 7th day from all the others. He makes choices based upon who He is as God in His nature. We may never be able to understand or unravel the full meaning but His thoughts are not our thoughts, His ways not our ways.
From this initial Biblical presentation of this concept of distinction/separation, God chooses Abel over Cain (skipping the Adam/earth separation for obvious reasons); He chooses Seth over his brothers; I don’t need to continue you see the pattern developing.
If we take a step back and exam the inter-trinitarian interaction, it would look something like this: the Father chooses, the Son purchases, and the Spirit applies God’s grace.
Ok, this provides a sort-of gestalt background to your specific concern.
So, with this as the backdrop, let us attempt to work through this incrementally. Scripture teaches us that God has chosen for Himself a people that cannot be numbered. We see this initially with the Jews in the Old Covenant. Remember how the Jews were redeemed? It was only for whom the atonement was actually applied that redemption was accomplished. That was for the covenant people, the Jews – NOT the Egyptians, not the Phoenicians, etc. The Jews. The blood was applied to the door posts and only those to whom that blood covered, were redeemed. In other words, only those IN the covenant community had redemption applied to them. Israel or the Jews, could bring Egyptians (or others) INTO that community, but it was only for that community that atonement was made.
If this principle is understood, the question of the nature of the atonement answers itself. God chooses a people for Himself – He elects them. He then sends the Son to pay for their sin. The Spirit then applies that payment to the covenant community. Hence, Jesus could say that He lays down His life for HIS SHEEP. The concept of redemption is a legal concept that is used also in business transactions. Let me provide an illustration: Your father sends you to Costco to purchase everything in the store. You go to the store and lay down the purchase price for everything in the mega store. Then your brother returns and, with the receipt of purchase, goes and retrieves only a steak, a gallon of milk, and a bottle of medicine. He walks to the cashier and the cashier says, ‘but you’ve paid for everything;’ your brother responds by saying, ‘yes but I’m only here to apply that purchase to these items.’ Did you actually accomplish what your father sent you there to do? To purchase EVERY ITEM IN THE STORE? Of course not. So if you extend this to people you can see the dilemma. IF God sent Jesus to atone for EACH AND EVERY individual in the universe, then the atonement doesn’t accomplish the purpose for which it was intended. And we know, according to Jesus’ statement on the cross that the transaction was finished – the Greek word “tetelestai” is a commercial business term that means the purchase transaction has been completed (Jn 19: 28 & 30).
Here is where the argument always breaks down. Those who are not Reformed argue for Jesus dying for each and every individual; or, they believe that salvation was MADE POSSIBLE by Jesus’ death. We in the Reformed community believe that Jesus died for the covenant community – the elect; or, that salvation was ACCOMPLISHED by Jesus’ death and awaits, in God’s timing, application via the work of the Holy Spirit.
The question you must ask yourself is this, how does God address man’s sin? Or, what was the punishment that God required for man’s sin? The answer of course is death. But in His mercy, God provided a way to escape death. He gave man an express definition of His holy nature by which man must live to avoid (spiritual) death – we call it The Law. All man needed to do was live PERFECTLY according to God’s law. That obviously wasn’t going to happen, nor was it even possible (I’m assuming you understand the Jewish sacrificial system). So God, again, in His mercy, provided one more way for man to avoid (spiritual) death and that was, if a representative of man could (and here is the most crucial element of the entire discussion) TAKE MAN’S PLACE, assume the responsibility of fulfilling God’s holy law, then man would have hope for redemption. The key here is this, that this substitute assumes the penalty for those He represents. Let me repeat that; this substitute ASSUMES THE PENALTY for those He represents. In other words, either you take your place on the cross for your sin, or Jesus takes you place.
Those that argue for a hypothetical (possible) salvation fail to see the force of this dilemma. Let me state it another way, either Jesus takes the place of each and every individual ever created, in His work on the cross – in which case the penalty for sin has been paid for FOR ALL MANKIND FOR ALL TIME and no one has anything for which they can be judged; or He takes the place and pays ONLY for the sins of the covenant community and the ones for whom God has chosen.
The issue with which to be wrestled is the result of Jesus’ ACTUALLY PAYING the penalty that God has judged to be required of all sinners. If God’s judgment, which is what the cross is, and death as its subsequent result due to man’s sin, is paid for by Jesus, then there is no more judgment that man needs to pay. This, quite simply results in an actual universalism.
I can sit here and dispute all of the verses that are in question; I can provide all sorts of responses to the “all”, “world” passages such as, Jn 1:29, what sense would a sacrificial Lamb have made to the Romans or Greeks listening; this is obviously contextually related only to the nation of Israel – who thought that sacrificial lambs only applied to JEWS – now it applies to non-Jews (the world); or Jn 3:26; obviously the entire world is NOT being baptized by Jesus at the Jordan; etc. Even the passage you cite, I Jn 2:2. You failed to cite the context – vs one says (NKJ): “My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous.”
Again, notice, John is speaking to Jews (my little Children), exhorting them not to sin, but if they do, they have an ADVOCATE – an attorney, one standing at the right hand of God pleading the case for the ‘little children’ before their heavenly Father as a defense attorney fighting for his client. Do you truly want to argue that Jesus is doing this on behalf of unbelievers? In addition, the term “propitiation” in the verse you do quote means the PLACATION, TURNING AWAY, and AMELIORATION of GOD’S WRATH! Again, do you truly want to argue that Jesus turned away the wrath and judgment of God from EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL UNBELIEVER?
But engaging in this type of verse by verse pedantic exercise is fruitless until one understands the VERY BROAD overview I’ve just presented. And we haven’t even touched upon the principle that “sacra scriptura interpres sacra scriptura” – sacred scripture interprets sacred scripture.
I guess I should’ve warned you – BEWARE THE PROFESSOR OR PREACHER THAT BEGINS ANY STATEMENT WITH – “LET ME BRIEFLY…” Sorry for the length of this. 😉
Thanks for your “brief” response 🙂
I have some questions/thoughts on this post but am reluctant to post them here and hijack this post into a Q&A on Reformed atonement theology. Would you mind shooting me an email at 02continuum@gmail.com?
Eric
Fr. Paul…
A hearty “Amen” from this corner! What a pleasant surprise to happen upon you again. We met last winter at the Ligonier Conference in Anaheim (I suggested the Ashley Null book). Your explanation and “brief” comments were very clear and very helpful to all, I’m sure. Seriously, I’m glad you took the time to lay out the groundwork one needs in order to understand these much misunderstood doctrines.
Blessings to you, and thanks from a former Philly boy,
Jack
HI JACK!
I concur, what a pleasant surprise! 😀 Yes, I remember and I did purchase Null’s book based upon your recommendation. I haven’t worked all the way through it, but from what I’ve read it’s outstanding. Thanks for the referral.
Also, thank you for the kind words. I hope those who read it read both posts because they are linked and if read separately leave the other position open ended.
PHILLY! I hate you for getting Doc Holiday! 😉
Your brother in Christ,
Fr. Paul†
Just a thought… maybe one of the key questions to answer in regard to this is whether there are human natures (one per person, if you like) or but one human nature? The latter makes more sense, and surely there must be a way to look at the Atonement as effecting a healing of our common nature that yet entails no necessary and inevitable apocatastasis…
D.B.,
It does seem as if we’re approaching theology from different perspectives. You “appear” to have a more Roman leaning flavor to your theology while I lean more to towards Cranmer, the English and Continental Reformers. I thought that was why this dialog began; but I’m old so what do I know.
Just a quick (insert laugh here) response.
1) It is always dangerous to phrase any comment concerning Anglicanism as if one’s own position is THE ONLY Anglican position.
2) I never said the fathers weren’t authoritative; what I said was they are helpful guides but not infallible. One can be a helpful guide and be authoritative. The fathers however, held some very strange beliefs so they can’t be infallible – some were Neo-Platonists, others were adoptionists, and so. I guess this gets back to the issue of definition of terms. What one means by “authoritative?” Does it mean infallible? Or does it mean carries with it considerable weight?
3) And with all due respect, I always find the phrase “consensus of the fathers” to be highly dubious. The fathers stood at the beginning of the post-apostolic period of theological development. Therefore in their efforts to arrive at sound Biblical theology there was much growth and evolution of thought. It took centuries before there was anything like WHAT WE TODAY would identify as consensus.
The so-called ‘authority of the “consensus patrum” in interpreting Scripture and propounding an orderly statement of Christian Orthodoxy.’ is:
a) an incomplete thought so I’m not EXACTLY SURE what you’re trying to assert.
b) If this “consensus patrum” actually existed in the manner in which you claim it did one wonders why there were so many Synods and Councils – both ecumenical and regional – in the first 700 years of Church History.
c) The alleged “orderly statement of Christian Orthodoxy” was, depending upon the date you intend to subscribe such a statement, evolving and developing over centuries of theological debate.
Even Rome, with all her pronouncements of ecclesiastical authority in interpreting the Canon of Scripture didn’t even authoritatively and “infallibly” (according to her assertions of infallibility) DEFINE WHAT THAT CANON WAS until the 4th session of the Council of Trent – 1546!
4) The Alexandrians were very familiar and at home with usin dialectical theology which they borrowed from Plato, Ammonias Saccus (I always misspell his name), Origen, and Plotinus – to name just a few.
5) I’m not sure what you mean by “rejecting the Schoolmen.” Cranmer didn’t, outright reject, the Scholastics. Neither did the Continental Reformers (Luther is problematic – but he was rejecting speculative philosophic and theological assertions by them). So, I’m not sure what you mean by this.
Anyway, I think we’ve gone as far as we can go on this.
Since the subject has switched from the initial discussion, I’m going to make this my last post, unless a specific question concerning the initial topic is proffered or reintroduced.
Respectfully and with Blessings,
Fr. Paul†
I guess I am one of those who always over simplifies things. We are all predestined to spend eternity with God. The problem for us mortal humans is that God gave us free will. We must actively choose to accept God’s offer by obeying his commandments and becoming adopted brothers and sister of His Son Jesus Christ. This is how I view predestination, free will, and grace. God is love. He would not force anyone to spend eternity with him in heaven unless that person freely chose to accept His offer. If one freely chooses to reject God’s offer then one has freely chosen to spend eternity in Hell.
Fr. Coady,
I think that you are spot on and that the Fathers would have recognized you are a kindred spirit.
Even to this day, many Eastern divines still hold to the pious opinion that God gives always gives his love to everyone all the time. Thus, Heaven will be that state in which flock accept and enjoy his love, basking in the divine light, so to speak. In contrast, Hell will be that state in which the goats of their own free rejection of God and enmity towards him will find the light of his love to be burning. I like this pious opinion because it illustrates so well that God is eternally “philanthropos,” a lover of mankind, and that it individual men, not God, who create Hell fire.
Hello Death and friends,
Some quick points.
It was said the continental reformation overemphasized divine sovereignty, and Calvin developed theories that denied free will. I find this a bit hard to swallow. The continental reformation was not homogeneous. Within Calvinist and Lutheran camps there was a variety of opinion. Nor was ‘double predestination’ even a majority view at Dordt or Westminster. At Dordt there were a number of delegations as well as colleges which interpreted the canons differently. This is very important and ironic because the lack of consensus at Dordt is an Achilles heel for ‘high calvinists’, and while Calvin might be called supralapsarian, the principle divines after him certainly were not. Other leading continental men , like Philip Melcanchthon, kept synergistic thought, with later Lutherans following him. Interestingly, even the “calvinist” Whitgift advised against public preaching of his Lambeth articles, and this same restraint is found with Laud, and therefore caution and purposeful silence is a noteworthy characteristic of Anglican confessionalism.
Nonetheless, ignoring the range of views between synergism and monergism not only paints a false image of German, Dutch, and Swiss reformers, but it misses an excellent opportunity to dismiss the logical certainty of more aggressive, derivative continental systems. I think somewhere amongst the many, endless soteriological controversies we ought admit a mystery regarding the cross, even while keeping more private Arminian or low-Calvinist views.
The necessary silence on certain points lends a kind of strength and conservativism to Anglican thought. Even Wesley tolerated ‘calvinist’ opinion, and saw no need to exclude it (unlike Whitefiled) either in his societies and later 25 articles. This was in keeping with high church views. As Baker said, “the language of [Article XVII] is guarded and cautious. It makes no mention of the doctrine of reprobation…“the Article does not attempt to solve the problem of how to reconcile God’s foreknowledge with man’s free-will. It rather sets bounds to curious speculation on the subject.”
The problem is making dogmatic what scripture and undivided tradition does not. Though English articles might include certain predestinarian opinions, they are brief, cautiously ambiguous, and pastoral. So, rather than push the argument against Augustine, Western tradition, or God’s sovereignty, let’s admit there is no universal agreement, both before and during Reformation, keeping silence where and when needed while allowing a range of speculation on free will. When slammed by certain ‘calvinists’, I tend to think we fair better to recall the historic difference of opinion amongst their own ranks alongside the confessional exclusion of ‘double predestination’ even amongst their principle synods. Answering “high calvinists” fanaticism with equal and opposite force– w/ either Arminian or Eastern views– only exaggerates and distorts the western locale where our confession otherwise places us.
Let us take the more constructive approach, quoting our own divines, even the calvinist ones– sic., the 1594 Lambeth preface, his Majesty’s Declaration, the 1604 canons suppressing speculation in preaching, and even Cranmer’s 1547 catechism which warns,
“All men be admonished and chiefly preachers, that this high matter they be looking on both sides, so attemper and moderate themselves, that neither they so preach the grace of God, that they take away thereby free will, nor on the other side so extol freewill, that injury be done to the grace of God” (p. 363)
Charles,
It is one thing to “tolerate” moderate Calvinist views, if they are private and not preached, but it another thing altogether to claim that such views are compatible with public Anglican, confessional teaching. In a future post, I intend to the Elizabeth formularies and the Elizabethan theological methodology.
And, while it is true that no lesser a light than Bishop Beveridge himself counseled a position of the silence regarding whether divine predestination to life is unconditional or takes into account man’s free response to grace, the rest of the Caroline Divines were quite vocal in advocating the doctrine of co-operating grace and in denouncing the Synod of Dort or anything approaching the five-points of Calvinism. Thus, if the consistent mind and voice teach the substance of the doctrines of preventing grace and co-operating, then as formulary Anglican, I feel no less bound than to confess the same as the proper public Anglican position on the matter.
As usual, Charles, a very sage piece of advice. What came down the line as Reformed soteriology in the late 16-to early 17th-century was not the monolith it became afterwards, and included a variety of opinions on these matters (Even the Dortian fathers acknowledged this).
Taking our formularies and canons together, along with the opinions of our leading divines, I’d humbly submit that the trajectory of Anglican soteriology inclines toward a very old and mainstream Augustinianism, rather like what we find in the Council of Orange. It is also the case that despite their having been erroneously and anachronistically identified as “Arminians”-even the SKCM makes this error- the Carolines, in general, held to the same soteriology, and didn’t flinch at broaching the topic of decretal election, however discretely (Bramhall, for example, resorts to God’s mercy and secret election, when discussing the fate of infants, dying without baptism; you’ll also find it in Hooker, Field, Hall, Donne, Overall and later worthies, such as William Beveridge).
One of our greatest preachers (and a true churchman), Charles Simeon,-none dare label him an Arminian-affirmed God’s sovereignty and the truth of free will under grace, and advised his students to consider the mystery, not from any particular party screed, but from the Scriptures. “Be a Bible man”, he urged, “not a party man.” Wise fellow, he.
A point of clarification is in order here, and think that Canon Tallis could best speak to it. But in his absensce, I shall give it the old college try.
When the term “Arminian” is attached to an Anglican, it almost also does not mean that the person in question adheres to the teaching of Arminius, which most certainly a varietal of Continental Reformation which Charles correctly notes was and is diverse. To the contrary, in the Anglican context, the term indicates no who rejects the notions of unconditional predestination either to life or reprobation and who, instead, accepts the synergistic soteriology of the broad consensus of early Fathers (Augustine being the very odd man out on this one). Hence, a more accurate adjective than “Arminian” for this sort of Anglican would simply be “patristic.”
In any event, the Caroline Divines were not Arminians in the technical sense, nor were the Pelagian or semi-Pelagians, no matter how often that label was placed on them. Rather, they simply adhered to the doctrine that there can be no salvation without preventing and cooperating grace while rejected the doctrine of irresistible grace and limited atonement.
Hi, Death
This is an important clarification. 17th-century Churchman were not self-conscious adherants of the Arminian doctrine; rather they pleaded fidelity to the doctrines which they were taught in the Anglican formularies, particularly the Prayer Book and Catechism.
Alastair Mcgrath has made some illuminating observations on this controversy, in “Iustitia Dei: You’ll pardon me quoting these paragraphs in full from pgs 106 & 107 (Please note his deliberatley anachronistic use of the terms “Arminian” and “Arminianism”):
“In May 1595, William Barrett, a fellow of Caius College, Cambridge, preached a sermon which touched off the predestinarian controversy ultimately leading to the nine Lambeth Articles of 1595. These strongly predestinarian articles never had any force, other than as the private judgment of thise who drafted them. The 17th-century saw their failing to achieve any authority within the Church of England, particularly when John Reynolds failed to persuade the Hampton Court Conference of 1604 to append them to the 39 Articles of Religion. This left Article XVII-easily harmonized with an Arminian doctrine of election-as the sole authoritative pronouncement of the Church of England on the matter.”
“Although there can be little doubt that the Reformed doctrine of election continued to be widely held, particularly within Puritan circles, increasing opposition to the doctrine, largely from academic sources, was evident in the early 17th-century. Thus Richard Hooker at Oxford, and Lancelot Andrewes at Cambridge, developed ‘An Arminianism before Arminius’, which recieved considerable impetus through the influence of William Laud, subsequently translated to Canterbury. Like Vincent of Lerins, Andrewes declined to support the latest continental speculation on predestination precisely because he felt it to be an evident innovation. The Arminianism of the leading divines of the period of the period-and the intense hostility towards them from the Puritans-is prehaps best illustrated from the the controversy surrounding the publicaltion of Henry Hammond’s ‘Practical Catechism’ of 1644. This work may be regarded as a classic statement of the soteriological convictions of the Laudian party, asserting unequivocally that Christ died for all men. This view was variously described by his opponents: Cheynell accused him of subscribing to the doctrine of universal salvation; other charged him with Arminianism. The response of Clement Barksdale is particlularly significant:”
“You are mistaken when you think the Doctrine of Universall Redemption Arminianisme. It was the doctrine of the Church of England before Arminius was born. We learne it out of the old Church-Catechisme. ‘I believe in Jesus Christ, Who hath redeemed mee and all mankind. And the the Church hath learned it out of the plaine Scripture, where Christ is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world.”
“In this, Barksdale must be regarded as substantially correct. The Bezan doctrine of limited atonement was somewhat late arriving in England, by which time the older Melancthonian view had become incorporated into the confessional material of the English national church-such as the catechism of 1549. This evidently poses a nice problem in relation to terminology: should one style men such as Peter Baro (d. 1599) as an Arminian ‘avant la letter’, or accept that their teaching was typical of the preiod before the Arminian controversy brought the matter to a head and a new theological term into existence? Most Anglican divines in the late 16 and early 17-centuries appear to have based their soteriology on the dialectic between universal redemption and universal salvation, declining to accept the Bezan solution of their Puritan opponents. More significantly, the early Carolines divines appear to have been unanimous in their rejection of the doctrine of justification by inherent righteousness.”
Mark,
Thanks for the McGrath quote! I think it illustrates that the Arminianism, or rather rejection of unconditional predestination, comes from ancient tradition, not from the thought of Arminius. Indeed, very little of the “Anglican Arminius” is compatible with Arminianism proper.
Brother Death,
I am a bear of very small brain. Over the years, I have tried to make sense of this whole area. I have waded through many expositions of the 29, various writers and all. I have found it well to avoid excessive precision here, so I tend to leave it alone. After reading recent posts and comments, my poor head is spinning. I will continue to leave it alone, putting my trust in God. In the fulness of time, He will make it clear to me.
Now, you all know that I collect on the 39. I hadn’t known of Dr Baker’s book. I will have to look for a copy. I learn my theology through the Articles. The more expositions I read, the more I learn—including the complexities. It’s like listening to a conversation on such serious matters.
In +,
Nenton
Dr. Baker’s book is available free on-line. Prydain has a link the section of this blog dedicated to resources on the 39 Articles.
Dear brother Benton,
A bear of thou mayst be, and of great humilitie; but in truth a most capacious and goodly brain hast thou. Don’t sell yourself short, esteemed brother; Iv’e learned much from your wisdom and erudition, as have all the Thamesmen.
Dear Death,
First you say double predestination is outside Anglican conessional boundaries. Then you say unconditional predestination is likewise, thereby ruling out more modest infralapsarian views. Now, you further exclude those “moderate” calvinist opinions (yet defined) that are also properly banished from public mind. I don’t see our standards that rigid. Nor do I see continental though so easily lumped together as ‘calvinist’.
Secondly, I have to wonder if what remains permissible, or proper to right-thinking, boils down to strict Arminianism? Isn’t this just the flip-side of what our articles would otherwise have? Again, I think an appeal to the pastoral intent of the standards ought be made, if not the general breadth and continuity between the CofE to the more Augustinian mind of the West. Do you believe there exists a universal agreement between East and West on this question? And, if we must limit catholic opinion to a very early date, say the first three or two centuries, then why bend the rule for other exegetical questions?
I am not sure I agree, and I am not certain if a plain reading of articles would necessarily oppose a mid- or low-“calvinist” opinion. I have not known these calvinists to deny free will. If the “arminianist” Wesley did not necessitate such precision in faith, then why be less charitable?
Charles,
I didn’t do anything–the English Reformation did. Indeed, When you read the Act of Uniformity, together with Articles, and the Book of Common Prayer–not just the plain language of an Article or even all the Articles–it is simply impossible to arrive at any substantive position outside the boundaries set between Hooker and William Law without engaging in disingenuous thinking.
Indubitably, the moderate Puritans were tolerated under Elizabeth I, no doubt out of political necessity and to avoid uprooting the wheat with the tares. But, the Restoration unambiguously ratified and vindicated the position of the Churchmen, a group to which quasi-conforming Calvinists did not belong by their own admission.
And, the fact that the Evangelicals and Latitude Liberals began hacking away at the Anglican edifice shortly after the Glorious Revolution in no way changes the indelible character of what the Anglican Formularies ratified under the Tudors and defended under the Stuarts against Papist and Puritan alike. Indeed, the presence of dissident groups within a communion does not alter the public confession of that confession if it has got one.
I perfectly understand why, in previous times when religious dissent entailed political and civic disabilities, moderate as well as immoderate Calvinist shoehorned themselves in the C of E even when they could not accept its pubic teachings without reservations. But, why believers in the Council Trent, or the Westminster Confession, or the Confession of Augsburg, et al., would ever want to perform the mental and spiritual gymnastics necessarily to make a pretense of conforming to the Anglican formularies in this age of de-facto disestablishment is simply beyond me.
But the desire of folks to perpetrate revisionist Anglicanism, whether to move it closer to the Medieval Latin Church, to Lutheranism, to Calvinism, or anything else, how sincere the motivation may, in no way obligates me to pretend that the Anglicanism proper is anything other than what it also has been–the annoying pebble inside the shoe of Continental Protestants. To do otherwise would be to engage in the false charity of the old Low Churchmen, Latitudinarians, Broad Churchmen, and Liberals.
Dear Death,
I agree with the broad history you outline, but what I’d like to get across is this:
First, the continental reformation had more than one opinion other than ‘double predestination’. The charge(s) that calvinism: 1) necessarily leads to antinominianism, or 2) makes God an author of evil: are somewhat false accusations, especially when most “calvinists” neither reject moral law nor free will. Also, we know from Dordt some ‘calvinist’ opinion disagreed with limited atonement or would qualify some of the Dutch articles. I fear you do not acknowledge a range of opinion, not only amongst continental reformers but also amongst more ancient church doctors. My guess is this particular is not a catholic fact, and trying to dogmatically force an explanation– either Arminian or Calvinist– runs against the grain of the article.
Second, there is value in knowing not only the ‘centre’ of our standards, but also the upper and lower bounds. I certainly believe our standards, for instance, permit a range of practice in ornaments, delineating legal upper and lower limits. And, likely the same is true of more speculative doctrines such as the manner of grace. While double predestination is easily rejected (even by the majority of most puritans), lower forms of calvinism are not.
However, what is most prominent with respect to our standards on questions of grace v. free will is the pastoral intent of the exposition, not its precision. I do not think a ‘low calvinism’ is excluded (for example Amyraldism), and anything beyond this, especially when pinpointing the nature of preservation or predestination, is warned against. So, rather than have a complete or systematic explanation of the article (for either the Arminian or Calvinist opinion), Anglicanism offers a wise silence or degree of emphasis according to pastoral circumstances. While we do not comprehend all things, we do, in a limited way, allow men like Hooker (more mongeristic) and Law (more synergistic) to preach under the same authority.
So, while I will certainly condemn the violent manner which calvinists too frequently assert their claims, equating 5pts to the gospel, I would not be against a reasonable preaching of moderate to low views. The same is true of the Arminian. This was also Wesley’s attitude which he continued from the CofE. Of more concern and obvious transgression are calvinist arguments for iconoclasm. Notice this was Hookers preoccupation, not moderate calvinist soteriology which he seems to have largely agreed with.
Welp, that was a brilliant anachronistic argument reading modern revisionism back into Cranmer’s original intention in Article 17. Unfortunately, is all baloney. Cranmer was well aware of Calvin’s work in Geneva and even had Puritan friends like Hooper and Martin Bucer. So much for your crass misreading of Article 17. It clearly teaches both election and reprobation.
Charlie
The question of comprehension in articles of grace seems to have spilled over to brother Death’s latest post:
https://rtbp.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/confessional-calvinism-and-the-articles-of-religion/#comment-737
[…] recent post at RTBP questioned if a calvinistic reading of Anglican standards is possible. While Whitgift’s […]