Calvin, Arminius and Popery...

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John Gilmore:
In 1580, the (new) Lutherans affirmed election to grace but rejected election to damnation. This is, of course, illogical but consistent with their view of scripture.

What is the Lutheran view of scripture that makes this idea OK? (And what's the difference between "new" Lutherans and "old" ones?)</font>[/QUOTE]The "old" Lutherans would be the ones that produced the Augsberg Confession, 1530 (Luther, Melanchthon, etc.). The "new" Lutherans would be the ones who produced the Formula of Concord, 1580 (Chemnitz, Andreae, etc.). The doctrine of Calvin was not formally addressed until the Formula.

Lutherans never devised a comprehensive system of theology of their own such as Calvinism or Arminianism. They were content to evaluate the theological systems of others according to the rule of sola scriptura.

Their rule of sola scriptura meant that human reasoning should be subordinated to scripture not the other way around. Where this led to apparent inconsistencies, they confessed, "How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! "(Rom. 11:33). Hence they could say in the Formula,

"The eternal election of God, however, vel praedestinatio (or predestination), that is, God's ordination to salvation, does not extend at once over the godly and the wicked, but only over the children of God, who were elected and ordained to eternal life before the foundation of the world was laid, as Paul says, Eph. 1, 4. 5: He hath chosen us in Him, having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ."

So, after 1580, they were not really in either the Calvinist or Arminian camp.

So am I right in thinking they believed that God chose certian people to be saved, but that they never-the-less had the option of rejecting that salvation, or losing it? It seems to me that the simplistic "Calvinism = Protestant, Arminianism = Catholic" equation told to me by Calvinists should be consigned to the rubbish bin!


No! The Formula rejected free will (man is not free to do good or evil) as had the Smalcald Articles written by Luther in 1537. Men are lost because they stubbornly reject the gospel, not because they are predestined to damnation. This is another inconsistency that the Lutheran Church happily admits to. You are right; the issues are very complex.

[ June 24, 2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

[Eric B]

A Were there ANY Arminian Reformers?

I guess Wesley could be considered one. But of course, he came about a century or so later. The Anabaptists are considered the "radical Reformation", and since they seemed to believe in free-will, (and often veered into semi-Pelagianism) I guess you could see them as "arminian".

B When did the Catholics become Arminian?

In some of the later councils, around the turn of the millenium, they began rejecting that aspect of Augustinianism. I guess when the heavy works based practices started coming in (indulgences, etc). Of course there were always some who held onto it, such as Aquinas, I have heard.

C What of the baptists? If they WERE Calvinistic before the Reformation (as Harald suggested), when did any of them become Arminian?

According to the Handbook of Denominations:

In Holland, a group of Mennonites were teaching "Anabaptist principles" that the scriptures were trhe sole authority for man's faith and practice; that baptism should be a believer's privilege; that church and state should be separated, and that church disipline should be rigidly enforced in business, family, and personal affairs. These Mennonites met a little group of British Separatists who had taken refuge in Amsterdam from the religious persecutions under James I. Many lived in Mennonite homes, and one of their leaders, John Smyth, was completely captured by the Mennonite argument. He rebaptized himself and his followers in the Anabaptist, or Baptist faith, and organized the first English Baptist church in 1609. When he tried to make Mennonites of his people, however, he went too far. Baptists they would be, but not Mennonite, for that meant a threat to their British heritage, and they were still good Englishmen and proposed to remain so. Smyth was excommunicated and died in 1612.
Smyth's people drifted back across the channel, and with persecution waiting, established yet another Baptist church in London.
These first two churches were General Baptist churches, believing in a general atonement for all. In the course of time, there arose a Particular Baptist Church...preaching a limited atonement. (In 1631, Roger Williams, a Separatist minister, and John Clarke established the first Baptist churches (Particular) in America). The first Particular (British) church dates back to 1638. A third body, known as Immersion Baptist, broke away and in 1644 wrote a confession of faith which is still held by many modern Baptists. It was this confession that stamped these people popularly for the first time as Baptists.