Here's The Thing
Embryo Parson Posted on Monday, June 20, 2016 at 04:34PM With Augustine, Calvin, and the Reformed, I believe that no one becomes a Christian "unless the Father draw him." Thus far my agreement with the Edwardine/Cranmerian phase of the English Reformation.
But I also understand why English Arminianism took issue with the Augustinian and Reformed doctrines of grace. "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Thus my affirmation of Anglican Arminianism.
I am entertaining thoughts of ways these Scriptures can actually be harmonized without resorting either to Calvinism or Arminianism. Stay tuned.
Reader Comments (7)
Dear EP,
I believe we have both come through a Reformed/Presbyterian background, and I am 100% with you on this. What was rather liberating to me as I studied the Medieval writers is that Calvinism, being a sub-species of Augustinianism, doesn't have to be the interpretive grid for the Augustinian paradigm. Traditional Lutheranism, being I think closer to Augustine's doctrine of grace, also affirms unconditional election. The whole thing, as you know, rests on affirming a distinction of wills in God. If God "permits" anything, then we already admit that God allows things that do not conform to His character. So the Arminian solution does not let God off the hook, anymore than any other theodicy does. So the question is, Which baggage of problems do you want? For me, it's an exegetical problem. Scripture speaks to creaturely freedom to act, as well as God's eternal purpose to save in spite of our fallen condition. I would rather affirm the mystery of predestination than magically resolve it by collapsing it into mere foresight.
The long litany of Fathers, Confessors, Doctors, and Theologians who acknowledge the gratuitous nature of election in the vain of Augustine is undoubted and secure in our patrimony in the Church -- right up to the English Reformation and beyond. I am deeply sympathetic to the Arminian concern, but it boils down a controlling hermeneutic. That said, every responsible Church Historian knows the Arminian movement was an expression of Reformed theology, just as Amyrauldianism too was a Reformed movement. While we cannot raise unconditional election to a litmus test of orthodoxy, I think we cannot pretend that tradition does not exist within Anglicanism, and frankly it worries me how repressed that history is among some Anglicans. The Articles of the Prayer Book, clearly influenced by Reformed and Lutheran streams, comes down explicitly in favor of unconditional election.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to your forthcoming articles on this topic that I've spent years studying.
Blessings!
With Calvin, Augustine, the Reformed AND Aquinas
Dear EP,
The first reply, posted by The Haunted Bookman, was an articulation not far from my own sentiments. I don't think I could ever embrace an Arminian perspective on Predestination but I am sympathetic to that view. I jumped into the Augustinian stream some time back to emerge a Calvinist. Since then I've been heavily influenced by Lutheran doctrine, and am essentially in that court. I have yet to study the positions of Richard Hooker or the Caroline Divines though, and am open to learning from their positions.
I would recommend studying the Lutheran perspective. Here is how I understand it:
God always acts first. If we are saved (past, present, and future tense) then it is all of God's doing in the person and work of Christ. If we reject salvation in Christ, it is all our doing. We do not have the free will (since our will is bound in an to sin) to accept Christ on our own and conversion is a work of the Holy Spirit. Our will cannot be the catalyst for conversion, as it is our very will that is converted. However, once being justified by grace through faith, we can through our own will decide to side with our old Adam and rely on our own merits for justification, thus casting aside our blood smeared white robes of Baptism and stand in judgment without the advocacy of Christ. Thus man is the one active in rejecting the salvation of Christ and the choosing of damnation. To put it simply- God gets all the credit for our salvation and we get all the credit for our damnation. Sorting out some of the details above seems to be an exercise in understanding how justification and sanctification are homogeneous yet distinct. My concern for the Lutheran position is that while attempting to do the opposite there are a couple of areas where they might have tacked on explanations to certain components of the mystery of salvation. But if we stick to their formulation that salvation is 100% from God and damnation is 100% our doing, then we are safely in the arms of Holy Scripture. Yes there is mystery. Yes there is paradox. Yes it doesn't work mathematically (and is likely to drive any Calvinist mad). But if we are comfortable with mystery then we are trusting God, and leaning not on our own understanding.
Sorry to Ramble On, but it is both a great song and a penchant of mine :)
Jereme
Jereme, I'm very happy you posted.
I am very happy to worship with our Arminian brothers and sisters within Anglicanism. I do wish, however, there would be more teaching about our Augustinian heritage and all that it means.
When, and if, I am a priest, that will be remedied as far as I am able.
I am with St. Augustine on this 100%, the Councils of Valence, Quiercy and Orange (II) are all within this stream. With greatest of respect towards Hooker and the later Arminian luminaries (Taylor and a great host of post-17th century Anglican thinkers), I still cling quite ferociously to the Augustinian paradigm as it makes the most sense of the Scriptural data in my view.
The Lutheran solution is admirable: the Hidden God predestines and it is terrible to ponder; the Revealed God suffers and dies for all, inviting all to be saved. Faith does not seek its salvation outside of the Crucified God -- election is a darkness and a terror otherwise. Calvin comes close to this in his Institutes, recognizing it is a labyrinth of despair if we consider election outside of the mirror of our election: Christ.
Also, I am absolutely with Augustine (and Luther for that matter) is the reality of apostasy among those who have been saved. The gift of perseverance is given to the elect alone, but there are those in the Church militant who will sojourn with us a time and then fall away through unbelief and sin. Unconditional election and the possibility of apostasy are twin realities in Scripture. Calvin's solution is also admirable, but I am afraid it doesn't take the warnings far enough.
The key of course is to recognize our utter helplessness, the prevenient act of grace when we could not act for ourselves, and the fallenness we have in Adam. This both Arminians and Calvinists, and the Western Church on the whole agrees with. Trent certainly upheld this.
My thanks to the Haunted Bookman for such an eloquent reply.
Yes, my feet are also firmly planted in the Augustinian tradition. I am not comfortable with Arminianism, but I am learning to become comfortable with those that hold that view (in the sense of worshiping with them). I just hope that they cling to the Word and the Sacraments, and ultimately to Christ, and I suppose most Sacramental Arminians do. Even the best of theologians have inconsistencies (Francis Pieper called these felicitous inconsistencies when a false belief didn't ultimately lead to a rejection of the Gospel) and I am glad to welcome the Arminian as co-believers of the Gospel of Christ. I think this is one reason why I'm being drawn towards Anglicanism despite being very comfortable with Lutheran doctrine overall. The other reason being ecclesiology and the threefold offices and the episcopacy. Ecclesiolgy is related though as conservative Lutherans would essentially de-church many of the Church Fathers from their Communion or Church Body for not holding strict Augustinian views even while smirking at Augustine's doctrine of justification.
Which brings me to my last point. Anglicanism seems like a safe and healthy place to forge ones doctrinal views while examining Scripture and the Father's while not being overly influenced by the confessions of a Protestant Church Body. As I desire to be both Catholic and Biblical, I think the Anglican Way is the way to be.
Thanks and many blessings
Jereme,
Wonderful to hear your journey. Of course the Anglican Continuum is not a perfect place, but I am happy you are finding comfort within this tradition. I've been happily Anglican now for 16 years and haven't looked back. I often find myself interested in what's going on across the Tiber, but then realize how bloody a messy it is over there too... But we have to pick our set of problems within Christendom. The Romanists have a litany of issues and accretions which unfortunately weigh down an otherwise venerable communion; the garden variety Orthodox also have complexities that present hurdles (to me at least, a dye in the wool Western Catholic.)
Non-liberal Anglicanism indeed has much to commend itself, especially if you are coming at it through the Oxford Movement (which was my entry point) and its emphasis on Catholic faith and practice in light of the whole Church. I have ever been a nose-bleedingly high liturgy, Missal and incense sort of Anglican, but I do very much appreciate and value the simplicity of the Prayer Book Catholics who are not as keen on the liturgical "extras" -- at the end of the day we are shaped by the Prayer Book (or ought to be at least.)
I too came through Lutheranism (actually, OPC/PCA to LCMS to the Anglican Catholic Church) and have even taught Lutheran theology right out of the Book of Concord at my old LCMS church, so I treasure the great things I've learned through great minds like Pieper, Chemnitz, Melancthon, Sasse, David Scaer, Arthur Just, and of course Luther (to name but a few!) Anglicanism affords me to embrace the best of the Great Tradition and remain fiercely biblical as the Fathers would have wanted us to be.
It would be great to communicate at length. Please feel free to contact me, I would love to correspond with you in a less-public forum. My gmail address is hauntedbookman.
In Pax Christi,
The Haunted Bookman
Interesting, I might be following a very similar path as your own. I will take you up on your offer of personal correspondence for sure.
Many blessings,
Jereme