LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Brock University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

LTR XV (Academic Year 2002-03): 18-39 THE CURRENT DEBATE ON PREDESTINATION Frederic W. Baue INTRODUCTION In 2003, Reformation & Revival Journal devoted an entire issue to the subject of Predestination—an indication that the controversy over this doctrine is still alive. 1 The articles featured Reformed and Arminian perspectives; the still, small Lutheran voice was present but not predominant. The purpose of this article is to trace the outline of the current debate on Predestination—including Islam—and offer a Lutheran contribution to the subject. <strong>LUTHERAN</strong> RELUCTANCE The reluctance of Lutheran theologians—at least those in the conservative Missouri Synod—to weigh in on this subject may be due to the notorious Predestinarian Controversy that tore up the church in the 19 th century. C. F. W. Walther (1811-1887), the father of the Missouri Synod, had from the beginning nurtured the dream of a united Lutheran church in the United States, one cleansed of the European compromises and built on the sure foundation of Scripture and the Confessions. In 1856 Walther initiated free conferences, inviting leaders of the various synods to work toward Lutheran unity. But the Lutherans in the General Synod, which included many of the congregations that had been overseen by Henry Melchior Muhlenberg (1711-1787), generally considered the father of Lutheranism in America, split in 1863 during the Civil War. This led in 1867 to the formation of the General Council—a synod that was unfortunately weak on chiliasm, secret societies, and other issues. Nevertheless the Synodical Conference was formed in 1872 as a further effort to work out doctrinal differences. As William Schmelder observes, “It was the concern for doctrinal unity that had brought the synods together; it was doctrinal disunity that caused the synods to conclude that they could not continue to walk together.” 2 1 Reformation & Revival Journal 12.2 (2003). 2 William J. Schmelder, “The Predestinarian Controversy: Review and Reflection”, Concordia Journal 1.1 (1975): 22.
BAUE: THE CURRENT DEBATE ON PREDESTINATION 19 As Schmelder outlines the developments, the key questions were: Is predestination the cause of faith Yes, said the Missouri Synod. Salvation is by grace alone. Not so, held the Iowa Synod and the Joint Synod of Ohio, arguing that faith is the cause of predestination. Predestination to salvation was intuitu fidei—“on account of faith”. This to the orthodox Lutheran mind was plain synergism, but the Methodist church was surging in the 19 th century, and Arminian theology—so congenial to the American spirit—was influencing even the Lutherans. Thus arose the Predestinarian Controversy in the Synodical Conference. The chief protagonist was F. A. Schmidt (1837-1928), who had been proposed for the St. Louis seminary faculty. He accused Missouri of crypto-Calvinism for teaching election by grace alone without the co-operation of man’s free will. Schmidt thus held the intuitu fidei position, and publicly opposed Walther on election. Edward Busch, in Currents in Theology and Mission, argues in favour of predestination intuitu fidei. 3 In his view, the old Lutherans (Andreae, Johann Gerhard, Quenstedt, Baier, Hollaz) held that election was intuitu fidei, and that what brought about the Predestinarian Controversy “was that Walther was apparently changing his mind”. 4 Did Walther and the old Lutherans hold this view According to Busch, they did. He goes on: The concept of “in view of faith” or intuitu fidei, that God had elected people in view of their final faith, had originally been developed to safeguard the idea (against the Calvinists) that God sincerely used the means of grace to bring people to faith in Christ. Faith obviously was necessary before any “elect” could be saved. So the nineteenth-century knee-jerk reaction to any challenge to intuitu fidei, to anything that sounded as if faith wasn’t necessary, was to call that challenge, “Calvinistic.” 5 But Schmelder, writing in 1977, presents conclusive evidence from primary sources that Walther rejected intuitu fidei—evidence that Busch, writing in 1982, completely and inexcusably ignores. Walther responded to Schmidt’s accusations at a conference in Altenburg, Missouri, in 1877, where he said, “It is false and wrong to teach 3 Edward Busch “The Predestinarian Controversy One Hundred Years Later”, Currents in Theology and Mission 9.3 (1982): 133-34. Currents was the theological journal of Christ Seminary-Seminex, the breakaway school founded by liberal, ex-Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, faculty and students who participated in the 1974 Walkout. Both Schmelder and Busch draw on the Predestinarian controversy as a way to reflect on Seminex conflict, which was still current in the LCMS at the time they were writing. Not surprisingly, Busch dismisses the dogmatic issues in the Predestinarian controversy by saying, “This controversy was a complex combination of personality, theology, and inflamed tempers” (137). In his view, the Synodical Conference should never have broken up over the mere quibbling of theologians. Later in the article he advocates Gospel reductionism as basis for church fellowship (146). 4 Busch, 134. 5 Busch, 136.
Page 1: LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW publish
Page 4 and 5: 4 STANDARD ABBREVIATIONS AE BAG BAG
Page 6 and 7: 6 Finally, Paul Landgraf reviews Da
Page 8 and 9: 8 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV pr
Page 10 and 11: 10 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV m
Page 12 and 13: 12 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV r
Page 14 and 15: 14 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV o
Page 16 and 17: 16 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV I
Page 20 and 21: 20 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV t
Page 28 and 29: 28 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV a
Page 30 and 31: 30 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV T
Page 32 and 33: 32 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV f
Page 34 and 35: 34 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV P
Page 38 and 39: 38 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV h
Page 40 and 41: LTR XV (Academic Year 2002-03): 40-
Page 46 and 47: 46 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV C
Page 50 and 51: 50 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV B
Page 52 and 53: 52 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV w
Page 54 and 55: LTR XV (Academic Year 2002-03): 54-
Page 56 and 57: 56 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV M
Page 58 and 59: 58 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV O
Page 64 and 65: 64 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV M
Page 66 and 67: 66 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV G
Page 68 and 69:
68 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV o
Page 70 and 71:
70 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV t
Page 72 and 73:
72 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV o
Page 74 and 75:
74 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV r
Page 76 and 77:
76 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV C
Page 78 and 79:
78 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV s
Page 80 and 81:
80 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV I
Page 82 and 83:
82 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV B
Page 84 and 85:
84 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV i
Page 86 and 87:
86 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV a
Page 88 and 89:
LTR XV (Academic Year 2002-03): 88-
Page 90 and 91:
90 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV W
Page 92 and 93:
LTR XV (Academic Year 2002-03): 92-
Page 94 and 95:
94 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV u
Page 96:
96 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV H
show all

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Brock University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?