LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Brock University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

26 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV out that wickedness and disbelief are both caused by God and that man is compelled to follow them.” 32 Averroes divides Muslims into two main groups regarding predestination. One, the Muctazilites, affirm free will in man, and with it, personal responsibility for sin and punishment for sin. The Jabarites, by contrast, “hold that man is under compulsion in his acts”. 33 The Ashcarites take a moderating view between the two extremes. Mohamed cites Jaroslav Pelikan in observing the influence of Augustine on the development of double predestination, and draws on Aquinas to support Averroes on this point. 34 He says, “Both Averroes and Aquinas recognize that God is omnipotent, His power is unlimited. There is no great difference in the way in which this matter is discussed by both.” 35 Of course God is omnipotent. But the doctrine of predestination, as Mohamed could not possibly understand (though Aquinas should have), is drawn from the Second Article, not the First. If we consider only the omnipotence of God, we can find only a fatalistic determinism for human action, and the capricious decree of God behind salvation and damnation. There can be no distinction between Law and Gospel in Islamic thought, because the Qur’an contains only Law. In arriving at these conclusions, Mohamed, like Calvin, confuses not only Law and Gospel but conflates God’s foreknowledge with His predestination: “Whatever happens in this world is under the providence of God; when God knows all things then all things must happen.” 36 Of course there is Gospel in Reformed theology because it is derived from the Bible. Nevertheless, the parallels between Islam and Calvinism are remarkable. We note that there is no practical value to false doctrine concerning predestination. This is most certainly true in regard to Calvinism and Arminianism. Both theologies on predestination produce doubt in the believer. In Calvinism, the believer worries that perhaps God has predestined him to damnation, and he will be lost no matter how sincere his faith or active his church activity. In Arminianism, when difficulties arise in the believer’s life, he falls into despair because he thinks his faith is not strong enough, or that his decision for Christ wasn’t sincere enough or his emotional conversion not tearful enough. Not only are these false doctrines of no practical value, they are un-preachable. What Presbyterian minister would ever get up in the pulpit and preach double predestination How could he tell his people that some of them, no matter how active in church, may be already damned by God’s immutable and arbitrary decree from eternity 32 Mohamed, 394. 33 Mohamed, 394. 34 Mohamed, 395-97. 35 Mohamed, 397. 36 Mohamed, 404.
BAUE: THE CURRENT DEBATE ON PREDESTINATION 27 He’d soon find himself on the street. In fact, we may go so far as to say that one criterion for evaluating doctrine is the test of practicality. Of course the primary criterion is the doctrine’s conformity to Holy Scripture. But I would suggest this criterion also, that we ask what practical use a given doctrine may be to the Christian—Does it bring him Gospel comfort Does it sustain him in the midst of trials—and also whether this doctrine can be preached to the edifying of God’s holy people. The correct doctrine of predestination certainly meets these two practical criteria, as we will see. THE LUTHERAN VIEW ON PREDESTINATION Lutherans affirm that their Confessions, contained in the Book of Concord (1580), are a true and faithful exposition of biblical doctrine. The Confessions address predestination in the Formula of Concord, Article XI. From this remove, it seems striking that there was at the time “no public conflict” concerning this doctrine. 37 That is, it was not the issue of controversy for the Lutheran confessors in the sixteenth century as it was to become for the Synodical Conference in the nineteenth century. Calvin had by that time articulated his doctrine of double predestination. His Institutes were published in 1559, the Concordia in 1580. Other issues held centre stage during that time, but the doctrine of election called for a clear confession. The Formula distinguishes between God’s foreknowledge and election. God knows all things before they happen, including evil things. But He is not the cause of evil. Moreover, He limits and regulates the evil of this world so that it ultimately serves the elect. This we have seen in Romans 8:28 and Ephesians 1:11. The most important example of this would be the crucifixion of our Lord—an execution by torture planned and carried out by evil men with evil motives, but whose result was the redemption of the world by the sinless Lamb of God. Election or predestination extends over the children of God and is the cause of their salvation. This election is to be found in the Word only, and not in the secret counsels of God, who wills that all men be saved. The FC stresses the practical importance of this doctrine— and this is solid teaching the pastor can take into the pulpit—for human reason when it applies itself to this doctrine invariably comes up with two errors: one, it assumes that if I am one of the elect, I can do whatever I wish (licence); and two, if I am not one of the elect, nothing can help effect my salvation (despair). 38 Over against these errors, the FC stresses that “we have 37 FC Ep XI:1. The Book of Concord, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000): 517. All citations from this edition. 38 FC Ep XI:9. Kolb-Wengert, 518.
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 18 and 19: LTR XV (Academic Year 2002-03): 18-
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 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 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 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?