We all know the saying, "iron sharpens iron," and Modern Reformation roundtable discussions provide just such an opportunity. For this discussion we asked three serious students of Scripture’one Reformed, one Arminian, and one Lutheran’to put their toughest questions to each other on the topic of sin and grace. The following is a record of their interaction.
Defending the Reformed view is Michael S. Horton, the editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation. Defending the Arminian view is Roger Olson, professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University. And defending the Lutheran view is John Bombaro, senior minister at Grace Lutheran Church in San Diego who also teaches theology and religious studies at the University of San Diego.
Putting the Reformed Tradition to the Test…
The Arminian Challenge
Q.In light of what you believe about God's predestination of some people to hell (even if it is merely a decision to "pass over" them to elect others to heaven), combined with your belief that election to salvation is unconditional and grace is irresistible, in what sense do you believe God is "good"? Is there any analogy to this kind of "goodness" in human experience? How is this not, as Wesley said, "such a love as makes the blood run cold?"
A. I'm not in a very good position to determine God's morality. Why did God not choose everyone? Why doesn't the Spirit regenerate everyone? I don't know. Nevertheless, the starting point is that he does not have to choose, redeem, or give faith to anyone. "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion'" (Rom. 9:15). The baseline is that all the world is held accountable by God's law, convicted, and sentenced to death. That we can even talk about salvation is, by itself, a surprising and completely unnecessary announcement of God's grace in Christ.
According to the Canons of Dort, "The Reformed Churches detest with their whole soul" the view "that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety." All that God has to do in reprobation is leave sinners to their own will and activity. Meanwhile, in his gracious election, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit commit themselves to the most aggressive rescue operation imaginable. It is a love that sends the Son to suffer our judgment, and sends the Spirit to raise the ungodly from spiritual death, unite them to Christ, and keep them to the end in spite of the obstacles that even as believers we continue to place in his path.
Yes, there is an analogy to this kind of "goodness" in human experience’in fact, more than an analogy. In Jesus Christ, we see God's gracious prerogative to choose some, not others; to heal some, not others; to call some, not others; and to forgive the sins of all who trust in him’that is, all whom the Father has given him (John 6:44, 65; 10:11, 15-16, 25-30; 17:2-9). That's why it is grace. "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy" (Rom. 9:16). Arminianism teaches that the Father makes our election possible, Christ's death makes salvation possible, and the Spirit partially regenerates everyone so that they can be fully regenerated by their own decision’and that they can lose their salvation if they do not cooperate appropriately with God's grace. Given our sinful condition’even as believers’how does "salvation possible" become a greater expression of God's love than "salvation accomplished"? Jesus' words to his disciples, "You did not choose me, but I chose you to bear fruit that would last" (John 15:16), warms my cold blood.
The Lutheran Challenge
Q.Lutherans and Calvinists share two distinguishing marks of the church: the pure preaching of the gospel and the sacraments rightly administered in accordance with the gospel. Doesn't the Calvinist third mark of the church’namely, discipline’militate against divine grace as the final arbiter for determining who is an authentic Christian and who isn't? In other words, doesn't the Calvinist move away from something hard and secure like baptism to identify a Christian to something far more subjective, like the quality of one's Christian life? What distinguishes someone who is justified from someone who isn't? Is it something objective like baptism or faith as framed by the standards of "discipline"?
A. In the wake of the Antinomian Controversy, Luther included discipline among the marks. Following Jesus' teaching in Matthew 16 and 18, Luther held that the exercise of the keys involves rebuke and the retaining of sins of impenitent members, as well as remitting the sins of the repentant. Although Martin Bucer regarded discipline as a third mark, Calvin restricted the marks to the proclamation of the gospel and administration of the sacraments (Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.1.9-12) and then warned against the rigor of the Anabaptists in this matter (4.1.13-16).
With good reason, I think, our confessions affirmed discipline as a mark on the basis of the Great Commission. The mandate is to preach the gospel, to baptize, and "to teach them to observe everything I have commanded you." To discipline is to make disciples: to teach, exhort, correct, encourage, and rebuke (2 Tim. 4:2-3). Here, Paul includes this as part of the ministry of the Word. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians he rebukes the church for making a parody of the Supper and calls for discipline (i.e., order) in the ministry, offices, and public service so that the sacrament may be observed properly. It's not a question of how much progress one is making in sanctification, but of whether there are objective offices and order in the church for delivering the means of grace.
Discipline is instruction. It's to submit to the elders with respect to doctrine and life. You can't just call yourself a church because you have some friends over to your house for a Bible study and take it upon yourself to baptize or administer Communion. And members can't accuse each other of false doctrine or of "not really being a Christian" in experience or conduct. All who have made a public profession of faith before the elders and the church are regarded as belonging to the communion of saints. There is due process for handling scandals in doctrine and life. In other words, discipline (orderly communion) in the church helps to ensure that the Word is normative and the sacraments are administered according to Christ's command. It's a support to the first two marks. Christ doesn't liberate us from sin and death only to leave us to fend for ourselves, exposed to the elements. God's fatherly discipline is gracious to us and to our brothers and sisters who are affected by our continuing struggle with sin and error.
While our confessions mention discipline as a mark of the church, they speak only of the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments as the means by which the Spirit creates and confirms our faith to the end. Discipline (i.e., Christ's pastoral care through officers) serves that ministry.
Putting the Arminian Position to the Test…
The Reformed Challenge
Q.The doctrine of universal prevenient grace allows Arminians to defend synergism without affirming Pelagian or even semi-Pelagian confidence in unaided free will. However, Arminian biblical scholars such as Ben Witherington have pointed out that the doctrine of prevenient grace doesn't actually have any exegetical basis. How would you respond?
A. Not all Arminians believe in universal prevenient grace. All Arminians believe that prevenient grace alone makes possible the not-yet-saved person's free response to the gospel. Reformed folks also believe in prevenient grace; they just think it is irresistible (or efficacious) for the elect. Arminians believe it is resistible. So whatever exegetical basis there is for the Reformed doctrine of prevenient grace is also the basis for the Arminian doctrine. For example, John 6:44 refers to the "drawing" of the Father to the Son, Jesus. The Greek word translated "draw" in that verse and similar verses is elkuso. Some Reformed exegetes insist it always means only "compel," but if that's the case, John 12:32 would require universalism. And, in fact, as I have shown in Against Calvinism (163-64), it does not always mean "compel" in extra-biblical Greek. Also, Reformed folks (and Arminians) believe in common grace for which there is no more exegetical basis than prevenient grace; both are valid deductions from Scripture. Many doctrines are not spelled out explicitly in Scripture and therefore may be said to lack exegetical basis. They're still valid insofar as they are necessary to understand Scripture. The Trinity is, of course, an example.
The Lutheran Challenge
Q.In the Arminian scheme, are there any conditions for salvation that Christ himself did not personally accomplish, fulfill, and apply but that unregenerate individuals must themselves fulfill independently of Christ so as to render the work of Christ for that individual complete and efficacious? If so, then how does that other-than-Christ-fulfilled condition comport with justification by grace, through faith, because of Christ alone?
A. In the "Arminian scheme," there are no conditions of salvation that an unregenerate person must or can fulfill independently of Christ so as to render the work of Christ for that individual complete and efficacious. All one must do, but cannot do without the prevenient grace of Christ through the Word of God and/or through the Holy Spirit's drawing and enabling, is not resist but accept Christ's finished work, which means repent and trust in Christ alone. This nonresistance is not a meritorious work, nor is it in addition to what Christ has done or independent of what Christ has done; it is simply and solely free acceptance of what Christ has done. It is made possible by the convicting, calling, illuminating, and enabling power of the Holy Spirit always, so far as we know, made active by the Word of God proclaimed. The person thus being freed from bondage to sin (i.e., unbelief) by prevenient grace is no longer simply unregenerate. Arminius himself explicitly appealed to Philipp Melanchthon as support for this evangelical synergism. Arminians believe that free acceptance of a gift in no way makes the gift less of a gift. That is true in ordinary life as everyone knows and admits. Why wouldn't it be true in the case of God's gifts? A gift does not have to be imposed to be a gift.
Putting the Lutheran Tradition to the Test…
The Reformed Challenge
Q.We stand shoulder to shoulder on justification and monergism. Yet Reformed folks wonder if Lutherans are consistent (not only logically but exegetically) if we can lose our regeneration and justification. How do you respond to that concern?
A. It is true that Article XII of the Augsburg Confession says, "Our churches condemn the Anabaptists who deny that those who have once been justified can lose the Holy Spirit," and so there is a standing tension, which I articulated in the Lutheran response to Roger. Notwithstanding, Reformed folks may be assuaged of the concern that Lutherans are exegetically inconsistent. Judas himself received the same sanctifying word of the Lord in the Upper Room. He need not have his whole body washed but only his feet since he "was clean," though he proved himself apostate. Likewise, St. Paul in his Epistles frequently expresses his concern for the saints to persevere in their justified status for not only the sake of the gospel but also personal faith: hence the examples of Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim. 1:20), to name but two. The apostles warned about the emergence of heresy and specifically apostasy in the church (1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Thess. 2:3), which is the community of the baptized and therefore justified. The same, of course, could be said for the author of Hebrews and the opening chapters of Revelation to the churches, both of which address the consequences of falling away from the faith (see, e.g., Heb. 6:5-8; 10:26). Monergistic regeneration is affirmed, but so is the warning for the potential utter repudiation of justifying grace, consistent with the Scriptures.
The Reformed should be mindful that they say virtually the same thing as the Lutheran, though using different categories, nomenclature, and an internal theological system that Lutherans do not employ. And so Calvinists also will admit that there are those in their midst who, as far as profession of faith, baptism, and outward appearance are concerned, are denominated as the "justified," the "regenerate." Yet, if the profession of their faith and baptism do not yield fruit concomitant with regeneration, then the categories shift’the person may be identified as the "reprobate." The one persisting in reprobate behavior and profession will ultimately manifest consequent "apostasy," as the Lutheran may see it. The Reformed will say that those hypocrites or reprobates in our midst were actually never of the elect, were never regenerated or justified or possessed faith. This betrays what was said and celebrated about the same baptized individuals who once retained the third distinguishing mark of the church (discipline and its fruits). A new category now applies: the unrepentant, persistent sinner who was baptized was not of the "invisible church" but merely of the "visible church." These categories allow the Reformed to remain consistent with their theological system. Lutherans, on the other hand, are not bound to conform their dogmatics to systematics, and affirm without inconsistency both biblical doctrines.
Lastly, the Reformed are right to detect a concern about this dogmatic tension, namely, a pastoral concern’a pastoral concern that the baptized and therefore justified and regenerate abide in the faith, enjoying fellowship with God and the communion of saints, rather than abandon the ark of salvation. In this, too, the Reformed and Lutheran also stand shoulder to shoulder, albeit employing different categories.
The Arminian Challenge
Q.How do you reconcile monergism with universal atonement and amissible grace?
A.a. Our redemption truly is a completely divine act, both in terms of its merciful accomplishment ("objective justification") by way of a universal atonement (per Matt. 28:19; John 3:16-17; Titus 2:11; 1 John 2:2) and its specified gracious application ("subjective justification") through the proclamation of the gospel or baptism into the same gospel. The atonement is universal in scope, specified in particular application (hence, the nonuniversality in terms of application) as the gracious work of God alone, received through the gift of faith alone, because of the accomplishments and representation of Christ alone. And yet this grace applied may be lost (amissible). There is nothing illogical or unbiblical about this progression given the testimony of Scripture concerning apostasy.
Luther's categories of the "hidden" and "revealed" God may be helpful in this regard. The "revealed God" is the "preached God" who elects in Christ. The revealed God comes to us clothed with the gospel and makes himself known through means of grace that are mediated and therefore resistible. Just as when our Lord Jesus rode into Jerusalem lamenting how the people "always resist the Holy Spirit" (i.e., the means by which the Holy Spirit ministers to us through the Word of God and now the Messiah), so too human resistance of the grace of God may be fatal to faith. This tension, this paradox, however, is in keeping not with the "preached God" but the "hidden God"’the God of biblical predestination. The fatal repudiation of the gospel once received, about which Scripture clearly warns, is something that belongs to the domain of the hidden, the mysterious, the inscrutable. Evangelical Christians do not necessarily reconcile these biblical truths but rather believe, teach, and confess them as apprehensible but not comprehensible.
