The Thirty-Nine Articles: A Faith for Today: Article 17: Predestination and Election
Predestination and election are subjects which always seem to arouse great passions. Often in discussion on this issue much more heat is produced than light. Many of us will have heard of people being attacked as ‘Calvinist’ or ‘Arminian’, almost as if these titles described some particularly evil form of immorality or denied the very existence of God.
On one side of the argument those who stress man’s dignity and his being made in the image of God cling stubbornly to their insistence of free will. “I have the freedom to choose; I chose to follow Christ; it’s a matter of choice and we’re all free to choose our own way; how could God ask us to choose Christ if He doesn't give us free will?” On the other side we find a stress on the sovereignty of God and the fallenness of man. “No-one can possibly go against God’s will; He chose us in Christ, so we cannot possibly make the choice for ourselves; our wills are so enslaved by sin that we aren’t free to choose at all.”
The ‘Arminians’ accuse the ‘Calvinists’ of not being interested in evangelism: “They say that God chooses who He will save, that we don’t have any choice in the matter, that human responsibility doesn’t really exist, that it’s no use asking for decisions or Christian commitment.” The ‘Calvinists’ accuse the ‘Arminians’ of ignoring the sovereignty of God and of preaching ‘Easybelievism’. “They think it’s just a matter of an easy superficial decision, that we can deal with sin ourselves, that salvation is really a matter of man’s decision not of God’s”.
The argument can go on for a very long time. It often focuses on apparently contradictory texts like ‘I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy’ (Romans 9: 15) and ‘God our Saviour ... wants all men to be saved’ (1 Timothy 2: 3-4). To read more, click here.
6 comments:
There is a problem with this discussion of Article 17. It doesn't acknowledge the teaching of the English Reformers on losing Salvation.
[From an earlier post (with a few embellishments)] Leading English Reformers state the Augustinian notion that it is possible for those who have been joined to Christ to be separated through “deadly sin” (Article 16) although the Elect Good Ground (or, “vessels of honor”) will undoubtedly persevere to the end
(Article 17).
[Sermon preached during the period that the 1552 BCP and Articles 16 and 17 were being completed and confirmed]:
THE SIXTH SERMON, PREACHED ON THE FIRST SUNDAY “IN ADVENT, 1552, BY MASTER HUGH LATIMER.
"...there be many of us, which when we fall willingly into sin against conscience, we lose the favour of God, our salvation, and finally the Holy Ghost;)...”
“…I put the case, Joseph had not resisted the temptations of his master’s wife, but had followed her, and fulfilled the act of lechery with her ; had weighed the matter after a worldly fashion, thinking, “I have my mistress’s favour already, and so by that mean I shall have my master’s favour too ; nobody knowing of it.” Now if he had done so, this act had been a deadly sin ; for any act that is done against the law of God willingly and if sin have wittingly, is a deadly sin. And that man or woman that committeth such an act, loseth the Holy Ghost and the remission of sins ; and so becometh the child of the devil, being before the child of God.”
The whole sermon can be read here (I highly recommend reading this sermon all the way through):
http://books.google.com/books?id=EFoJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA8&dq=latimer&ei=Y-tOSeCdM6TCMYOenY0M#PPR5,M1
Or, as the Anglican Homily against Fornication notes even more graphically regarding the loss of Salvation which occurs through “deadly sin” (in this case
fornication):
He declares also that our bodies are the members of Christ. How unseemly a thing is it then to cease to be incorporated or embodied and made one with
Christ, and through whoredom to be enjoined and made all one with a whore?"
http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/homilies/bk1hom11.htm
[btw I’m not FV or New Perspective in my own beliefs—but just a radically monergistic predestinarian who agrees with Augustine—that the Scriptures teach that according to God’s Sovereign Will those who are non-elect/reprobate may partake in a limited and temporary sense in the salvation of the elect even as the elect may partake in a temporary sense in the condemnation of the
non-elect/reprobate].
God Bless,
William
p.s. Apologies, I once again failed to notice that my fiance had signed on to gmail before posting.
William,
Contributors to Cross+Way are limited in the length of their articles. No article may exceed 2000 words. The focus of this article is upon the teaching of the Thirty-Nine Articles themselves, not a survey of the teaching of the English Reformers. You raise interesting questions but are we to interpret Article XVI on the basis of Latimer's Sixth Sermon and the Homily against Whoredom and Adultery or on the basis of Scripture and a more wider reading of the standard Anglican divines from the same period. Christ forgave the women caught in adultery. The New Testament term used is porneia, which includes fornication. Would Christ have forgiven the woman if her sin was against the Holy Spirit? Are the conclusions that Latimer draws in his sermon influenced by Scripture or by Medieval theology? He uses the term "deadly sin"? Was Latimer involved in the drawing up of the Articles? The principle of authorial intent applies to the actual author of a document. The Homily against Whoredom and Adultery was published in 1547, in the early stages of the English Reformation. The first six of the Book of Homilies of 1547 present distinct Protestant theology but do the remaining homilies in the collection? These and other questions make for an interesting discussion but they would take up a number of articles. Donald Allister's "A Faith for Today" series is intended as an introduction to the doctrine of the Articles, which is why I posted it. Many North American Anglicans are not familiar with the Articles. My blog stats suggest that a number of them are interested in learning more about them.
Hello Dr. Jordan, I didn't see that you had responded to my post.
I assume that you are not suggesting that Latimer's teaching is in conflict with the Articles of the Church which he was a leading reformer of.
And the Homilies are, of course, an authoritative part of the official Anglican formularies (and the teaching of losing Salvation is certainly not restricted to this Homily or the first book of Homilies). Further, the teaching of the Homilies and the leading reformers such as Latimer in this matter is in complete agreement (as one would expect) with everything the Articles and BCP teach.
As for the woman caught in adultery, this only backs up what Latimer and the 39 Articles say, namely, not every "deadly sin" is an unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit.
(Hebrews 6 and 10, on the other hand, warn soberly about the utter loss of Salvation to those who have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit (Heb. 6:4) and washed or sanctified by the Blood of Christ (Heb 10:29). I believe that only way to know if someone has fallen utterly is if they die without turning back to the Lord. Consequently, the opportunity to repent is always to be genuinely offered to anyone regardless of whether they have fallen into "deadly" sin or not--as Latimer and Article 16 speaks).
And yes, I'm sure Latimer believed that the "deadly sin" was the teaching of Scripture and I agree with him. I believe Scripture demands the teaching. (Unforgiveness for instance--one who has had his ten thousand pound debt of sin removed will have eternal condemnation put back on his head if he refuses to forgive others when they wrong him--i.e. unforgiveness can strangle and thus render ineffectual a previously living, saving faith).
[Continued]
[Continued from last post]
All of that said, I don't believe one has to agree with the Anglican Formularies on the particular point of losing Salvation in order to be a faithful Anglican.
There have certainly been many faithful Anglicans who were fully in agreement with Geneva--i.e. that it is impossible to lose Salvation. In fact (as you know) the full embrace of Calvin's teachings on this issue had gained so much popularity by the end of Elizabeth's reign that the Formularies were almost changed in order to require Calvin's teaching on the matter (with the Lambeth Articles)--although Queen Elizabeth, and thus the Elizabethan Settlement, prevented this from occurring.
My point is that I think it would be clearly erroneous (from a basic historic and doctrinal perspective) for anyone to imply that the belief that Salvation can be lost is at odds with Anglican teaching OR that it would not be possible to hold this belief and still be faithful to Anglican doctrine.
You said:
"The principle of authorial intent applies to the actual author of a document"
I don't deny at all that authorial intent is a significant issue.
That's one reason, for example, that I consider the belief in the objective spiritual presence of Christ in the consecrated elements as held by Bishop Guest, who was a leading author of Article 28 and the leading editor of the 1559 BCP (in bringing back the words "The Body of the Lord" in the distribution) is not excluded by Article 28 and the BCP.
Likewise with Bishop Overall who wrote the BCP Catechism on the Sacraments (As I have shown in discussions a while back--Bishop Overall was not simply cutting and pasting from Nowell. Although he followed a similar pattern in the questions and answers, he clearly departed when he so desired (in significant doctrinal ways) from Nowell's Catechisms and took "authorial control" of how the BCP Catechism was written).
God Bless,
William
p.s. Because of my schedule I may not be able to respond or may be very limited in my ability to respond to any further posts.
p.p.s. In case I don't have an opportunity to respond again, I want to let you know that even if we don't see eye to eye on everything, I really appreciate your witness and love for Christ. Your brother in Christ, William.
I had one other thing--that I had written, that I thought I might post before calling it quits (got a little bit of extra time here at lunch).
"The first six of the Book of Homilies of 1547 present distinct Protestant theology but do the remaining homilies in the collection?"
The teaching that Salvation can be lost is part of the distinct Protestant theology laid out in the first six Book of Homilies (and by Latimer, as quoted previously, etc).
As the 3rd Homily--the Homily of Justification (which has unique doctrinal authority among the Homilies-Article 11):
“…we must trust only in God’s mercy, and that sacrifice which our high priest and Savior Christ Jesus, the son of God, once offered for us upon the cross, to obtain thereby God’s grace, and remission, as well of our original sin in baptism, as of all actual sin committed by us after our baptism, if we truly repent and turn unfeignedly to him again.”
“Our office is not to pass the time of this present life unfruitfully and idly after we are baptized or justified, not caring how few good works we do to the glory of God and profit of our neighbors. Much less is it our office, after that we be once made Christ’s members, to live contrary to the same, making our selves members of the devil”
http://www.geocities.com/curtis_caldwell/bk1hom03_mod.htm
After we have been made Christ's members, if we "live contrary to the same" we turn ourselves from the members of Christ, into the members of the devil. Or, as Latimer says in a parallel manner:
"so becometh the child of the devil, being before the child of God."
Or, as the Homily against Fornication fleshes out further what is stated more briefly in the Homily of Justification regarding how "living contrary to the same" turns one who was the temple of the Holy Spirit into the dwelling place of Satan: "...evil thoughts, breaking of wedlock, whoredom, and fornication defile a man, that is to say, corrupt both the body and soul of man, and make them, of the temples of the Holy Ghost, the filthy dunghill, or dungeon of all unclean spirits, of the house of GOD, the dwelling place of Satan."
This occurs because we "drive" out from our heart the indwelling Holy Spirit (dwelling in the Temple of our body and soul). That is, we drive out and thus lose the Holy Spirit (Who unites us to Christ and Who alone is that water of life welling up to eternal life--John 4).
"If we be the Temple of the Holy Ghost, how unfitting then is it, to drive that Holy Spirit from us through whoredom, and in his place to set the wicked spirits of uncleannesse and fornication, and to be joined, and do service to them?" (Homily against Fornication)
In sum, when it comes to the deadly sin of fornication, or any other deadly sin/state of sin:
"He declares also that our bodies are the members of Christ. How unseemly a thing is it then to cease to be incorporated or embodied and made one with
Christ, and through whoredom to be enjoined and made all one with a whore? What greater dishonour or injury can we do to Christ, then to take away from him the members of his body, and to join them to whores, devils, and wicked spirits? And what more dishonor can we do to our selves, then through uncleanness, to lose so excellent a dignity and freedom, and to become bondslaves, and miserable captives to the spirits of darkness? Let vs therefore consider, first the glory of Christ, then our estate, our dignity, and freedom, wherein GOD hath set us, by giving us his Holy Spirit, and let vs valiantly defend the same against Satan, and all his crafty assaults, that Christ may be honored, and that we lose not our liberty or freedom, but still remain in one Spirit with him." (Homily against Fornication)
God Bless,
William
Post a Comment