Did Luther affirm the "ip" in Tulip?
I recently read through J. Theodore Mueller's translation of Luther's commentary on Romans. It wasn't an "academic" translation, but it had sat on my shelf long enough with me only dipping into a couple of chapters every now and then.
Any way, a passage in Luther's commentary on Romans 9 caught my attention. He was commenting on this passage: "The scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth (9:17)."
Luther wrote: "These words mean: I desired to show you that the power of deliverance lies alone in me and not in the ability, merit and righteousness of any other. For this reason I hardened you and freed Israel. This power he . . . illustrated before in the case of the two brothers, Esau and Jacob, namely, that is the divine election of grace that saves, and that those surely will be saved who are elected" (p. 140 bolded emphasis added).
While I would be loath to turn a throw-away line into an affirmation of systematic theology, the bolded phrase did sound a bit to me like the "ip" in the Calvinist's "Tulip." For those who do not know, in "Tulip," each letter stands for a distinctive doctrine: T = total depravity, u & l something else, the "ip" refers to "irresistible grace" and the "perseverance of the saints." (At least I think they do.) I think the "ip" means that God will save every person he elects. And that sounds sort of similar to what Luther writes (at least as translated). I'll have to take another look at "predestination" in the confessions. They do affirm a high doctrine of election, but I don't recall that they treat the "ip" question in any detail.
Of course, in popular Lutheran piety, I've heard it affirmed over and over that while God affords people the opportunity to be saved, people can always refuse God's grace. (That would be a denial of "ip.") Of course, that's true as an existential matter (a point even the discerning Calvinist agrees with), but the Calvinist wants to talk about God's power over the soul at this point.
Quite often, at least in my experience, the Calvinist also wants to claim that the "ip" is a source of comfort and assurance for the Christian. But that obviously cannot be. Affirming that God saves those he elects as an abstract matter entails nothing about whether an individual is actually a member of the elect. Our assurance before God comes only from now trusting our trustworthy God to save us through Jesus Christ, it does not come from affirming one or another doctrine of election.
Any way, a passage in Luther's commentary on Romans 9 caught my attention. He was commenting on this passage: "The scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth (9:17)."
Luther wrote: "These words mean: I desired to show you that the power of deliverance lies alone in me and not in the ability, merit and righteousness of any other. For this reason I hardened you and freed Israel. This power he . . . illustrated before in the case of the two brothers, Esau and Jacob, namely, that is the divine election of grace that saves, and that those surely will be saved who are elected" (p. 140 bolded emphasis added).
While I would be loath to turn a throw-away line into an affirmation of systematic theology, the bolded phrase did sound a bit to me like the "ip" in the Calvinist's "Tulip." For those who do not know, in "Tulip," each letter stands for a distinctive doctrine: T = total depravity, u & l something else, the "ip" refers to "irresistible grace" and the "perseverance of the saints." (At least I think they do.) I think the "ip" means that God will save every person he elects. And that sounds sort of similar to what Luther writes (at least as translated). I'll have to take another look at "predestination" in the confessions. They do affirm a high doctrine of election, but I don't recall that they treat the "ip" question in any detail.
Of course, in popular Lutheran piety, I've heard it affirmed over and over that while God affords people the opportunity to be saved, people can always refuse God's grace. (That would be a denial of "ip.") Of course, that's true as an existential matter (a point even the discerning Calvinist agrees with), but the Calvinist wants to talk about God's power over the soul at this point.
Quite often, at least in my experience, the Calvinist also wants to claim that the "ip" is a source of comfort and assurance for the Christian. But that obviously cannot be. Affirming that God saves those he elects as an abstract matter entails nothing about whether an individual is actually a member of the elect. Our assurance before God comes only from now trusting our trustworthy God to save us through Jesus Christ, it does not come from affirming one or another doctrine of election.
posted by Jim at 4:52 PM
1 Comments:
Mike,
I have a NU undergrad degree. Go Huskers!
In any event, I agree that irresistable grace gets a bad rap on the "coercion" thing. The new nature that God gives us though baptism into Christ can't help but "choose God," because it is a sane nature rather than an insance nature.
In my opinion, Reformed Christians then push this too far and start fretting about the true nature of the warnings in Hebrews (and elsewhere) and etc. Lutherans are more immanentist in that sort of thing, just saying, "well, if the writer says you can fall from grace, then for all practical purposes you can fall from grace."
But then some Lutherans, in my opinion, push too far in the other direction, ascribing a pivotal, metaphyscial (as opposed to experiential) role to human choice that the Lutheran confessions really don't admit.
So that's what I'm pushing on a bit in the post.
As for who's among the elect, how about this: Those who are the elect are those who receive God's grace through Jesus through the Gospel in Word, baptism, and the Supper, and who persevere in that trust to the end. And the grace we receive through trusting God only reflects the fact that God is trustworthy; our trust in God does not earn or merit that grace.
Post a Comment
<< Home