I am also just starting to read Randall C. Zachman’s book The Assurance Of Faith: Conscience in the Theology of Martin Luther and John Calvin. I am really excited to dig into this work, Zachman engages in a comparison between Luther and Calvin on how they conceived of assurance of salvation issues; he ends up arguing that contra conventional readings of both, that in fact they have the same functional conclusions at play in their respective theological ouvres.
Jumping right in Zachman begins to broach an un-sightly problem left expose in both Calvin’s and Luther’s approaches to articulating a theory of assurance that is ultimately grounded in the person of Christ. While both theologians believed that they had achieved this, Zachman highlights how, in fact, they left the door opened for things like Theodore Beza’s syllogismus practicus (practical syllogism); which would later play a pivotal role in the Puritan theology of someone like William Perkins and William Ames et al. This is one of the consequences of operating with a limited atonement in one’s theological construction; the subjective side of assuring oneself that s/he is one of the elect for whom Christ died (or for whom Christ has chosen in his Priestly office pace Calvin cf. Heb. 7.25) is left to creating mechanisms that can do that kind of heavy lifting for the tortured souls left wondering such enigmas (am I saved?). Here is what Zachman writes on this front in regard to Calvin’s & Luther’s theology:
[G]iven the fact that both Luther and Calvin had a doctrine of limited election, which restricts the saving efficacy of the reconciliation won in Christ to those who believe in Christ, the possibility of this reversal could not in principle be removed; and this gives rise to a suspicion that their distinction between the “foundation” and “confirmation” of assurance is a distinciton without a difference. If we are assured of our faith only by the testimony of Jesus Christ to us (which Luther and Calvin rightly maintained), and yet the testimony of Jesus Christ to us only applies for those whom God’s secret will has elected (which both also maintained), how are we to turn from ourselves to Christ with assurance and ignore the question of our own individual election by the God behind and in a real sense distinct from Jesus Christ, a question that can only be answered by the testimony of the individual to him/herself via the syllogismus practicus? Either the question of assurance will be asked alone and the question of election will be ignored (the happy inconsistency of the Lutherans), or the question of assurance will be asked directly in the light of the limited election of individuals (the miserable consistency of the Reformed, attaining confessional status at Westminster). It is clear that both Luther and Calvin wished to steer clear of the second alternative, but they did so only by ignoring the dilemma which their theologies had in fact created. As Barth rightly says about Calvin, “A happy inconsistency led him to believe that he could unify the christological beginning and the anthropological conclusion of his thinking.” [Randall C. Zachman, The Assurance of Faith, 7]
This ought to be a real and present danger for Reformed and Lutherans today, but it doesn’t really seem to have the teeth that it had, at least as it did in Puritan England. In other words, if someone follows limited atonement theology; then this person ought to be having plenty of angst and dark nights of the soul — at least commensirate with their daily sinning. This is one of the reasons why I think it is so important to move out of the voluntaristic theology of both Calvin and Luther (insofar as this is lurking in their respective theological approaches … Calvin being influenced by Scotus, and Luther, Occam); it is important because while both of these theologians offer a rich well of christocentrism to drink from, they still need some constructive help. Neither one of them totally bridge the gap between God’s inner life and outer life (the ontological and economic). Someone like Thomas Torrance or Karl Barth help to round off these rough edges left in both C & L. Nevertheless, Luther and Calvin present a much more fertile landscape than do those who immediately follow them do.
I have more reading to do, but this represents a start …
Good to see you reading this book of Zachman’s, Bobby. It is one of my favourites.
I have Zachman’s book also, I liked especially the very first chapter: The Idolatrous Religion Of Conscience! “The heart of Luther’s theology is the theology of the cross (theologia crucis). The testimony of the Word of conscience comes under an appearance that contradicts the truth revealed in the Word: thus God’s mercy is hidden under wrath, God’s power is made maifest in weakness, God’s life is hidden under death, God’s blessing is hidden under a curse.” (Praelectio in psalmum 45, 1532. W.A, 40(II). 482.15-18; L.W. 12:204, Alister McGrath, ‘Luther’s Theology of the Cross’ (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985, p. 169. Luther contrasted the theology of the cross with the theology glory (theologia gloriae). Whereas the theology of the cross to the knowledge of God through the indirect and hidden way of the cross, the theology of glory attempts to know God directly through what is apparent in the world. “That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly pereceptible in those things which have actually happened. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.” (Disputatio Heidelbergae habita, 1518, W.A. 1.354.17-20; L.W. 31-40) The theology of glory finds a direct continuity between what it sees and feels and what it believes about God, whereas the theology of the cross finds a contradition between what it sees and feels and what it believes. “Nature wants to feel and be certain before she believes, grace believes before she perceives.” (Kirchenpostille, 1522. St. L. XIX.332; Sermons, I:362)
Sorry to quote the whole first paragraph, but I thought it most necessary.. in understanding Luther! And it is here too, that I personally would find the so-called contradiction of a Sovereign God! But God IS Sovereign for Luther!
Btw Bobby, how did ya know I was a Volunterist/Voluntarism! π Indeed it is will or desire that creates values, but all such values are chosen by God! π
@Jason,
I am excited to get into this book; glad to hear you like it too!
@Fr Robert,
I’ve read the Heidelberg Disputation numerous times, McGrath’s book on Luther’s theology of the cross a couple of times, Gearhard O. Forde’s book “on being a theologian of the cross” a commentary, really on the Heidelberg D., and find Luther’s theologia crucis to be thoroughly awesome contra the theology of glory of the “scholastics” (which is why I’m confused at your resonance with scholasticism reformed).
Voluntarism only gives a God behind the back of Jesus; that’s not biblical.
Bobby,
That is your constructual opinion theologically. And here we certainly disagree! My whole theological premise simply has to include some kind of scholastic thinking and idea, thus my or the more classic Augustinianism. Luther has it also, he circles back to it in his Christology and Trinitarian doctrine also. I wish you had a copy of old Philip Watson’s: Let God be God, etc. His chapter on Luther’s: The Theology of the Cross, begins and stands upon Luther’s belief in the whole Nicene “homoousios”! So no, we cannot escape some real scolastic backdrop even in Luther.
Augustine was Platonic and preceded the scholastics (Lombard Aquinas et al) by centuries. There is an appropriated form of Augustinianism in the scholastics (a Thomist form for example), but its not careful to conflate Augustinianism with scholasticism; why not conflate it with the mystical tradition of Bernard of Clairvaux, Jean Gerson, Johann von Staupitz, Luther and Calvin instead? There is more than one strand of thought (actually the one that produced the protestant reformation in part, a al Valla and the humanist trad) available in the early, middle, and late medieval period (folks like Oberman and others have demonstrated that).
I know of a guy at Oxford doing his PhD on Augustine right now (combing his sermons); Augustine fits way better with the Mystics than the scholastics, according to the research from this guy I know of (through a mutual acquaintance, Ron Frost). Why not toot than horn a bit?
I am speaking in the more Catholic model of scholasticsm, which of course Luther ranted against. We can talk all day about the different shades here, but the medieval church and the Reformation was certainly affected.
Btw, this link might be helpful, and without me writing out something long myself.
http://www.fromdeathtolife.org/cphil/lsp3.html
Yes, there is a lot of spread here, Fr Robert. I have read plenty on this, enough to know that Luther was no Thomist or Aristotelian (the via antiqua); that’s all that I’m concerned with, and that is readily clear from his own writings.
Thanks for the link, I may try to read that sometime; after I finish these other books I’m reading π .
Oh my yes Luther of course hated the old school line of Roman scholaticism! But none of us really escapes the scholastic idea. I know I haven’t! π
As long as we have any metaphysics at play in our theologies, I know of some who would totally agree with your assessment on scholasticism (the Barthians).
Pingback: Calvin on faith and assurance « Qualitative Theology