Wednesday, August 3, 2011

The will to Resist

Matthew 23:37-39 (ESV)
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! [38] See, your house is left to you desolate. [39] For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' "

This is the classic Lutheran “sedes doctrinae” for the assertion that man can resist the Holy Spirit, and therefore it is our fault and not the fault of God when we hear the gospel and do not believe. We have the will to resist, but not the will to believe. Or if we listen to our will, we disbelieve, if we listen to God’s will we believe. It’s gets complicated, and people have been known to develop migraines and cluster headaches which in the end have them bowing to god’s of porcelain in the throne room finally succumbing to the idea that perhaps it isn’t wise to resolve this paradox but leave it for that day when we no longer see through a glass darkly. We can resist.
This is also the only occasion in scripture, where God even remotely allows for himself to be identified by something of the female gender, and here it is but a comparison. God calls, he wants to gather us under his wings. He calls and calls, but man will not. Some of course do. But this should be the church’s approach with the gospel too. We are his voice in this world. It is not for us to go running people off, but always and gently calling to repentance, always and gently proclaiming the gospel. There is a time for rebuke and refutation, but always the goal must be to get those chicks under the wings of the hen, the mother, the church where they can know the Grace of God in the sacraments.

7 comments:

Frank Sonnek said...

Amen!

Baptism is how we recognize fellow members of the visible Holy Catholic Church. "are you baptized"? Yes? then we address you as a member of the Church in love and not as an article of faith. Sometimes pastors need to exile members that threaten the peace of this government as any government is duty bound to do.

But this is not to imagine that we are to declare even those as excluded from the communion of saints. This separating is alone for Christ to do at the end of the age.

The baptized can imaging God refusing us in his wrath.

I have yet to meet one who is baptized ever saying they can imagine Jesus ever refusing them. And in joy we can confirm that this is most certainly true!

Larry said...

Bror,
Something jumped out at me in this statement that I’d not considered as an ex-Calvinist now Lutheran exercising old Reformed demons: “We have the will to resist, but not the will to believe.”

First, let me put on my old Calvin suite for a minute. I would have reacted to that statement as a Lutheran asserting “free will” basically moving to the only other logical position available, Arminianism.

Now my Lutheran suite: But it occurs to me that’s because that this is so to the Calvinist ear because the Calvinist “total depravity” he/she associates with Luther’s Bondage of the Will is really itself a version of synergism. Try this out, the Arminian says one can choose and places, more or less this power in the pre-conversion position via the created order (this is also how they can say they are not synergist, after all it was GOD Who created and gave). The Calvinist says, “No Jacob Arminius, man is totally depraved and cannot choose.” Then the Calvinist almost in an utter blind move, moves that “power” attributed by the Arminian in the pre-conversion position to the post-conversion position where the Holy Spirit gives the power to choose. Bare with me! Whereby any decision to believe is made via that power post conversion and thus they say, “See we, not Arminians, are truly monergistic”.

But the very bondage of the will is not the inability to choose to believe or not believe pre- or post- conversion. Rather the in the one sided “will to resist”, this bondage exists even post-conversion. That’s, at the end of the day the ONLY thing we bring to the whole action pre- or post- conversion, the will to resist”. It’s not ala Calvin “we CANNOT make a choice”, rather that we DO make a choice, the choice to resist. Calvinism for the most part sees total depravity and hence bondage of the will as more or less decisional inability and not a decisional ability to ONLY have ‘the will to resist’, hence irresistible grace, the “I” in TULIP.

Ultimately ALL Calvinism succeeds in doing is moving Arminianism to the post-conversion position where decision is made. That’s why Calvinist and ex-Calvinist “feel” that synergism that is otherwise denied in words post-conversion. At length Calvinism feels JUST LIKE Arminianism post conversion, the ONLY difference is you can’t “tap into God” by doing, Arminianism, but hope that He’s not reprobated you.

Larry said...

Bror,
Something jumped out at me in this statement that I’d not considered as an ex-Calvinist now Lutheran exercising old Reformed demons: “We have the will to resist, but not the will to believe.”

First, let me put on my old Calvin suite for a minute. I would have reacted to that statement as a Lutheran asserting “free will” basically moving to the only other logical position available, Arminianism.

Now my Lutheran suite: But it occurs to me that’s because that this is so to the Calvinist ear because the Calvinist “total depravity” he/she associates with Luther’s Bondage of the Will is really itself a version of synergism. Try this out, the Arminian says one can choose and places, more or less this power in the pre-conversion position via the created order (this is also how they can say they are not synergist, after all it was GOD Who created and gave). The Calvinist says, “No Jacob Arminius, man is totally depraved and cannot choose.” Then the Calvinist almost in an utter blind move, moves that “power” attributed by the Arminian in the pre-conversion position to the post-conversion position where the Holy Spirit gives the power to choose. Bare with me! Whereby any decision to believe is made via that power post conversion and thus they say, “See we, not Arminians, are truly monergistic”.

But the very bondage of the will is not the inability to choose to believe or not believe pre- or post- conversion. Rather the in the one sided “will to resist”, this bondage exists even post-conversion. That’s, at the end of the day the ONLY thing we bring to the whole action pre- or post- conversion, the will to resist”. It’s not ala Calvin “we CANNOT make a choice”, rather that we DO make a choice, the choice to resist. Calvinism for the most part sees total depravity and hence bondage of the will as more or less decisional inability and not a decisional ability to ONLY have ‘the will to resist’, hence irresistible grace, the “I” in TULIP.

Ultimately ALL Calvinism succeeds in doing is moving Arminianism to the post-conversion position where decision is made. That’s why Calvinist and ex-Calvinist “feel” that synergism that is otherwise denied in words post-conversion. At length Calvinism feels JUST LIKE Arminianism post conversion, the ONLY difference is you can’t “tap into God” by doing, Arminianism, but hope that He’s not reprobated you.

Frank Sonnek said...

to piggyback confessionally onto Larry:

Both Armenians and tulip calvinists and Rome confuse the faith that is the assent of reason to the truth that is a work we do, we can do, and we are commanded by God to do.

They confuse this faith with what the apology calls "new heart movments." I do believe that the Apology uses the term "new heart movements" rather than the term "faith" precisely to attack this error. Reason then is "infused Law" and "new heart movements " are "infused justification".

but here , for Lutherans "infused justification (ap art iV) is not a Spirit-Christ-in-us-powered-faith-effort that allows us to work towards holiness.

For a Lutheran holiness is like being pregnant. One is or one is not.

So when a man is justified, he is forensically declared holy, and since it is God who is doing the declaring, what is declared also becomes reality and so justification is also "infused" in the sense that new man truly IS holy. completely. In Baptism. And then too Old adam is corrupt and full of faith in anything BUT Christ. Completely.

The employment of the term "new heart movements" is to avoid this roman and calvinist confusion of faith that reason can do vs that faith that is a gift that reason and strength cannot do.

Larry said...

Frank,

“They confuse this faith with what the apology calls "new heart movments." I do believe that the Apology uses the term "new heart movements" rather than the term "faith" precisely to attack this error. Reason then is "infused Law" and "new heart movements " are "infused justification".”

That’s perfect, I never made that connection of “new heart movements” in the confession. I always reached for a way to unveil the clever synergism in Calvinism in which “faith” = (in reality) the exertion of reason that parades around as faith (sans the pro me) versus true faith naked trust pro me in the nude Word alone, and alone even under the appearance of opposites (the opposites that reason detects).

The best way I’ve seen it compared is that for Luther the kind of faith that is engendered by “where there is forgiveness of sin (because) there is life and salvation (therefore)” is saving faith, and the kind of “faith” that is engendered by Calvin by “where there is life and salvation (if) there is forgiveness of sin (then)”, that’s the false faith, the reason parading as “saving” faith.

It drives me MORE nuts than anything when some Lutherans belly up to Calvinist as if they remotely speak the same religion as opposed to Armenians and say something completely wrong like “we both believe in total depravity and bondage of the will”. No we do not, we do not MEAN the same thing in the least. To borrow Luther the Armenians are like the black devil, fairly obvious such that even a fool can pick up on them. Calvinist are like the white devil, and thus more deadly and their heresies more soul murdering. Or a hunting analogy: “I saw the shiny black water moccasin with the white as cotton mouth bare its fangs at me (Armenian theology) and backed away. Unfortunately I didn’t see and stepped on the leaf camouflaged rattle snake (Calvin’s theology) and it bit me.”

Or to put it more close to home, I doubt one could sneak much Armenian theology into a solid Lutheran church, but as long as I avoided certain key words or over use of them like (election, etc…), one could smuggle in Calvin seamlessly.

Frank Sonnek said...

yes Larry, the other way melancthon and Luther make this distinction is to describe what saving faith does. it 1)BELIEVES God's Word and so accepts the judgement of God of ones sin and is therefore terrified by ones best good works. So it does not flee this judgement by trying to do more and better works. 2) therefore it TRUSTS God and puts the works of Christ to work, hiding behind them and offering them alone to appease the wrath of God and that terrified conscience 3) it accepts that God threatens to punish sin, and so it properly FEARS God and is so motivated to learn to love his neighbor. 4) it accepts suffering that results from ourselves and others being disciplined and TRUSTS God in this. and does not flee from suffering.

And it also list out what heart sin that is the opposite of faith looks like as well in many places.

And keep in mind that this is the Apology opposing scholasticism. Calvinism is really just neo-scholasticism. and you are so very right. that aristotelian practice makes perfect that masquerades as holy spirit empowered sanctification is really the same whether placed before justification as preparation for it or after justification as a result or worse as the purpose of justification.

Larry said...

“does not flee from suffering”

I was just reading about this in Loenwich’s book on TOC and the way he phrased it, don’t have it with me right now, really brought Luther home on this one. He was discussing in the HD where Luther is explaining how the TOG flees suffering and seeks out works. One thing Loenwhich brings out better than any was the dual thought behind Luther concerning “life of action and its associated works” (usually moralisms or some such) and “the contemplative life and its associated speculations”. The later, I think, is why SO many miss the “Calvin connection”, they get hung up on the former and Calvinist can say, “We too agree” and never miss a beat. Not to mention, Luther’s philosophical thesis in the HD get way over looked, rather than a part of the whole thing. I think that’s why, because the “contemplative life and its associated speculations” gets over looked when “moralisms” via the active life and its works always get looked at. It gets back to what Luther meant by “works” in Thesis 19, not just “our works (good)” but the Works of God in creation (ala Paul in Romans 1:18, etc…). And this is lost in the apology, folks over looking it.

Anyway what hit me was the term “suffering”, I’ve read many post Luther writings on this but none really define this well. The tendency in thinking is to think of the definition of (suffering/enduring) pain and/or distress, be put under them. But that’s only part of what Luther is getting at, in fact one can hear that a MISS it all. The question is, “Why cannot the will help here, in suffering and thus seeks out works/Works in the dual since Luther meant?” Really the sine quo non of suffering theologically is not just the pain/distress, though it definitely has that, but the “I cannot do a thing about it, no effort (there goes works) and no willing (there goes speculations)”. To suffer really means to be under the pressure BUT utterly passive/passion toward it, “can’t do a THING about it with no end in site”. This makes room for the Word and faith, it kills completely. You MUST rely alone on the mercy of God, even when it seems he has removed his mercy from you (Luther said). This also, PARTICULARLY, nixes any self appointed sufferings (caused) because one wills these and can just as easily “get out of them”. E.g. A person in a bad third world country truly suffers it, he cannot get out. An American visiting it, doesn’t really suffer it, he can leave ANY time.

This is how faith “breaks through” trials to the promises in spite of the empirical seen/experienced. Hence Lowenwhich BRILLIANTLY shows, via Luther, that faith is of necessity in “suffering and cross” (Thesis 20), and not works (works of ours, Works of creation). Hence the, “He, however, deserves to be called a theologian who comprehends the visible things of God in suffering and cross.”

This always confounds us, why Luther gloried, like Paul in suffering and cross. We don’t get it often. We hate the suffering. But the primary thing is not the “pain or distress” but that in these we are made dead, crucified with Christ, so that the promises are in fact elucidated to us – “I am baptized” becomes REAL. It is the promise within the suffering of trial, the Word alone, NUDE, becomes EVERYTHING and exceedingly sweet and faith becomes stronger in this weakness of suffering. We are conformed to Christ in that we suffer the terrors of conscience of our sin in likeness that He suffered them in body and soul for us on the Cross (His Cross connected to ours) so that in this experience of suffering the gifts Christ attained for us are imparted to us, namely the forgiveness of sin (paraphrasing Loewenich).