* Local News: On Thursday, March 28, the Clinton’s Quisenberry Library, part of the Jackson/Hinds Library System, will be hosting a children’s Easter Party at 4 p.m. The fun will include games, crafts, and food. For more information, contact the library at (601) 924-5684.
In Parts 1 and 2, we discussed the Lutheran Hour’s recent use of the life preserver analogy, which illustrates God’s saving work by comparing it to a river full of drowning people. God throws life preservers—the gospel—to everyone, but some think they can be saved some other way and refuse the help. Those who cling to the help being offered are rescued and those who refuse perish.
This analogy is often associated with Arminian theology, but as its own confessions show, Lutheranism is not really fully Calvinist nor fully Arminian; it is somewhat of a combination of both. If Lutheranism is partially Reformed, why then is it often misrepresented as being completely Arminian? Perhaps The Lutheran Hour’s use of the life preserver analogy, which implies that God tries to save all, but only succeeds in saving a few, helps explain why.
4. Conclusion
Though not officially embracing the “I”—Irresistible Grace—of Calvinism’s TULIP, Lutheranism teaches that elect are drawn to God through the inward call of the Holy Spirit, and that, for the elect, the call always brings about conversion. In this, it seems Lutheranism is somewhat inconsistent, as there is a reticence to state that some receive an inward call that others do not receive. If Lutheranism does believe in election, and the inward, effectual call by God to the elect which is an integral part of this, Irresistible Grace is unavoidable. Consequently, the life preserver analogy, implying that all are offered the preservers, but none are forced to take them, falls apart. Consider another quotation from the Formula of Concord:
“God the Lord draws those people whom he wants to convert and does so in such a way that an enlightened understanding is fashioned out of a darkened understanding and an obedient will is fashioned out of a rebellious will. Scripture calls this creating a new heart {Psalm 51:12}.”—Epitome of the Formula of Concord, Article II
Notice how similarly Lutheranism describes the grace given to the elect prior to conversion. The above statement would be heartily echoed by any Calvinist. Echoing this same teaching, 16th century Lutheran theologian Timann Heshus said in his work, On So-Called Free Will (1562): “If God makes a Christian believe, he does not only give his Word and does not only proclaim his will, but grasps him effectively and renews the man, directs him to faith and the new life, without any conditions or cooperation.”
It’s confusing for the Formula of Concord contains a disclaimer explaining that God does not force anyone to become godly, seeing as how those who persistently resist the Holy Spirit will not be converted. The Formula of Concord is emphatic that the human will is passive in conversion. If this is so, then why are some saved while others are lost, if the grace given is equally “resistible” by all? Can a person not convert if God has created in him a new heart and fashioned an enlightened understanding? Reformed theology says no.
It seems that Lutheranism appears to say, “Yes and No.”
Earlier in the Formula of Concord, the old statement, “God draws, but draws those who are willing” is repudiated as giving too much credit to human free will. However, if no one is compelled to convert, even when presented with the grace of God—as Calvinism maintains—then isn’t the great distinguishing factor between the regenerate and unregenerate that believers were willing, while unbelievers were obstinate? The life preserver analogy practically forces such a conclusion.
Again, if God desires the salvation of all, why do some believe, while others don’t? Lutheranism, apparently, seems content to leave this a mystery. Consider, for example, another quotation from Tilmann Heshus (On So-Called Free Will) which, in itself, sounds very Calvinistic:
“It is rightly and truly believed of God that he wants all men to be saved, but it in no way follows that one may conclude from this that there is some power of free will remaining in man and some cooperation in conversion. Rather, it only follows that God is not the cause of the damnation of men and also does not hinder the salvation of anyone.”
Comments