 |
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||
 |
Every church teaches predestination and election. The problem is that not every church means the same thing when they talk about it. Thousands of pages have been written and argued over the issue of predestination and election on biblical, historical, and theological grounds. This little treatise can only touch on some highlights and is not intended as an exhaustive presentation by any means, only how the doctrine will be encountered in the preaching and teaching ministry of our church. The doctrine is usually associated with the teaching of the 16th-century Protestant reformer John Calvin (hence the term "Calvinism"). What is unique about the Calvinist system is the teaching the God has chosen before the creation of the world which individuals he would save, and which individuals he would leave behind to stay damned. According to Calvinism, Jesus did not die for everyone--he only died for the individuals God chose to be saved. Those whom God chose to save would inevitably come to faith. Those who were not chosen, would not. Calvin himself admitted that this was "a horrible decree," but he taught it because he thought it was true. Calvin got his teaching mainly from an interpretation of the Bible that can be traced back to one of the early church fathers: St. Augustine (d. A.D. 430). Augustine's views however, on this matter, never received ecumenical support from the historic church (cf. Thomas C. Oden, Life in the Spirit, p. 475). Non-Calvinists are typically referred to as "Arminians" (after the Dutch Protestant theologian James Arminius)--even if their views are not directly influenced by Arminius himself. One thinks of the comment made by Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware at a conference in 1999 (cited at this online source), when he stated, "I suppose that I should tell you straightaway that I am an Arminian." What is the Anglican position? Unfortunately, since the Reformation, Anglicans have not been in agreement on this issue. Many Anglicans during the Reformation were influenced by Calvinism (though there is disagreement about the extent), but there has always been a strong non-Calvinist strand in Anglicanism. Peter Heylyn (1600-1662) wrote "that Calvinism was not the original and native doctrine of the Church of England, though in short time it overspread a great part thereof, As Arrianism [sic] did the Eastern Churches in the elder times...." According to this online source, King James I, in 1622, "ordered that only people with a Bachelor of Divinity or higher were allowed to preach about such lofty ideas as predestination etc. as they were far too complicated to be understood let alone be discussed by the common majority." When the Puritans did not feel that the Anglican Articles of Religion sounded Calvinist enough, they wanted to attach the very strongly Calvinistic "Lambeth Articles"--which the church refused to do. The non-Calvinists were content with the "literal and grammatical sense" of the Articles and did not try to make any amendments or attachments to the Articles of Religion. The Anglican Articles of Religion (Article 17--"Of Predestination and Election") say the following: "PREDESTINATION to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour." The entire article, on the surface, seems to favor Calvinism. Philip Schaff persuasively argues thus in his classic study, The Creeds of Christendom (Vol. 1, p. 633). The problem is that Article 17 exists alongside other articles that do not favor Calvinism, such as the one immediately preceding, Article 16--"Of Sin after Baptism," which teaches that "After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again and amend our lives," Article 27--"Of Baptism," which teaches "they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church," and Article 31--"Of the One Oblation of Christ Finished upon the Cross," which teaches that Christ's sacrifice is "for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual." Here, Schaff is far less convincing in arguing that these articles support Calvinism, which rejects the possibility of falling from grace, that those rightly baptized are grafted into the church (only the "chosen" individuals are part of the church), and that Christ died for the sins of the whole world (remember, according to Calvinism, he only died for the "chosen" individuals). The fact of history is that not everyone interpreted the Article on Predestination the same way. "His Majesty's Solemn Declaration," found as a preface to the Articles in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, acknowledges that there is disagreement in the interpretation of certain Articles, but states "that no man hereafter shall either print, or preach, to draw the Article aside any way, but shall submit to it in the plain and full meaning thereof: and shall not put his own sense or comment to be the meaning of the Article, but shall take it in the literal and grammatical sense." This was written by Archbishop Laud and signed by King Charles I--both of whom were Arminians. It is a matter of historical fact that Calvinists and non-Calvinists claimed the Article on Predestination as their own. As the "Declaration" asserts, "That for the present, though some differences have been ill raised, yet We take comfort in this, that all Clergymen within Our Realm have always most willingly subscribed to the Articles established; which is an argument to Us, that they all agree in the true, usual, literal meaning of the said Articles; and that even in those curious points, in which the present differences lie, men of all sorts take the Articles of the Church of England to be for them; which is an argument again, that none of them intend any desertion of the Articles established." After a somewhat lengthy background, I will now give a brief explanation as to how this issue will be encountered in the preaching and teaching ministry of this church--which I believe is consistent with the biblical material, the teachings of the ancient church, and the Anglican tradition. I believe that predestination is "in Christ" and essentially corporate. God has chosen a people for salvation. These are "those whom he hath chosen." Christ is the Chosen One--we become part of the elect by identifying with Christ through repentance and faith, and this number is known to God. Therefore, Christ died for all people--even those who ultimately reject his gift and spend eternity apart from God. God will always have a "chosen people." Individuals enter through faith. Individuals may even leave by making shipwreck the faith, but God will still have a chosen people. God's people are chosen in Christ to be holy and blameless before God (Ephesians 1:4) and "predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son" (Romans 8:29). The goal of election and predestination is Christlikeness--or, as Article 17 states: "they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works...." The interpretation followed here is, for those who like labels, a non-Calvinist or an "Arminian" approach. An excellent explanation of the corporate view of election is found at this online source. A response to criticisms of the corporate view is found at this online source. The last paragraph in the Anglican Article on Predestination and Election reads, "Furthermore, we must receive God's promises just as they are generally set forth in Holy Scripture; and in our doings that will of God is to be followed which we have had expressly declared unto us in the word of God." I believe that a corporate view of election fulfills this requirement, is faithful to the larger Christian Tradition, and is consistent with the Anglican Way. |
 |
 |
||
| Site Map |