The
origin and the existence of divisions within Christendom are
to be attributed to more serious causes. According to Holy Scripture they are
due to false prophets and apostles, who, unfaithful to the pure Word of God,
in the name of the Christian religion disseminate their own perverse notions and
discard the specific beliefs of Christianity, above all the fundamental doctrine
of the Gospel that man is justified by grace, through faith, without the deeds
of the law. Such pseudapostles troubled even the churches founded by Paul and
his colaborers. Rom. 16, 17 . . . 1 Cor. 14, 37 . . . Gal. 1, 6-8 . . . Phil.
3, 18 . . . The malicious attempts of such pseudapostles to pervert the Gospel of
Christ, in particular the central doctrine of Christianity: salvation by grace
alone, through faith in the vicarious atonement of the divine Redeemer, explain
for all time the existence of divisions within Christendom.
.
. .
The
Reformed faction likewise acknowledges the divine authority of Holy Scripture
in principle. In fact, over against Lutheranism the Reformed Church makes the
claim that it is “more exclusively Scriptural” than the Lutheran Church, which
it says has always been inclined to be “historical” and “conservative” in
accord with the principle that church traditions and customs may be retained
whenever they can be reconciled with the Word of God. But this distinction
between Reformed and Lutheran theology is not based on facts. Reformed theology
is not “more exclusively Scriptural” than Lutheran theology. On the contrary,
while Romanistic theology demands the interpretation of Holy Scripture
according to the sancta mater ecclesia, Reformed theology insists that
the Bible must be interpreted according to human reason, or according to
rationalistic axioms.
Thus,
guided by rationalistic axioms, Reformed theology rejects, first of all, the
doctrine of the means of grace, that is, the doctrine that the Word of God and
the Sacraments are the divinely ordained means by which the Holy Ghost directly
works regeneration, conversion, and sanctification. The doctrine of the means
of grace is clearly stated in Holy Scripture, Rom. 1, 16; Titus 3, 5.6; Acts 2,
38, etc. But in opposition to this Scriptural truth Reformed theology asserts
the rationalistic axion that “efficacious grace acts immediately.” In other
words, Reformed theology separates the sanctifying operations of the Holy Ghost
from the means of grace under the pea that the Holy Spirit needs no vehicle by
which to enter the hearts of men. (Zwingli, Fidei Ratio; Calvin, Inst.,
IV, 14.17; Hodge, Syst. Theol., II, 684; etc.) It was this rationalistic
axion, consistently and strenuously applied, which caused the division between
the Lutheran Church and the Reformed sects. Against Romanism, Luther had to
defend the truth that the Word of God must not be perverted by the
rationalistic views of the “Church”; against Zwinglianism he had to defend the
truth that the Word of God must not be perverted by the rationalistic views of individual
theologians.
Again,
Reformed theology applies a rationalistic principle when it treats the doctrine
of the person of Christ and of the Lord’s Supper. It emphatically denies the
real presence of Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper, maintaining that His
presence in the Sacrament is only spiritual, that is, a presence effected by
the faith of the believer. In other words, Christ is present in Holy Communion only
to the extent that the believing communicant is united with Him by faith. This denial
of the Real Presence is manifestly in opposition to the clear words of Christ’s
institution of the Holy Supper: “Take, eat; this is My body.” It rests solely
on the rationalistic principle that Christ’s body, being a truly human body and
having as such only a visible and local mode of presence (visibilis et
localis praesentia), cannot be truly present in the Lord’s Supper because
it is locally enclosed in heaven. That is to say, moved by human reason, Reformed
theology denies the illocal mode of presence of Christ’s body, taught in such
passages as John 20, 19: “When the doors were shut, . . . came Jesus and stood
in the midst”; Luke 24, 31: “And HE vanished out of their sight, etc.”
Holy
Scripture ascribes this illocal presence of Christ’s human nature to Him by virtue
of the personal union with its resulting communion of the two natures and the
communication of attributes. But on the basis of reason Reformed theology
denies the communion of the two natures of Christ and the communication of
attributes. It asserts that “the finite is not capable of the infinite.” From
this rationalistic principle follows another, namely, that Christ’s body cannot
have an illocal presence and since the Ascension is therefore enclosed in
heaven. The split between Zwinglianism and Lutheranism must be attributed to
the maintenance and defense of these two rationalistic axioms on the part of the
former. Luther was unable to extend to Zwingli the hand of Chrisitan fellowship
at Marburg (1529) because the latter showed a “different spirit,” namely the
spirit of rationalism, which is diametrically opposed to the Christian faith.
Lastly,
Calvinistic theology denies the universality of divine grace (gratia
univeralis) and teaches that the grace of God is particular (gratia
particularis), i.e., that it does not embrace all men, but the elect
only, while all others are eternally predestined to perdition. This doctrine is
in opposition to Holy Scripture, which throughout affirms the universality of God’s
grace, and, besides, asserts that the damnation of a sinner is not due to any
failure on the part of God to provide for his salvation, John 1, 29; 3, 16 ff.1
John 1, 2; 1 Tim 2, 4-6; etc. On what grounds then, does Reformed theology deny
the universality of divine grace? Here again it employs a rationalistic axion
as a premise on which to rest its false doctrine. The rationalistic principle
is: “We must assume that the result is the interpretation of the purpose of God.”
(Hodge, Syst. Theol., II, 323.) Reformed theology reasons thus: “Since actually
not all are saved, we must assume that God did not intend to save all.” In this
way Calvinistic theology rejects Holy Scripture in favor of an argument drawn
from reason, or a rationalistic axiom; and on this departure from the Word of
God and its consequent enthronement of reason the Reformed faction is founded.
Just as soon as its theology ceases to be rationalistic will cease to be separatistic.
(John Theodore Mueller, Christian Dogmatics: A Handbook of Doctrinal Theology
for Pastors, Teachers, and Laymen [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,
1934], 18-19, 20-22)
Private
revelations (revelations immediatae, revelations novae). Private
revelations are supposedly new doctrines which God gives to individuals to
explain, correct, and supplement Holy Scriptures. Fanatics, asserting that they
had received private revelations, arose even in the time of the apostles, 1
Cor. 14, 37; 2 Thess. 2, 2; and in their wake there followed in the second and
fourth centuries the Montanists and Donatists. At the time of Luther’s
Reformation, the “heavenly prophets,” the Anabaptists and Schwenkfeldians, rejected
the “external Word” and in its place stressed the “inner word,” stigmatizing
obedience to Scripture as “letter service” (Buchstabendienat); while in modern
times the Christian Church must cope with the enthusiasm of such religious
organizations as the Quakers, Swedenborgians, Irvingites, and others. In
addition to these visionaries it must oppose also those who separate the
operation of the Holy Ghost from the Word of Scripture and rely on private
revelations as the norm of their faith, e.g.:--
. . .
The
Calvinists, who teach that the saving work of the Holy Spirit occurs immediately,
i.e., outside and apart from the Word. (Hodge: “Efficacious grace acts
immediately.”) (Ibid., 96, 97)
Moral
and venial sins. Mortal sins (peccata mortalia) are all sins which
actually precipitate the transgressor into a state of wrath, death, and condemnation,
so that, if he should die without repentance, his punishment would be eternal death,
John 8, 21. 24; Rom. 8, 13. . . . When we speak of mortal sins of “believers,”
we mean such sins as grieve the Holy Spirit, Eph. 4, 30, and destroy faith
(David’s murder and adultery, Ps. 32, 3. 4). “A moral sin is that by which the
regenerate, overcome by the flesh and not remaining in a regenerate state, transgress
the divine Law by a deliberate purpose of the will, contrary to the dictates of
conscience, and thereby lose saving faith, reject the gracious influence of the
Holy Spirit, and cast themselves into a state of wrath, death, and
condemnation.” (Hollaz.) . . . On this point, the papists err, who teach that
certain sin are in themselves mortal (superbia, avaritia, luxuria, ira,
gula, Invidia, acedia), while others in themselves are venial and so
deserve only temporal punishments. The Calvinists err in this matter by
teaching that the elect never lose faith or fall from grace, even when they
commit enormous sins (peccata enormia). (Ibid, 231)
The
passage Mark 13, 32 does not deny the communication of infinite, divine knowledge
to the human nature, but rather describes the incarnate Christ in His state of
humiliation when He abstained from the full use of HIs communicated attributes.
Christ according to His human nature employed HIs communicated divine gifts
only as these were necessary for His redemptive work. The redemption of sinful
man, however, did not require the promulgation of the time and hour when the
day of Judgment should take place. If the Reformed object that it is impossible
to conceive of the communicated, divine knowledge as partly quiescent (actus
primus) and partly operative (actus secundus), we remind them of the
fact that the human mind is incapable of understanding the “mystery of
godliness,” 1 Tim. 3, 16, either in whole or in part. Nevertheless the relation
between Christ’s operative and imperative knowledge may be somewhat illustrated
by the human soul, which during sleep knows and yet does not know. But the Reformed
and the papists, who deny the communication of divine knowledge to Christ’s
human nature, must be regarded as errorist on this point (Agnoetae),
since they affirm that the Son of Man, even in His state of exaltation, is ignorant
of many things. (Ibid., 278)
BY WHOM THE PROPER DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
LAW AND THE GOSPEL IS SET ASIDE
The
proper distinction between the Law and the Gospel is set aside and hence Law
and Gospel are commingled by—
a.
The Romanists, who mingle the Law and the Gospel in the interest of their
pernicious teaching of work-righteousness and of the uncertainty of salvation.
The Council of Trent expressly anathematizes the doctrine that the “Gospel is
the absolute and unconditional promise of eternal life, without the condition
that he [man] must first keep the Law” (Sess. VI, Can. 20).
b.
The Calvinists, who deny the gratia universalis and the operation
of the Holy Ghost through the divinely appointed means of grace. In consequence
of these errors they do not proclaim the universal Gospel promises of grace to
all sinners, but condition the sinner’s salvation on his compliance with the prescribed
conditions on which God will accept the sinner. According to Charles Hodge the “external
call” is “a promise of acceptance in the case of all those who comply with the
conditions,” while the Gospel is “a proclamation of the terms on which God is
willing to save sinners, and an exhibition of the duty of fallen men
in relation to that plan” (Syst. Theol., II, 642). Thus, in the final
analysis, the Calvinists commit the same fatal mistake as the Romanists. (Ibid.,
484)
The
Scriptural doctrine concerning the efficacy (efficacia, virtus) of Baptism
is rejected in toto by the Reformed. According to the Zwinglian view, Baptism
is not a means (vehiculum), but only a symbol of forgiveness and
regeneration (factae gratiae signum), the Holy Ghost working
regeneration in msn by immediate operation (“Efficacious grace acts
immediately.”) “Non affert gratiam baptismus.” (Zwingli, Fidei Ratio,
Niemeyer, p. 25.)
Water,
according to the Calvinistic doctrine, simply cannot do such great things.
(Boehl: “Das Wasser kann solche hohe Dinge nicht tun.” Dogmatik, p. 560.)
This Luther admits to be true when he writes: “It is not the water indeed
that does them.” But then follows his classic explanation: “[It is not the
water indeed that does them,] but the word of God [the conferring means] which
is in and with the water, and faith [the receiving means], which trusts such word
of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no
Baptism. But with the word of God, it is a Baptist, that is, a gracious water of
life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus,
chapter third.”
According
to Luther, Baptism therefore “works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and
the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believes this,” just because
the words and promises of God in Baptism so declare or because Baptism is not
simple water only, but water comprehended in God’s command and connected with
God’s word (promise).
Luther
thus makes the efficacy of Baptism depend entirely on the Gospel promises which
are connected with the water, Matt. 28, 19; Mark 16, 15. 16; Acts 2, 38; for on
these promises the faith of the baptized rests. “Faith must have something upon
which it stands and rests.” (Luther, Triglot, p. 739.)
Zwingli’s
denial of the efficacy of Baptism was the result of his refusal to believe the
promises which God has joined to the Sacrament. While Luther said that he would
with joy and thanksgiving pick up a blade of straw if God had connected with
this act such promises as are given in Baptism (St. L., XVI, 2296), Zwingli
persistently repeated his rationalistic argument that “water cannot do such
things” and that he “never read in Scripture that the Sacraments offer and
distribute grace” (Fidei Ratio, Niemeyer, pp. 24. 25), though he certainly
knew such clear passages as Acts 2, 38; 22, 16; Eph. 5, 26; Titus 3, 5; etc.
Luther was a true theological, loyal to Scripture (Schrifttheolog),
while Zwingli =, just like his followers (Boehl, etc.), argued away the
efficacy of Baptism on rationalistic grounds.
As
the Reformed deny that Baptism is a means of regeneration (initiationis et
regenerationis sacramentum), so they also deny that it is a means by which a
person is joined to the spiritual body of Christ, namely, the Church, 1 Cor.
12, 13, and by which the sanctification of the regenerate, namely, the crucifying
of the old man and the raising up of the new man, is effected, Rom. 6, 1-11. According
to the Reformed view these things are only symbolized by Baptism. Zwingianism
(Calvinism), as said before, is therefore a denial of the efficacy of Baptism in
toto. Every blessing which Scripture ascribes to this Sacrament is consistently
denied on the strength of the rationalistic axiom: “Water cannot do such great
things; it is the Spirit who must accomplish them.”
From
the rationalistic viewpoint this rejection of the efficacy of Baptism by the Reformed
is quite intelligible. As Calvinism acknowledges no means of grace whatever in
the Scriptural sense (“Efficacious grace acts immediately”; “Nothing intervenes
between the volition of the Spirit and the regeneration of the soul”), so it
also rejects the special means of grace known as the Sacrament of Baptism. (Ibid.,
493-95)
