Sunday, October 8, 2023

Lutheran Theologian John Theodore Muller (1885-1967) vs. Calvinism

  

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)