|
| Home > Theology > Sacramental Efficacy in John Calvin's Theology: Part 2 |
| Sacramental Efficacy in John Calvin's Theology: Part 2 | | Date Created: Nov 01, 2005, 08:48 PM |
 Since I asserted in Part 1 that Calvin and Luther were essentially agreed on the instrumental efficacy of the sacraments and since many Reformed and Presbyterian ministers are not familiar with the mother of all Lutheran symbols, the Augsburg Confession, it may be helpful to take a brief look at that document and make a few observations before going on to Calvin's own writings. But before I do that, I'd like to make a few general comments about the kind of rhetoric that is being used today against Reformed men who argue for a more robust understanding and place for Baptism and the Lord's Supper in our churches.
It is astonishing to hear accusations of "heresy" and "denying the Gospel" made against men who embrace a high view of sacramental efficacy. As if making the sacraments anything more than pictures or symbols necessarily implies that one is tampering with the content of the Gospel. Some men seem to think that this is a zero sum game - if you give too much to the sacraments, then you must be taking something away from the Gospel. Or worse, the sacraments are judged to be "human works." And so if we talk about the sacraments as effective means of salvation, then we must be introducing human "works" into the mix and thereby denying the Gospel. More on this later. For now consider how this kind of argument might sound to a confessional Lutheran.
Do the Lutherans deny the Gospel because of their strong views on sacramental efficacy? Do they introduce "human works into the mix" when they speak so highly of Baptism? More specifically, was Luther himself a heretic; did he get the Gospel wrong because of his theology of baptismal regeneration?
What I find odd is that the very men who so loudly denounce all attempts by Presbyterians to restore the sacraments to a more central place in the church love to go to Luther's commentary on Galatians for what they think is powerful ammunition against all such attempts. But we all know that Luther holds together both faith and Baptism, both the Word and the Sacraments in such a way that neither is compromised.
Well, I suppose many Reformed men would have some problems with the way Luther and Lutherans hold these two poles together. But my point is that they have never been judged "heretics" for their theology of the sacraments. They have never, as far as I know, unless it is from radical Anabaptist groups, been accused of "denying the Gospel" because of their high sacramental theology. Presbyterian and Reformed theologians and churches have not typically made this accusation against our Lutheran brethren.
So why is it now that some Reformed men - who are arguably not really anywhere near as blunt about baptismal regeneration and even apostasy as Luther and the Lutherans - why is it that they are nevertheless royally blasted for denying imputation and justification by faith simply because they hold to a high view of baptism and acknowledge the reality of apostasy? It's one thing to criticize another's theology of justification based on what they say about justification; it's another thing entirely to judge a man's theology of justification aberrant because he embraces a higher view of Baptism than you do.
Why don't critics turn their guns on Luther himself? Obviously, using their logic, Luther himself didn't really believe in forensic justification either. Contra-wise, if Luther can hold them both, surely others can, too. Not everybody will feel comfortable with the tension, and some will see paradox or even contradition, but no one need to call Calvin, Luther, Lutherans, or high church Presbyterians "heretics" or accuse them of "denying the Gospel" because they hold both a forensic theology of justification and a robust understanding of baptismal efficacy.
But it's important to see how the Lutherans hold all this together and then to inquire into Calvin's views and whether he held them together in the same way.
To be continued. . . |
|
