On the Doctrine of Election, with Special Reference to the Aphorisms of Dr. Bretschneider

Friedrich Schleiermacher, Iain G. Nicol, Allen Jorgenson, Iain G. Nicol, Allen Jorgenson

• Publisher: Westminster John Knox Press
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9781611641653, 9780664236885
• eBook ISBN: 9781611641653
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

This book offers the first English translation of Friedrich Schleiermacher's "On the Doctrine of Election" (1819), a historic and influential essay published just before the first edition of Schleiermacher's magisterial systematic theology: The Christian Faith. In this essay, Schleiermacher develops a view of election as consisting of a single divine decree of both election and rejection that embraces all humanity--a theological development that became basic later for Karl Barth's treatment of election (Church Dogmatics II/2). Schleiermacher also seeks to support the church union movement between Lutherans and the Reformed by examining the doctrine of election in light of the New Testament and historic confessional traditions. This edition is enhanced by the translators' incisive introduction and a foreword by noted Schleiermacher scholar Terrence N. Tice.

ON THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE APHORISMS OF DR. BRETSCHNEIDER

ELECTION: FROM CONTROVERSY TO CONSOLATION

For quite some time people have customarily designated the strict formulation of this doctrine by the formula “the unconditional divine decree.” As is well known, the formulation was first expounded by Augustine and finally by Calvin. Both did this in two respects. On the one hand, they felt driven by the clearest declarations of scripture to put the doctrine in this way and not otherwise. On the other hand, they also showed how contradictions to the purest rational notions regarding the divine being would necessarily arise if one were to deviate from this strict formulation. Yet, only in a comparatively small portion of the Christian church had this formulation produced a lasting conviction. In contrast, after various and sundry battles it was rejected by the greatest portion of the church and indeed on each occasion precisely because this formulation contradicted both the clear declarations of scripture and just as obviously contradicted sound reason.

Ever since I have been in a position to occupy myself with such a topic I have been astonished with this result in that I found no one on the opposing side who had demonstrated a more unbounded reverence for scripture than these two men. In fact, I would not even wish to grant the great Luther precedence over Calvin in this matter, for even where they differ from each other in their interpretation of scripture the one is as firmly committed to scripture as the other, and where differences between them do exist it is simply a matter of their different ways of reconciling apparently contradictory statements. Just as little would I want to maintain that any of the determined opponents of that view has surpassed the godly Augustine and the pious Calvin in the rigor of the ordering of their thoughts. Moreover, it seemed to me unlikely that their assertions could have stood in clear contradiction to other general truths and also to these truths that Augustine and Calvin themselves acknowledged, truths that those men themselves would not have noted but which would first have had to be pointed out to them by their opponents.

Nor was I ever able to understand the frequently repeated excuse that it was an excessive zeal in his controversy with Pelagius that first enticed the godly Augustine into adopting this view which supposedly contradicts both reason and scripture, and that Calvin too belongs in this succession as one of the last in the chain, whereas on the other hand, Luther and his followers had fortunately removed themselves from the trap. Since it had never seemed to me to be the case that, for Augustine, this doctrine first emerged in the midst of and as a result of the controversy but that it belonged entirely and essentially among the original convictions which summoned him to participate in it and which inspired him throughout the conflict, I should be surprised if the new historical and critical studies of this controversy and of the entire period during which it was conducted, studies that we can anticipate from two excellent men, should fail to shed the clearest possible light on this very matter.¹

Now, with regard to Calvin: he is indeed so undeniably a disciple of Augustine as only a distinguished man can ever be called the disciple of another. However, his very agreement with his teacher in this matter certainly did not arise in any polemical way, for much less prevalent in his writings than in those of the other Reformers is the point of view that the disputed statements of the Roman church are to be traced back to Pelagianism. Rather, Calvin’s conviction with regard to this matter was as original to him as any that he ever held. Thus, to both men that defense² seems to have proved quite useless. Moreover, I have always regretted that it was so readily attributed to them, certainly very much against their own wish and will. That is to say, were one to be as vigorously convinced, as I am, that this doctrine was neither developed in controversy by the one nor merely learned and repeated by the other but for both was an original truth and essential component of their Christian faith, then one would surely have had more reservations about so repeatedly and readily declaring it contrary to reason and scripture. Indeed, when I considered the way in which this doctrine, which admittedly was at first woven into Augustine’s great controversy with Pelagius, in no respect prevented the doctrine of the former from becoming the system of the Western church, which was constantly compelled to secure stricter cohesion and firmer unity within its body of doctrine, and when I consider the way in which this particular point was first rejected only in a later development, then it will always seem to me that if only Augustine himself had been able to remedy what he said at that time or if his later disciple (i.e. Gottschalk) had presented it entirely in his spirit and in the right context, it would have been upheld in honor and respect for even much longer. Moreover, Gottschalk³ was no more an Augustine than were the later defenders of Calvin against the attacks of the Arminians, who were inspired by none other than Gottschalk himself.

It is on this account that I have never presumed to agree with the greatest majority of contemporaries in their condemnation of the teaching of those men as contrary to reason and scripture. However, the form taken by the doctrine that replaced it did not appear to me to be satisfactory either, because, on the one hand, it seemed to me to tend to lead one around in circles, and on the other hand, to the extent that one can confidently, unwaveringly focus one’s attention on it, instead of offering a definite and clear notion, it presented only negations and restrictions instead. Therefore, it appeared to me all the more that it was not conceived originally but rather was more the product of controversy, also that it suffered from those uncertainties and deficiencies which tend to be characteristic of opinions that arise in this way. Hence, for this reason I was sorry to find that the controversy about this subject seemed as though it had fallen asleep, and it was my ardent wish that the matter might somehow be explicated anew so as to determine whether perhaps the topic could be sorted out clearly and fully in a fourth attempt instead of leaving it forgotten and abandoned as has been done hitherto and as seemed to me to have prevailed among the theological public, and so as to determine whether, after renewed fermentation in a fourth round, a fully clarified conviction might finally come about.

Finally, since the most recent efforts toward church union, which naturally must again have called to mind the points debated between the two parties, this wish is beginning to be fulfilled. Moreover, with my claim that this controversy belongs more to the academy than to life and that no consideration should be given to these opposing opinions with regard to the ordering of relationships within the church, unintentionally enough I myself have assisted in giving these efforts a push, one that at least has not remained entirely unsuccessful if indeed Dr. Bretschneider’s Aphorisms also unquestionably relate to what I have said partly with regard to my opinion of the controversy itself and partly with regard to the justification of our proceedings in connection with the already initiated union of the two churches. However, if my wishes are to be yet further fulfilled, many more aspects of the matter will still have to be clarified, more so than has been the case until now. Moreover, since my expectation that there would also surely arise a defender of the original Calvinian, or rather Augustinian, doctrine is all but disappointed, I would no longer restrain myself but would take up this opportunity as occasioned by the presentation of the famous theologian just named, not intending in any way to enter into any controversy with a man whose learning and excellent merit I acknowledge as does any other, and who moreover is committed in as lively a way as I am to the wish for the union of the two separated church parties. Nor do I intend to earn or to justify any reputation of being a bold and determined disciple of Calvin which might be thought proper to confer on me—though for reasons unknown to me. Rather, I simply want to draw attention to those points that also in the conduct of the present dispute against Calvin seem to me to have in part been overlooked and in part not considered with the attention that is properly due to them.

In this latter category there belongs, above all, precisely that with which Dr. Bretschneider begins by bringing into view the relationship of the two theories of election to the rest of the theological system. What is admitted is this, that in the system of the Lutheran church itself, there is a doctrinal proposition⁴ that contradicts the Lutheran theory of election, namely, a proposition asserting the complete incapacity of human beings to better themselves and asserting their natural resistance to divine grace through which alone they receive power to do so. However, as he acknowledges, the Calvinian theory is in closest agreement with this doctrine. Now, with this I too am in complete agreement: that in these contrasting ways both theories of election relate to that doctrine of the indispensability of divine grace in connection with the conversion of human beings, and I have always felt that this is really that axis on which the whole controversy turns. Nevertheless, this point is not always stressed as relevant to the matter but is rather placed in the shadows and presented by some as though that doctrine of grace is equally compatible with both theories of election. Hence, the unfettered openness with which Aphorisms acknowledges this point cannot receive sufficient praise. Accordingly, it thus appears to be a matter of choice whether one acknowledges the indispensability of divine grace for sanctification yet then also wishes to endure the strict Calvinian formula regarding election, or whether one avoids this point and its consequences by means of the Lutheran formula but thereby also dispenses with the necessity of divine grace and so seeks to stand on one’s own two feet.

Now, Dr. Bretschneider very resolutely and quickly makes up his mind about the choice that confronts him and affirms that since one cannot locate it in scripture the theologian must abandon that premise without hesitation precisely because the Calvinian theory strictly and necessarily follows from it. He adheres to those passages in scripture from which one can conclude that even without divine grace the human being is capable of doing what is good even though one is not always able to achieve it fully. This is so, he says, for even though one also does not succeed in achieving the good fully even with divine grace, yet at least in willing it (purely and radically?) one is also able to fear God and to do what is right apart from any relationship to Christ, and in that one rejects that Calvinian premise in this way one also avoids the Calvinian doctrine of predestination, and, according to Dr. Bretschneider’s view, all its so very serious consequences.

LUTHER AND THE LUTHERANS ON ELECTION

However, it is surely not to be believed that all theologians of the Lutheran church will be quite so resolute. This is so, for many will certainly say that where Paul describes the initial willing of what is good he portrays it as a mere wishing, as empty and impotent desire, as an unsatisfied longing, for he also describes it as being impossible wholly to fulfill. The human being in this condition is portrayed as a person who yearns to be delivered from “this body of death.”⁵ Moreover, when Peter in amazement proclaims that any person, even among the heathen, “who fears God and does what is right is acceptable to God”⁶ he does not mean thereby that such a one is in and of oneself acceptable to God but acceptable in the sense that the gospel should be preached to such a person. It is precisely these theologians who will hold to those other passages which imply that we are what we are “through grace,”⁷ that the human being must be “born of the Spirit,”⁸ that Christ alone can deliver one from that body of death,⁹ that salvation is to be found neither in the law nor in human nature in and of itself but only in Christ. Precisely these theologians, then, will attest that they need something other than that natural capacity, something more than that which is referred to in scripture as that knowledge of the moral law that is also attributed to the heathen and that capacity to resist disobedience to it on account of which they can be found punishable, and so their faith is that it is precisely God through Christ who offers this additional gift¹⁰ to human beings, something that they can never attain through natural means. Now, if Dr. Bretschneider’s affirmation is correct, all these theologians would have to ally themselves with the Calvinian theory because the Lutheran theory, if it is not to appear inconsistent, demands too costly a sacrifice of their faith. In short, all those who attribute an exclusive value to redemption through Christ and to the operations of grace that proceed from his Spirit, all those theologians who cling to these distinctive inner experiences¹¹ of Christians will rather agree to endure the Calvinian theory that Christ was sent by God for the purpose of truly redeeming at least a portion from among all who are in need of redemption rather than to fulfill the claim that he was sent for all and his redemption extends to all, or, if this latter should prove incompatible with the first theory, to adopt another theory from which it would follow in the end that Christ was sent for all, but needlessly, if human beings were able to aid and abet themselves, and, as it were, to lift themselves out of the morass by the scruff of their own necks.

Now, this is an implication which has not very often been properly taken into consideration, and Dr. Bretschneider has surely gained much credit for his new and thorough treatment of the matter and for having exposed it impartially and without compromise. What has repeatedly been brought to light is that the Calvinian theory is detrimental to the universality of redemption and that the Lutheran theory confirms it. However, the fact that the Calvinian theory confirms the necessity of redemption and that the Lutheran theory impairs it is a matter that is seldom openly admitted by the defenders of the Lutheran theory. Yet, there are many who will not grant Dr. Bretschneider even this, for when Luther and Melanchthon depart from the stricter mode of presenting the divine decree they would necessarily have been mistaken and not handled it consistently in that in this respect it certainly did not occur to them to abandon this one tenet in their system concerning the natural incapacity of the human being for sanctification,¹² and the Lutheran church must have been completely mistaken in wanting to place the Solid Declaration in which the Calvinian theory of gracious election¹³ is to some extent dealt with as a matter of controversy alongside the Augsburg Confession and its Apology in both of which an emphatic and rigorous polemic is directed against the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian view of the self-sufficiency of human beings. Instead, then, the Book of Concord was in fact discordant.¹⁴ It was not excessive anti-Pelagian zeal on Augustine’s part that led him to develop this theory. It is much rather the case that the entire basis of the controversy is lodged solely within the Book of Concord itself, and all great teachers commit an error when they view the anti-Pelagian Augsburg Confession as the safeguard of the Lutheran Church but reject out of hand Calvin’s strict view of gracious election as a dangerous doctrine which can never be accepted. In contrast, I believe that the connection between these two doctrines is made clearer if we attend somewhat more closely to the statements of the Lutheran school than Dr. Bretschneider holds to be appropriate in this publication of his which he has designed for a wider circle.

The matter is precisely this: the theory of election of the Lutheran church asserts that God has ordained for blessedness those persons whom God foresaw would believe.¹⁵ However, in this connection Article V of the Augsburg Confession teaches, “For by the Word … the Holy Spirit is given, who works faith when and where it pleases God, in those that hear the Gospel… .”¹⁶ This means, then, that from eternity God ordained to blessedness those whom God foresaw would receive from the selfsame God the Holy Spirit, who works faith. Therefore, once one is committed to this claim, namely, to the fact that the Holy Spirit must work faith, the Calvinian formula again arises from the Lutheran formula in that for th...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Contents
• Foreword by Terrence N. Tice
• On the Doctrine of Election: An Introduction
• On the Doctrine of Election, with Special Reference to the Aphorisms of Dr. Bretschneider
• Notes
• Select Bibliography
• Index