Showing posts with label Topic: Anabaptist Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Topic: Anabaptist Theology. Show all posts

Saturday, September 10, 2016

Does Determinism Destroy Discipleship? Hubmaier & Wesley weigh in

"Some say the church is threatened by liberalism
and others say fundamentalism
but the real threat is non-discipleship to Jesus."

                                             - author Dan White Jr. via Twitter


As I researched early Anabaptist theologian Balthasar Hubmaier, I was struck by both the similarities between his theology and later Arminianism and Wesleyanism, and also his critique of Luther's determinism compared with later critiques of Calvinism. [1]

On determinism, both Hubmaier and Wesley addressed the issue pastorally, having each observed first-hand the consequences of this belief for discipleship and holiness.

Below, I have provided excerpts from each of these theologians, written more than 200 years apart, so that you can compare for yourself.


Hubmaier



About Hubmaier


Balthasar Hubmaier was one of the only Anabaptists of the reformation era with a doctorate. He was a contemporary to Luther, and was martyred in 1528 after fellow-reformer Zwingli had him arrested for his rejection of infant baptism.


Hubmaier as pastor-theologian

Upon seeing first-hand the resignation that resulted in Christians who had embraced Luther’s determinist theology, Balthasar Hubmaier wrote in his Apologia (1528), "The Sixth Article, That Not Everything Occurs by Necessity" (bold mine):
It is a harmful error, dishonoring to God and intolerable to the Christian faith, that everything must take place by necessity.
This error is so great and grave that it has resulted in much error and mischief among both heathen and Christians. For the sake of brevity the stories of the damage cannot be recounted here. This error is also specifically against God and his highest honor, for since God created reasonable beings, in heaven as angels and on earth mankind, he desired to be supremely honored and praised by them. Now, there is no greater honor man can render to God than to praise, honor and magnify him without compulsion and unforced, for God loves the cheerful givers (and not those who give by compulsion), 2 Cor 9:7. He therefore gave both kinds of beings a free and unforced will, as the Scriptures testify [...] we see clearly that in the first place God made man that he could and should, without compulsion and without force, honor and praise him and keep his commandments; God gave a person this choice and entrusted to him the power to choose water or fire, good or evil, life or death.
But that a person can choose, will and work, not only before the Fall, but also since the Fall on the authority of the divine Word in which God gives to those who will and believe the power and might to do and to accomplish what he has commanded them to do, I want to cite a number of testimonies from the Scriptures, which I have, of course, also taught and preached previously, and have published this particular doctrine in my second booklet on the freedom of the human will. The first Scripture follows:
"The Lord said to Cain, (1) 'Why are you angry and why has your countenance fallen? Is it not true, that if you were righteous, your sacrifice would be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching to manifest itself; but make it (the sin) bow before you and master it,'" Gen 4:6f. It follows that we have the mastery over sin and can master it.  
(2) "This commandment" (says God, the Lord, through Moses) "which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth, and in your heart, so that you can do it. See, I have set before you this day life and goodness, death and evil, I who today command you that you love the Lord your God and walk in his ways, and that you keep his commandments, his statutes, and his ordinances, so that you may live and multiply.... But if you turn your heart away, and you will not obey, but fall away ... I declare to you this day, that you shall perish.... I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you this day life and death, blessing and curse, that you might choose life, that you and your seed may live, that you love the Lord your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him." [Deut 30:11-20] Here anyone who has ears can hear that we are able to will, perform, keep and fulfill God's commands without force and without compulsion.
(3) "Be attentive to these things, says the Lord God: 'Behold, I set before you the way of life and the way of death,'" Jer 21:8. It would be a false god that would offer two ways, knowing that we would necessarily have to take the one way. But he is faithful.
(4) "If you are willing and hear," God the Lord says further, "you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel against me, you shall be devoured by the sword; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken," Isa 1:19a.
He would be an untruthful God if the willing, hearing, and eating were not in our power. But he is truthful, therefore the error is untruthful.
(5) "He came to his own," writes John, "and his own received him not. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave the power to become children of God," John 1:11f. Here we see again that God has given us the power and the choice to become his children, or by our own wickedness to remain children of wrath. If we then become children of God there is no doubt that we can serve, honor and praise our Father out of love and without being compelled by necessity. Anyone who teaches differently misleads many people into indolence and despair through such ideas; for if all things happen by necessity, why should I do much praying, fasting, and giving alms; if God will have me, it will take place by necessity, but if he does not want me, then all my works are in vain. Here one sees now very clearly what great harm and evil have grown out of this false doctrine, as I have clearly set forth in my first booklet on the freedom of the will. But as Adam put the guilt on Eve, and Eve on the serpent, so we would also like to make a fig leaf apron for our malice, put the blame on God, toss our sins off of ourselves and put them on him, which is a great blasphemy, which will not help us escape divine punishment. Let every one know how to direct himself accordingly. (Balthasar Hubmaier, "Apologia" in Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, trans & ed Pipkin & Yoder, p 532-34)

Commenting on this portion of Hubmaier's work, Dr Michael W McDill writes:
In Hubmaier’s day Luther was the Reformer who most persistently touted a variety of determinism by his denial of human free will. [...] Hubmaier was aware of Luther’s view of free will and had most likely read some of Luther’s works. Hubmaier’s vexation with the notion of the bondage of the will originated with those in his region whom he perceived as using the issue as an excuse for moral laxity. He was concerned about those in his own city who were pushing the same type of determinism, which some apparently took as license for moral slackness. His assault on Luther’s ideas was accomplished through his polemic against those near him who were denying the freedom of the will. 
Hubmaier had a pastoral concern for these matters. He did not want to see people succumb to a lazy or worldly, and ultimately despondent, sort of Christianity. (Michael W McDill, "Balthasar Hubmaier and Free Will" in The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists (2013), Kindle location 3283)


Pipkin & Yoder comment on his other treatises, Freedom of the Will, I & II:
The denial of the freedom of the will had led to development of tensions in Nikolsburg, which he felt were based ultimately on half truths deriving from a perversion of the biblical perspective. The result was that one might conclude that since it is God who works in us the willing and the doing, there is no reason for Christians to attempt to live the disciplined Christian life. In the course of both treatises Hubmaier makes a study of an unusually large selection of biblical passages in order to prove the freedom of the will, without at the same time denying the roll of grace. (Pipkin & Yoder, p 426).

In Freedom of the Will, II (1527) Hubmaier comments on the resignation resulting from a mis-understanding of Romans 9.  He writes:
Do you not see how seriously all those err who say: "Aye, whatever I do, whether it be good or evil, is the will of God, for we are his lump of clay. He makes us what he wants." Yes, he has made of you a vessel of honor by pouring his holy Word into you and has given you the free power and choice to become his child, John 1:12. Since, however, you do not will, you make of yourself out of your own wantonness a vessel of dishonor. (p 482)

And in case you're thinking, "Sure, but God commands us to do things we can't do all the time", Hubmaier answers:

Whomever God commands to break his bread with the poor and does not believe that with the words, "break our bread with the hungry," God now gives him the power and strength to will and to do such, and still lets the inborn stinginess of the flesh remain as it is, does not recognize the power of the mouth of God, Isa 58:7.
[...]
Whoever knows what the new birth is will not deny the freedom of the will in the human being, John 3:5; 1 Pet 1:23; James 1:18; Mark 2:14.
As often as Christ said to a person, "Stand up and walk. See. Hear. Stretch out your hand. Be cleansed," he gave to the same the power to stand up, to see, to hear, to stretch out his hand, and to be cleansed. That must be or his Word will be like a human word, John 5:8; Luke 18:42; Mark 6:56; Matt 8:4; 12:13; Mark 3:5; Luke 6:10. Whoever says that the flesh need not desire against his natural will, to do the will of the soul, which has been awakened by the Word of God, taps at the wall in the bright sunshine, Matt 7; John 7; Gen 4; Romans 8:13. [2]
A foolish lord it is who sets a goal for his people and says: "Go to it, run so that you win," when he knows all along that they are forged into chains and cannot run, 1 Cor 9:24.
Whoever says that wives cannot be obedient and subject to their husbands, servants and subjects to their lords, and that sin cannot be obedient to evil Cain, O you of little faith, Gen 4:7; Rom 13:1; Eph 5:22; 6:5f; Col 3:22; 1 Pet 2:13f; 3:1.
That would be a perfidious God who would invite all people to supper, offer his mercy to everyone with exalted earnestness, and would yet not want them to come, Luke 14:16ff; Matt 22:2ff. That would be a false God who would say with the mouth, "Come here," but would think secretly in the heart, "Stay there," Isa 55:1; Matt 11:28; John 1:12; Luke 15:22.
That would be a disloyal God who would give a human being grace publically, and clothe him in a new garment, but secretly would take it back again from him and prepare hell for him. [3]
It is a curse to say that God commanded us to do impossible things, Matt 19:17. For everything that is impossible in our strength is made possible to the believer through his sent Word, Luke 18:27; Mark 9:23; 13:11. Thus it was possible for Mary, a pure virgin, to give birth to a child, she who had never known any man, Luke 1:31. So much power does the sent Word of God have. ("Apologia", p 464, 465-66)
Later, Hubmaier adds:
Nevertheless, it is certain and sure that the crucified Christ wants all people to be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, 1 Tim 2:4.
We should listen to the incarnated God--thus speaks the voice of the heavenly Father out of the clouds [...] Matt 17:5; 2 Pet 1:17; Luke 9:35 [...]
It is a crazy foolishness of ours that we desire to know the secret will of God, and we despise his known will. (p 467)
You can read the rest of Hubmaier’s work in Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, translated & edited by H Wayne Pipkin and John H Yoder (Find in a Library).


Wesley



More than 200 years later, John Wesley preached his sermon Free Grace (1740), coming to the same conclusions regarding the Calvinism of his day (bold mine): 
II. 
This then, is a plain proof that the doctrine of predestination is not a doctrine of God, because it makes void the ordinance of God; and God is not divided against himself. 
A Second is, that it directly tends to destroy that holiness which is the end of all the ordinances of God. I do not say, none who hold it are holy; (for God is of tender mercy to those who are unavoidably entangled in errors of any kind;) but that the doctrine itself, -- that every man is either elected or not elected from eternity, and that the one must inevitably be saved, and the other inevitably damned, -- has a manifest tendency to destroy holiness in general; for it wholly takes away those first motives to follow after it, so frequently proposed in Scripture, the hope of future reward and fear of punishment, the hope of heaven and fear of hell. That these shall go away into everlasting punishment, and those into life eternal, is not motive to him to struggle for life who believes his lot is cast already; it is not reasonable for him so to do, if he thinks he is unalterably adjudged either to life or death. You will say, "But he knows not whether it is life or death." What then? -- this helps not the matter; for if a sick man knows that he must unavoidably die, or unavoidably recover, though he knows not which, it is unreasonable for him to take any physic at all. He might justly say, (and so I have heard some speak, both in bodily sickness and in spiritual) "If I am ordained to life, I shall live; if to death, I shall live; so I need not trouble myself about it." So directly does this doctrine tend to shut the very gate of holiness in general, -- to hinder unholy men from ever approaching thereto, or striving to enter in thereat. 
1. As directly does this doctrine tend to destroy several particular branches of holiness. Such are meekness and love, -- love, I mean, of our enemies, -- of the evil and unthankful. I say not, that none who hold it have meekness and love (for as is the power of God, so is his mercy;) but that it naturally tends to inspire, or increase, a sharpness or eagerness of temper, which is quite contrary to the meekness of Christ; as then especially appears, when they are opposed on this head. And it as naturally inspires contempt or coldness towards those whom we suppose outcast from God. "O but," you say, "I suppose no particular man a reprobate." You mean you would not if you could help it: But you cannot help sometimes applying your general doctrine to particular persons: The enemy of souls will apply it for you. You know how often he has done so. But you rejected the thought with abhorrence. True; as soon as you could; but how did it sour and sharpen your spirit in the mean time! You well know it was not the spirit of love which you then felt towards that poor sinner, whom you supposed or suspected, whether you would or no, to have been hated of God from eternity. 
[...] 
IV. 
Fourthly. This uncomfortable doctrine directly tends to destroy our zeal for good works. And this it does, First, as it naturally tends (according to what was observed before) to destroy our love to the greater part of mankind, namely, the evil and unthankful. For whatever lessens our love, must so far lessen our desire to do them good. This it does, Secondly, as it cuts off one of the strongest motives to all acts of bodily mercy, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and the like, -- viz., the hope of saving their souls from death. For what avails it to relieve their temporal wants, who are just dropping into eternal fire? "Well; but run and snatch them as brands out of the fire.: Nay, this you suppose impossible. They were appointed thereunto, you say, from eternity, before they had done either good or evil. you believe it is the will of God they should die. And "who hath resisted his will?" But you say you do not know whether these are elected or not. What then? If you know they are the one or the other, -- that they are either elected or not elected, -- all your labour is void and vain. In either case, your advice, reproof, or exhortation is as needless and useless as our preaching. It is needless to them that are elected; for they will infallibly be saved without it. It is useless to them that are not elected; for with or without it they will infallibly be damned; therefore you cannot consistently with your principles take any pains about their salvation. Consequently, those principles directly tend to destroy your zeal for good works; for all good works; but particularly for the greatest of all, the saving of souls from death.




Footnotes:
[1Many Calvinists today would deny that their theology is determinism, preferring instead to claim the term "compatibilism" for their view, though one need only look at their statements on the topic to see this is merely a nicer veneer. As Dr Pinnock (himself a former Calvinist) once wrote of "adherence to determinist freedom", "he calls it compatibilist because it sounds better" but under this view "people are only doing what they have been programmed to do. There is no moral credibility in this move--the reprobate are set up to perish." (Perspectives on Election, p 62).

For more on this, see: A Theology in Tension, "Calvinist Quotes on God Determining All Evil". For a helpful critique of determinism from within the Reformed camp, see “A Reformed Theologian’s Critique of Divine Determinism” at Roger Olson’s blog.


[2] Here, Hubmaier presents a view of prevenient grace which is very similar to what would later be known as Reformed/Classical Arminian view, that is, that "the Word is the instrument, the means used by the Spirit as a basis for the conviction, the persuasion, the enabling" (Picrilli). For more on the difference between the Wesleyan and Classical views, see my post: An Introduction to Prevenient Grace. For more on Hubmaier's view, see: Great Quotes: Early Anabaptist theologian Balthasar Hubmaier on Prevenient Grace.


[3] For more on this, see my post: On Assurance of Salvation and Calvin's "Evanescent Grace".



Related Posts:
Aug 17, 2015 ... Schelling (God and Human Anguish, p 59-72) speaks against a "theology of resignation," which results from the sort of implicit theological ...


May 26, 2016 ... For although no one comes to Christ unless the Father draws him, it, nevertheless, does not follow from this speech that all those come to Christ who have been drawn by the Father, John 6:44. ...

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Great Quotes: Early Anabaptist theologian Balthasar Hubmaier on Prevenient Grace



Earlier this year I began researching early Anabaptist theologian Balthasar Hubmaier (1480 – 1528).  Here is a portion of his treatise Freedom of the Will, II where he clearly affirms what would later be called the doctrine of "prevenient grace", written May 20, 1527:
Thus God speaks through Jeremiah: "We have healed Babylon but it did not become whole; we will leave it," Jer 51:9. Thus Christ also says to Jerusalem: "How often I wanted to gather you and you did not want it," Matt 23:37. Thus Paul says to the Jews: "The Word of God had first to be preached to you, but since you reject it, we now turn to the heathen," Acts 13:46. 
Therefore we confess with you, dear friends, that in those people whom God has abandoned there is no freedom of will, Heb 6:4-6, 10:38. However, we set the same freedom of the will in those people drawn, illuminated, and reborn by God, for to them the power is offered and given to become children of God in the power of his Word, 2 Pet 2; John 1:12. For although no one comes to Christ unless the Father draws him, it, nevertheless, does not follow from this speech that all those come to Christ who have been drawn by the Father, John 6:44. As also not all those accept the light to whom Christ came to enlighten, John 1:9, 11. However, it does not follow that God is without power, for it is just his revealed will that he in the beginning sends to all people his Word and after that gives them the power, freedom, and choice so that they can accept or reject the same, as has been said sufficiently above, Mark 16:15; John 1:16. (Balthasar Hubmaier, "Freedom of the Will, II" in Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, trans & ed. Pipkin & Yoder (1989) at page 477)

Earlier in the same piece he discusses the question of why some respond in faith while others reject the gospel.  He writes:

Grace comes to us, not out of us, so that no one can boast in himself but in the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Cor 1:4. For our flesh and blood cannot reach such sonship out of their own power, John 1:12; Matt 16:17; 1 Cor 15:50. 
Since, however, this sonship is offered to all people equally, for the seed of the divine Word falls equally in four kinds of earth, it follows that we have the equal power to accept the seed and to bear fruit, John 1:12; Matt 28:19; Mark 16:15; Matt 13:3ff; Mark 4:3ff. If we do not do that, then it is not God who is guilty, or his seed, but the evil of the earth, that is, we ourselves. 
Thus Peter hears Christ, accepts his Word, and brings forth fruit, John 1:42. Herod also hears it, however, does not accept his Word, and does not bear fruit. Now that is the fault of the wickedness of Herod. 
Since, however, Peter and Herod are alike sinners and evil, the reason why his inborn evil does not harm Peter and yet harms Herod is that Herod follows his inborn evil and walks according to it, but not Peter, Eph 3; 1 Cor 15:45ff; Rom 8:5-9. 
In addition, the fact that God looks at Peter and moves him to lament his sins has to do with the mercy of God, Matt 26:75. That he does not look at Judas is the fault of the traitor who sold innocent blood for thirty pennies. He had to sentence himself and say, "I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood," Matt 27:4. 
Whoever is not satisfied with this answer, namely, that the mercy of God is the cause of our salvation and our wickedness is the cause of our damnation, must ask God himself, Rom 11:11-12. I was not his advisor, nor was I with him in his council. 
Whoever says that God wills sin does not know what God or sin is. For sinning is always to do or to omit something against the will of God, 1 John 2:5-6. (p 468-469)


I first heard of Hubmaier from Roger Olson, who called him an “Arminian before Arminius” in one of his posts (link).  He expands on this in The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform (1999), where he dedicates chapter 26 to discussing the Anabaptists; there, commenting on Hubmaier, Dr Olson writes:

Hubmaier’s defense of free will follows Erasmus’s in On the Freedom of the Will very closely except that the Anabaptist Reformer attributed human free will to Christ's and the Holy Spirit’s action rather than to a natural capacity that survives the Fall into sin. According to Hubmaier, by sinning Adam and Eve and all their posterity lost free will and fell into bondage to sin: “If now God the heavenly Father had not come to our help with a new and special grace through Jesus Christ, his most beloved Son, our Lord, we would all have to remain in this blindness, die and be eternally lost.” God’s revealed will for universal salvation is clear in Scripture, however, and “he...sends to all people his Word and after that gives them the power, freedom and choice so that they can accept or reject the same.” What Hubmaier was proclaiming as the basis of free will is what other theologians call prevenient grace--the resistible grace of God that calls, convicts and enables. Hubmaier also claimed that God’s election and predestination are based entirely on his foreknowledge of which individuals will respond to his grace and how. He was adamantly opposed to unconditional predestination--the monergism of Augustine, Luther, Zwingli and Calvin: “That would be perfidious God who would invite all people to a supper, offer his mercy to everyone with exalted earnestness, and would yet not want them to come, Luke 14:16ff; Matt. 22:2ff. That would be a false God who would say with the mouth, ‘Come here,’ but would think secretly in the heart, ‘Stay there.’” (p 422)

Dr Olson adds, “This is basically the same theology of salvation that the Dutch Remonstrants--followers of Jacob Arminius--later developed in the early seventeenth century.”

Further Reading:

Online:



Related Posts: 

Feb 18, 2015 ... Understanding the doctrine of prevenient grace was one of the most valuable studies for me after leaving Calvinism. Had I understood it before, ...
May 28, 2015 ... In a Q&A, when asked whether regeneration precedes faith, he answered (in part): Why not say that the Spirit of God can move him along even in his unregenerate state to an understanding...
Jul 26, 2015 ... The question is: What have non-Calvinist Baptists believed about prevenient grace(which includes the question what have they believed about ...

Recent Posts: Beyond Calvinism